36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 223
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 6, 1999
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1005
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILY FARM COST OF PRODUCTION PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-510. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Chemical Pesticides
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Housing in Nunavik
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-71. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1010
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1205
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1210
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1300
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1315
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1320
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1325
1330
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1345
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRANVILLE ISLAND PUBLIC MARKET
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORNELIUS W. WIEBE
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1400
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RED CROSS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE ALLAN WRIGHT
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESERVISTS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAINTE-URSULE SECONDARY SCHOOL
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1405
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PIERRE PETEL
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1410
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HAUTE-YAMASKA
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALLERGY-ASTHMA AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1420
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1430
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1440
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1450
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENT OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAPTIONED PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1500
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1505
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parliamentary Language
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-71. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1525
1530
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1545
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1550
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1555
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1620
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1625
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1630
1635
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1700
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1705
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1725
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1730
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-441. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1735
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1810
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1815
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 223
![](/web/20061116195634im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 6, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to three petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the ninth report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the meeting of the standing committee and the Secretaries of
the National Delegations of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held
in Dresden, Germany, March 26 to 28, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, April 20,
1999, your committee has considered Bill C-72, an act to amend
the Income Tax Act to implement measures that are consequential
on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention, 1980, and to amend
the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age
Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts
related to the Income Tax Act, and agreed on Wednesday, May 5,
1999 to report it with amendments.
* * *
1005
FAMILY FARM COST OF PRODUCTION PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-510, an act to provide cost of
production protection for the family farm.
He said: Mr. Speaker, by means of a very short introduction,
this is a bill to provide to the agricultural producers of our
country income that is reflected in their cost of production. It
is to be calculated on a three year basis. It covers most
commodities in the country. It is something that farmers have
been calling for, for a long time. It ties the cost production
formula into what income they get when they sell their
commodities, be it grain in the fall or livestock at certain
times of the year.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to table two petitions.
The first petition is from people of my riding of
Okanagan—Shuswap asking for a moratorium on negotiations of a
multilateral agreement on investment, or MAI, until the Canadian
public has been fully informed and consulted.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition confirms the importance of
heterosexual marriage as a foundation of the family, which in
turn is the foundation of Canadian society.
[Translation]
CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
tabling today, in both official languages, a petition signed by
my constituents and calling upon the government to pass an
immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides.
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour today to table a petition signed by
104 Canadian residents, mainly from the city of Moose Jaw, but
also from the city of Regina.
What these people are calling for is that the Senate of Canada
be abolished. The reason they are asking for that is because the
Senate costs the Canadian taxpayers some $50 million a year. They
say that it is undemocratic and unaccountable. They also say
that it is not elected and it is therefore not proper to have a
Senate as part of our modern democracy.
On behalf of these 104 citizens, reflecting 104 senators, I
table a petition to abolish the Senate.
[Translation]
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am tabling a petition from the
Inuit community of Umiujaq, in Nunavik.
The petitioners state that, at the present time, there are 16 to
20 people in three bedroom dwellings. The Inuit find the housing
conditions in Nunavik extremely distressing. They consider the
situation totally intolerable. It contributes to the high
incidence of tuberculosis, infectious diseases and social
problems.
The federal government must assume its obligations under the
James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement as far as housing in
Nunavik is concerned.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of
the budget tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the
opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-71.
Along with strengthening health care, increasing the Canada
child tax benefit and assisting below and modest income
Canadians, Bill C-71 also covers a range of other measures such
as debt management, income tax administration, first nations
taxation and public service pensions, among other things.
1010
While wide ranging, I would say, and I am sure hon. members
would agree, that all these measures are connected. They fall
within the sphere of the government's ongoing commitment to an
effective, efficient and fiscally responsible government.
I would like to briefly summarize some of the bill's highlights.
Bill C-71 provides for the transfer announced in the 1999 budget
of an additional $11.5 billion in health care funding to the
provinces under the Canada health and social transfer.
It is also important to note that this increase will be
distributed equally for every Canadian in every province. By
eliminating the per capita disparities in the distribution of the
CHST, all provinces by 2001-02 will receive identical per capita
entitlements, thereby providing equal support for health and
other social services to all Canadians.
The provinces will receive $8 billion of the $11.5 billion
through the CHST over four years beginning April 1, 2000. The
additional $3.5 billion will be paid in the form of an immediate
one time supplement to the CHST from funds available this fiscal
year. The provinces can decide for themselves how much they will
draw down each and every year over the next three years.
The purpose of the immediate one time supplement of $3.5 billion
is to respond directly to the concerns that Canadians had from
coast to coast to coast about the lack of emergency services that
they were able to access, as well as the long waiting lists. The
$3.5 billion will be in the hands of the provinces to immediately
draw down as they see fit in order to meet the needs of their
particular constituents.
When the funding increase reaches $2.5 billion in 2001-02,
direct federal cash support under the CHST will be $15 billion a
year. The health component then of the CHST will be as high as
it was before the expenditure restraint in the mid-1990s.
The next measure in Bill C-71 deals with two components of the
Canada child tax benefit: the base benefit and the national child
benefit supplement. Both are changed in the 1999 budget. Bill
C-71 sets out the design of the 1998 budget commitment to provide
an additional $850 million increase in the national child benefit
supplement payments to low income families. The maximum national
child benefit supplement benefit level is being increased by $350
in two stages: $180 in July 1999 and $170 in July 2000. The net
income level at which the national child benefit supplement is
fully phased out is also being increased to $27,750 in July 1999
and $29,590 in July 2000.
These changes mean that a family with two children earning
$20,000 will receive an increased benefit of $700 for a total of
$3,750 per year. As well, a $300 million enrichment of the base
benefit in July 2000 will increase benefits for modest and middle
income families by $184 per family. It will also be accomplished
by means of an increase to the $29,590 in the net income
threshold of these benefits.
The bill also addresses assistance for children in another area
by ensuring that the full amount of the single supplement of the
GST credit will go to single parents earning under $25,921.
Unfortunately some very low income families with children may not
have been receiving the full GST credit supplement. This bill
addresses this problem by increasing the GST credit benefits for
low income single parents to complement the national child
benefit by providing these parents with the full $105 amount of
the single supplement.
The bill also addresses first nations taxation issues. The 1999
budget confirmed the government's willingness to continue
discussions about taxation matters with first nations and to
implement arrangements with first nations members.
1015
Bill C-71 gives the B.C. Sliammon first nation authority to add
a value added tax on all tobacco products and fuels sold on
reserves. B.C.'s Westbank first nation, which already taxes
tobacco products and alcoholic beverages, will now be able to
charge a 7% GST style tax on its on reserve sales of fuel. In
addition, the Yukon First Nation Self-Government Act will be
amended to give effect to the GST rebate provisions which were
added to their self-government agreements last year.
There are also measures involving the administration of
taxation. A service agreement signed last October between
Revenue Canada and Nova Scotia allows for a limited release of
taxpayer information to Nova Scotia Workers Compensation Board.
The bill also allows for co-operation in audits. Certainly this
exchange of information helps ensure amounts owed are indeed
paid.
Members will be pleased to note that before exchanging any
information the federal government will ensure that the workers
compensation board fully adheres to the current confidentiality
safeguards that apply to the sharing of information with agencies
outside Revenue Canada.
Another part of Bill C-71 deals with good financial management.
Hon. members are aware that the government is committed to
managing its debt cost as effectively as possible. This bill
amends the Financial Administration Act to enhance the
effectiveness of debt and risk management.
The amendments, many of which are technical, confirm some
existing practices. They clarify the authority governing the
government's borrowing and distribution of its debt and modernize
the government's fiscal and risk management powers. The bill
also spells out the government's standing authority under the FAA
to ensure that maturing debt can only be refinanced within a
given fiscal year, a practice the government has followed for
years.
New borrowing authority to finance a deficit would be obtained
as in the past through a borrowing authority bill. It is
important to ensure that all members understand that the
amendments to the FAA are in no way compromising the authority
that is required to finance a deficit. In fact, that authority
would be obtained as in the past through a borrowing authority
bill.
Other measures guarantee that parliament will receive
information annually on the government's debt management programs
and plans which speaks to the transparency and openness of the
management of our debt.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, some of the other
measures of Bill C-71 have to do with amending the basic pension
formula in the public service, Canadian forces and RCMP
superannuation acts which calculate benefits on a five year
rather than the current six year average salary. That is an
improvement to the existing plan.
Also included in the bill are provisions for amending the Patent
Act to clarify the Minister of Health's authority to pay the
provinces moneys collected by the Patented Medicine Prices Review
Board from excessive pricing of products by patented
manufacturers.
Also included in the bill is a measure clarifying the scope of
federal loan guarantees under the Agricultural Marketing Programs
Act to financial institutions that fund advance payments to our
agricultural producers.
Finally, the bill also includes a measure that will provide the
Minister of Finance with the authority to undertake financial
operations necessary to meet Canada's commitments under the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Act.
The 1999 budget omnibus bill establishes important foundation
blocks for the future in terms of new funding for our public
health care system. It benefits children and families in need
and implements measures that improve the operations of
government, all while sustaining our commitment to financial
discipline.
Generally and overall it is important to note the 1999 budget
extends the government's plan to build a strong economy and a
secure society. It is an approach that we as a government have
consistently followed, an approach which is designed to advance
living standards of Canadians. It is a strategy that we have
applied through each of the government's six budgets to date. We
essentially take action on three fronts: maintaining sound
economic and financial management; investing in key economic and
social priorities; and providing tax relief and improving tax
fairness.
1020
First, certainly strong economic growth and reduced debt burden
better enable the government to provide tax relief and make key
investments. The 1999 budget again confirms that the era of
deficit financing is over. We will continue to deliver balanced
budgets or better.
Second, our investments in health care and research and
innovation and other key areas improve Canadians' ability to work
and their quality of life.
The third pillar of our strategy tax relief is very clear. In
essence the 1999 budget delivers tax reductions of $16.5 billion
with the 1998 budget collectively. When we include the reduction
in unemployment insurance that number escalates to $17.3 billion.
It is important to note that our approach will be one of balance
and it will remain balanced. We have demonstrated a three front
strategy over the last number of budgets. We will continue with
that approach. The government has eliminated the deficit faster
than anyone expected. We have seen the results of our financial
management in low inflation, low interest rates, the increase in
job creation and the ongoing economic activity.
It is important to note as well that the work of the government
in this area is still not complete. We still must continue to
provide improvements to the quality of life and the standard of
living of Canadians. We need to continue to provide tax relief.
We need to continue to provide opportunities for Canadians to
work and enjoy the quality of life they are accustomed to in this
great country.
It is clear that many benefits will result from Bill C-71. I
urge my hon. colleagues to pass this legislation without delay.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise and debate Bill C-71.
This bill is part of what the government introduced in the
budget in February. It gives us a good indication of where the
government's head is at when it comes to some of the big issues
that confront the country today in terms of the economy and those
sorts of things.
I want to talk a bit about one of the big current debates in the
country. In fact it is a debate that the government helped
initiate, mainly the industry minister. It has to do with the
issue of productivity. Most people who follow this issue closely
would acknowledge that improving the productivity of the nation
is critical if we are going to give Canadians an improved
standard of living, something that we have enjoyed almost every
generation since Confederation.
The question I pose to the government is does this budget really
improve the nation's productivity? Does it take a step in the
right direction in terms of making the country more productive?
Does it at least help us reach our potential when it comes to
being more productive?
On close analysis this bill does not come anywhere near doing
that. I do not think it makes Canada more productive. I do not
think it helps us improve our standard of living. I do not think
it helps us improve our health care anywhere near the degree that
Canadians are expecting.
At the finance committee discussions are being held on the issue
of productivity. Yesterday we had several people before the
committee, some economists, some from banks, insurance companies
and the conference board. There were people representing
particular interests such as the education sector, the biotech
sector, the high tech sector, and so on.
All have acknowledged that we have to improve our productivity
if we want to improve our standard of living. We are far behind
our major trading partner, the United States, in terms of our
productivity. There is some debate as to whether or not that gap
is getting worse, but everyone acknowledges that for the last 10
years we have been substantially behind the United States. The
consensus yesterday was that the gap would be about 20% behind.
When we have a gap that big, it means that our standard of living
is also that much further behind that of the United States.
1025
Some people ask why compare ourselves to the United States, the
Americans are bad and that kind of thing. It is important to
look back and remember that Canada used to have a standard of
living that was actually superior to that of the United States.
We had a standard of living where we were their economic betters.
It is wrong for us to settle to be the poor cousins of the
United States. We deserve to have a standard of living that is
as good or better than theirs. It is something that my parents
grew up with and people became accustomed to over a long period
of time. Sadly we seem to have fallen behind the Americans now
and I think it is time to reclaim our rightful place as their
economic equals at the very least, if not their betters.
The question is how do we improve our productivity? How do we
get to become a more productive nation? This is something we put
to the experts who were assembled around the table. While there
was not necessarily a consensus on what we should do, there was
some agreement on what the key factors are for improving
productivity.
Among them is a good education system. In Canada people would
have to acknowledge that we do have a good education system but
certainly it could be improved. It is also a fact that we spend
more on education than almost any other country in the world. We
do put a lot of money into it. I do not think it necessarily
needs more money but it probably could be improved in various
ways, shapes and forms. It is important to point out that most
of that responsibility falls on the provinces because education
belongs to them according to the Constitution.
There was some agreement that we have to put money into
infrastructure in Canada. That makes sense to me. Of course
most of that responsibility does fall on the provincial
governments, even though it is interesting to note that the
federal government does take about $3.8 billion a year from
consumers through gas taxes and fuel taxes of various kinds. Most
people would say it would make sense to put that back into
highways and that kind of thing, but the federal government only
puts a few hundred million dollars of that $3.8 billion back into
highways. The government is probably not doing the job it could
be doing to improve infrastructure in Canada.
It is interesting that over the last generation or so the size
of government grew dramatically and money did not go into one of
the most important things for improving our overall productivity
which is infrastructure. It went into all kinds of soft
programs, such as social programs, which are well and fine but
they do not necessarily improve our productivity as a nation,
something the government claims to be very concerned about.
One of the things that improves productivity, and I know there
is a consensus on this, is a country that does not burden the
people who create the wealth with all kinds of rules and
regulations. There has been some progress made in that way over
the last many years.
We have entered into free trade agreements which have helped
improve the flow of goods and services between Canada and the
United States and Canada and other countries, as we now trade
freely with several countries, more or less. There are always
trade disputes but basically that was one of the other factors
which improves our ability to trade.
Sadly we still have all kinds of internal trade barriers in
Canada between provinces. Although the federal government
promised it would deal with this, and this was something the
industry minister said he would address a long time ago, frankly
the federal government has done very little to improve the state
of trade within Canada. We still have many internal trade
barriers.
We also have a tremendous amount of regulation in Canada. I
remember one day phoning the Library of Parliament. When I asked
them to tell me how many federal regulations are on the books in
Canada today, they basically laughed at me. Every year we
produce hundreds of regulations. It makes it extraordinarily
difficult for business people to do what they do best which is
produce wealth, prosperity and jobs for people when they have to
sit down and fill out forms and obey regulations that someone
produced 50 years ago that in many cases probably are not
applicable any more. Sadly we still have to contend with that.
This government has not done a good job of eliminating burdensome
regulation.
1030
There are probably other factors as well that I have not
mentioned.
Finally we come to an issue that the Reform Party has pushed for
as well as other people who are very concerned with the state of
the Canadian economy, which is simply that we have an
extraordinarily high tax burden in Canada today, and that does
hurt our productivity. It hurts it in a number of ways. This
was an issue that was debated a bit yesterday as well.
First, when we have taxes that are as high as they are in Canada
it causes many people, who in many cases are very skilled and
have great talents, to go elsewhere to pursue their careers. We
see this all the time.
People on the government side are saying there really is not a
brain drain, that it is not a problem because we are bringing in
as many people as we are losing and they are highly educated
people. I do not buy that for a second. Yesterday we had all
kinds of people appear before us. They told us they were in the
high tech field and that they know what is happening. They said
they are losing people from their companies who go to the United
States because there are more jobs, they pay better, they tax
them more lightly and they can purchase more with the money they
earn because their dollar is more valuable.
We hear that over and over again. We hear it from companies
like Nortel. I would argue that Nortel is the leading company in
Canada. It employs 76,000 people, many of whom are in Canada.
It is a real world leader in all kinds of high tech areas. It is
involved in things like telephone switching, and now the
Internet. It is doing wonderful things. It employs tens of
thousands of people who are given a chance to have wonderful
careers with wonderful salaries. Officials of Nortel are now
saying to the government that it must start to cut taxes because
if it does not they ultimately may have to follow all those
employees they have lost to the United States.
It is not often that a leader of business will stand in front of
the government and say that its policies are wrong. It takes
policies that are so wrong-headed that they are having a real
material affect on the bottom line of those companies. For
obvious reasons these companies do not want to alienate
government.
It speaks volumes when a company like Nortel speaks up.
However, it is not just Nortel. My goodness, we had Mr.
Desmarais speaking out. He has very close connections with the
Prime Minister. We had Mr. Pattison speaking out. These are
captains of industry in Canada who are saying “If you continue
to tax us this heavily we are going to have to seek opportunities
elsewhere in the world and we will no longer be able to continue
with the same level of investment in Canada that we have in the
past”.
This is not me speaking. In many cases it is people who have
close ties with the government who are speaking out, saying
“This must come to an end because we are driving some of our
best and brightest out of Canada”. That is the first point I
want to make.
We also heard yesterday from someone who is involved in the
biotech field. That gentleman told us that it is not just a
question of salaries, but because there is so much more economic
activity going on in the United States and its economy is
booming, it is able to offer this gentleman, a brilliant
scientist, a geneticist, an extraordinarily interesting job. That
is what motivates a lot of these people. It is not just the
money, it is the jobs as well. He had been offered an
opportunity to head up a $15 million research project in the
United States. He did not tell us whether he was seriously
considering it, but the very fact that companies are coming to
Canada and making these offers to some of our people should
concern us.
1035
There is another reason that has to do with high taxes which is
causing people to go to the United States. When there are lower
taxes, as there are in the United States, there is more economic
activity because there is more money in people's pockets. There
is more wealth being created. They are able to provide more
money for all of these wonderful research projects.
I recall recently an article in the Globe and Mail that
talked about a biotech firm in Quebec that was simply unable to
attract senior researchers to the company because they were going
instead to the United States.
We recently had people from the universities appear before the
committee who said that their problem was not that they could not
find people, it was that they had lost their senior people to the
United States. It is usually the United States, but not
exclusively. They were having to fill those positions with very
junior people. Then the cycle continues. Once those people get
some experience, many of them head off to the United States.
This is an extraordinarily serious problem and it obviously
impacts our productivity. When we lose all of these highly
skilled people it means they are not producing wealth and jobs
for Canadians. That ultimately means, of course, that our
standard of living falls. As I pointed out earlier, in Canada we
are accustomed to seeing our standard of living actually double
every generation, but that is not happening now. Our standard of
living is much lower than it used to be relative to our major
trading partner, the United States. We have fallen far behind.
There is a consensus on that.
In fact, I must point out that even the Minister of Industry has
made an issue of this. He has suggested that our standard of
living has fallen below that of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.
He gave a speech on this in February.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Monte Solberg: My hon. friend across the way is
piping up. I am sure he is a little embarrassed about that. It
was his industry minister who did it. If he wants to take
someone to task he should take his own industry minister to task.
I am simply pointing this out. Obviously, whether or not those
are accurate facts, there is a serious problem today. If they
were not accurate, I just do not know why the industry minister
would be telling Canadians that is the case.
Now that we have established that there is a problem and that
high taxes are a big part of the problem, what do we do about it?
What did the government do in Bill C-71? It talked about
lowering taxes. What did it do in the budget overall? It talked
about lowering taxes. The government talks about $16 billion in
tax relief over three years. What it does not talk about is that
while it is reducing taxes marginally on the one hand, it has
already set in motion tax increases on the other hand.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business appeared before
the committee the other day, saying that what the government does
not say is that because of bracket creep, which is the inflation
tax the previous government basically set in motion, every year
we see the impact of those tax cuts the government was bragging
about eroded to the point where after three years there is no tax
relief at all according to the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business.
What the government also did not say was that a couple of years
ago when it set in motion the huge increases to Canada pension
plan premiums it did not calculate them as tax increases. It
said it was a rise in premiums. However, Canadians have to pay
those premiums. They do not have a choice. That is a payroll
tax. By the way, they are not getting any more pension for those
huge increases in payroll taxes. In fact, they are getting a
slightly smaller pension as a result of the changes the
government made.
Overall, the point is that the tax burden continues to grow. If
hon. members opposite doubt what I am saying, I would refer them
to something in the 1996 budget documents, which is that the real
way to measure whether the tax burden of a country is going up is
to look at the tax level to GDP. Back then it was about 14%.
Now it is up to 17%. That is at the federal level and this is
the government's own measurement that we are talking about.
Taxes are ramping up. That is the objective fact. It is not our
data; it is the government's data.
1040
We can forget about what the government tells us about taxes
going down. The true fact is that taxes are going up and the
government should be straight with Canadians.
Tax relief is extraordinarily important for getting our economy
moving again at a rate where it will produce the types of jobs we
once took for granted. Some people doubt that tax relief
actually helps productivity, but there are a couple of ways it
does that. I mentioned brain drain a minute ago. If it will
stem brain drain it will help our productivity.
The second point I want to make came up again at the finance
committee yesterday. Another way that lowering taxes will help
productivity over the long run is that it will help capital
formation. There are a couple of ways it does that. If we lower
income taxes overall there will be more money in people's
pockets. If we lower capital gains taxes we suddenly free up all
that locked in capital which people are afraid to cash in. They
know there will be a huge tax bill if they do that because of the
high capital gains taxes we have in Canada.
Between cutting personal income taxes and lowering capital gains
we free up a lot of capital that is currently locked into
investments that otherwise would not be locked in. There would
be a better return on investment. Ultimately a pool of capital
would be formed which would allow individual workers to produce
more. That is the rough definition of what improving
productivity means. When we improve productivity the standard of
living for Canadians goes up. We need to start lowering taxes
for that reason as well. Those pools of capital will be formed
and then all of a sudden they will be used to start new
businesses of various kinds.
The evidence is very clear. In the United States when capital
gains taxes and income taxes were cut we saw a boost in revenues.
The reason for that is just what I pointed out a minute ago; all
of that potential was unlocked and all of that money all of a
sudden came forward. Some of it was taxed, but people were happy
to have it taxed because it was taxed at a lower rate and they
were able to use the bulk of it to create jobs by starting new
businesses and that kind of thing. Ultimately everybody was
better off. The government even brought in more revenue. How
can that be a bad thing? It is a very good thing.
As the chairman of the finance committee pointed out yesterday:
Does everyone agree that we have to produce more wealth before we
can redistribute the wealth? That is a good point. I am glad my
Liberal colleague from Toronto made that point. Certainly
members on this side agree with it.
This brings me to the end of the first half of what I want to
say. In essence, I do not believe that Bill C-71 brings about
the productivity benefits that many of us believe we have to have
in Canada. It simply does not lower taxes enough. It does not
deal with things like regulation. It does not lighten the burden
for Canadians. It does not unlock all that wealth that we could
be using to produce jobs and give people the personal financial
security that so many people crave today.
Many families are absolutely stressed out because both parents
have to work, and not because they want to. They have to because
Canadians are taxed so heavily today. This government really
does punish people for the great crime of trying to make a
living. That is absolutely wrong. We need to see some major tax
relief in Canada, not when it suits the government but today. If
we do not deliver it today we lose all kinds of opportunities
every day. We lose all kinds of opportunities for investment,
more jobs and wealth that will benefit everybody. We need to
have that. That is one big reason that I oppose Bill C-71.
I want to talk about the other major aspect of Bill C-71, the
part of the bill that addresses the issue of health care.
1045
Bill C-71 is part of the budget that came down in February when
the government put back some of the money that it originally took
out of health care starting in 1995. Basically for every $2 it
took out it put about $1 back in.
By anyone's definition that is a shell game. It is not a
question of improving health care. It devastated health care on
the one hand. Then it put a band-aid on it with the other hand
and wants to be patted on the back for it. As somebody once put
it, it has gone out and started a huge fire. Then it tries to
put it out and wants credit for saving everyone because it put
out the fire. That is a ridiculous approach.
We need to acknowledge that some money has to go back into
health care. We also have to point out that this is only a
stopgap. We have to find other ways to make health care more
effective in Canada.
My colleagues across the way like to talk about how much more
superior Canada's health care system is to that in the United
States. It is superior in many ways. I agree with that.
However, we need to assure Canadians that just because we do not
necessarily support the health care system as it is today the
American system is not the only other option. I do not want the
American system. There are many things about the American system
that are horrible. I do not like a lot of what the American
system is about. That does not mean that we cannot improve the
Canadian system. There are many things wrong with the Canadian
system.
I heard my colleagues across the way talk for five years about
how wonderful it is that we all have equal access to the health
care system in Canada. More or less that is true, but we do not
have equal access to health care. We might have equal access to
the system. We have equal access to a waiting line. In Canada
today over 200,000 people are on waiting lists to get surgery.
That is ridiculous.
I know from personal experience, as I am sure colleagues on both
sides of the House know, that family members are sometimes
stricken with a serious illness and end up in the hospital. It
could be because of an accident or for some other reason. Very
often they cannot get the treatment when they need it. I
personally have had family members who had to wait seven or eight
weeks with extraordinarily serious illnesses. That is wrong.
When the health care system denies people health care when they
need it, it is time to take off the blinders and say that we have
to make some fundamental changes to health care. It is not
serving the public well.
Right now we are in a situation where relative to what the
future holds the problem is fairly easy to solve. Down the road
as the baby boom generation ages and is inflicted with more and
more sickness and ill health that come with old age, we will be
in a situation where the health care system, as presently
constituted, will be under unbelievable pressure. We will see
the great bulk of the population needing to get health care
treatment and the little remnant that is left, the people still
in the workforce, having to pay for it. The government has not
done anything to prepare for the coming crunch in health care.
It is time to quit cranking up the rhetoric about American style
health care and deal seriously with the issues. There are ways
to do it. The first thing we have to do is find ways to
accommodate some flexibility for the provinces in dealing with
this issue. They fund the great majority of health care in
Canada.
By the way, while I am talking about this point, I should point
out that friends across the way will often say that American
health care is a private system and in Canada it is a public
system. That is baloney. First, the United States funds
publicly about 47% of its health care. In Canada our public
funding is 69%. We both have substantial public investments but
we also have big private components to our health care.
1050
I think we should lay that on the table and make sure people are
clear about it. Let us not have a phony debate about not having
any private health care in Canada at all because we do, and let
us not pretend that they do not have in the United States because
it does.
Going back to the provinces, we know for instance in Alberta
that in the past the provincial government has tried to find some
ways to take the pressure off the waiting lists for health care.
It did that by allowing a public-private system for eye surgery,
for instance. In doing so many people were able to go to the
Gimble eye clinic and get eye surgery. They did not have to wait
for weeks and weeks or months for a service that they wanted and
in some cases really needed. At the same time it opened up a
spot on the public system so that someone else could move up and
get surgery faster.
When the federal government got wind of that it said it could
not have it; it just made too much sense. It punished the
Government of Alberta by cutting back the transfers to Alberta.
That was a huge mistake. It sent a message to all the provinces
that the federal government would not allow them to be creative
and find ways to help their citizens, or would not deal with the
upcoming health care crunch by giving them some flexibility.
The federal government plays the phony game of Canada having
public health care and that is all it has. As I pointed out,
about a third of our system is already privately funded and has
not meant the disintegration of health care. To the contrary, it
has meant that we have had some money go back into the system so
that we can give people health care when they need it.
The only thing I can think of that is worse than having to pay
for health care out of our own pockets is not having health care
when we need it. Unfortunately we just do not get it in the
health care system in Canada today.
Mr. Lynn Myers: What about Brazil? Maybe we want to go
to the Brazil system next.
Mr. Monte Solberg: My friend across the way is yelling at
me. If he believes so strongly in the public health care system,
why did the Liberals take $21 billion out of it in 1995? That is
what I ask him. If they believe it is so wonderful, why did they
take that $21 billion out?
Although my friend across the way can criticize me for what I am
saying, I think he should look at his own actions and question
whether they made sense, if he really believes in public funding
of health care.
I conclude by saying that Bill C-71 has failed Canadians in a
couple of important ways. I do not think it deals with the issue
of improving our standard of living by giving us the tools to be
more productive. We on this side would do that by cutting taxes.
We have laid out a plan for tax relief which amounts to $2,000
for the average family of four. That is just a beginning. We
would also dramatically reduce our debt and at the same time
ensure that we improve our health care in Canada.
The second point I want to make is that the government has not
addressed the health care issue. It has thrown some money at
health care but basically has said to the provinces that it will
not let them be creative and reform the system in a way that
helps their people in their provinces. The provinces are
answerable to the public according to the Constitution for health
care. The federal government is saying it does not care how many
people are on waiting lists for surgery. It will do it its way
and relegate people to waiting in the hallways of hospitals. I
think that is despicable.
I urge my friends across the way to adopt a new approach, an
approach that is a bit more open minded to some of the things
that have worked not only in the past in Canada but also in other
countries around the world. If the Liberals did that, not only
would they win the support of this party but they would also
overwhelmingly win the support of hard pressed Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-71.
I would like to begin by focusing on one particularly unpleasant
aspect of this bill, the one that changes the rules of the game.
1055
The Minister of Finance is changing the rules of the game in the
way funds are allocated to the provinces to fund social
assistance, higher education and health.
In this budget, without warning—and this particular provision is
in Bill C-71—the Minister of Finance decided that, in contrast to
past procedures, the most important criterion for the allocation
of funds for social assistance, higher education and health
would no longer be the provinces' needs but their population,
over a two year period.
That changes the picture; that changes things. When it comes to
the funds allocated to social assistance to help the most
disadvantaged, the most important criterion should not just be
the provinces' population, but their needs as well.
If in one region of Canada, in one province that has urgent
needs because there is a higher incidence of poverty, the logic
of social policy is to give to those in need.
The Minister of Finance decided unilaterally, without talking to
anyone, especially not to the government of Quebec, that
henceforth all the money would be allocated according to
population. As a result, Canada's most populous province,
Ontario, will get about 64% of the funds.
As early as this year, Ontario will be the big winner regarding
the Canada social transfer since, all of a sudden, population
becomes the sole criterion for the allocation of funds, even in
the case of social assistance, and that province has the largest
population.
This means that, over the next five years, under this new
formula, Ontario will get about $5 billion out of the $11.5
billion in new money from the federal government. By comparison,
Quebec will get $900 million.
Under these unilateral arrangements made by the Minister of
Finance, Quebec will suffer an annual shortfall of at least $350
million over the next five years.
During the debate that we had at report stage in this House,
some Liberal members said “There is no pleasing you. You are not
happy because we are treating all Canadians across the country
equally. They are all on an equal footing”. That is not the
issue. It is important to stress this again, because the members
opposite have a very hard time grasping it. Perhaps this is due
to a lack of interest in the most disadvantaged across Canada, a
lack of sensitivity or a lack of compassion.
It is important to understand that the funds provided for a
social policy must be allocated to those who need them. With
this new criterion solely based of population, we can no longer
talk about a social policy but, rather, about a policy of equal
redistribution of funds across Canada, on the sole basis of
population.
The government cannot claim to have a Canadian social transfer,
a social policy, when this policy no longer targets low-income
households.
Some might say that, if there are more Quebecers who are
unemployed or on welfare, Quebec's policies should be a little
more proactive and contribute to economic growth and job
creation. I agree. Clearly, Quebec has to do more. It must
innovate, take up the challenge of the new economy and grab the
bull by the horns, as it were, in order to reduce our level of
unemployment and steadily eliminate pockets of poverty.
1100
But the federal government must do its part as well. Quebecers
are paying approximately $31 billion in taxes every year to the
federal government. It would perhaps be a good idea for the
Liberal MPs from Quebec to one day do their job properly. I
will explain what I mean.
Quebec is still not receiving its fair share. We sound like a
broken record. A journalist once told me we were playing the
same old tape. Quebec is not receiving its fair share. If
Quebec were to receive its share of federal government spending,
we would not need to point this out. The situation has not
changed in 30 years. The federal government is systematically
discriminating against Quebec.
If it did, perhaps Quebec would not have 30% of all the welfare
recipients in Canada. Perhaps Quebec would not have, year in
and year out, a two or three percentage point difference in its
unemployment rate compared to the Canadian average, never mind
its position compared to Ontario. Perhaps the Canada social
transfer would never have been necessary, since Quebec would
have had fewer people unemployed or on welfare, but that is not
how it is.
I will give some illustrations, because this is so important.
We do seem to be repeating ourselves, but I will do so ad
nauseam, until the federal government shows some justice toward
Quebec.
Taking the example of goods and services expenditures, Quebec
has 25% of the Canadian population but, for the past 25 years,
federal goods and services expenditures in Quebec have been far
lower than its demographic weight.
For goods and services alone, the government's day to day
spending, last year the federal government spent 20% in Quebec.
That is 4 percentage points short. We have 24% of the
population, and the federal government purchases goods and
services from Quebec companies which account for only 20% of its
total expenditures in this field. That difference means jobs,
and poverty as well. There would be less poverty if that figure
were raised from 20% to 24%.
Looking at federal government capital investments, again Quebec
is not being treated fairly. Quebec receives 19% of the federal
government's capital and general investments, while its
population is 24% of the total. Once again, that difference
means jobs, construction jobs.
It would also mean less poverty, if we increased the percentage
of federal capital investments from 19% to 24%.
Federal subsidies to businesses shrink every year as well. Only
18% of federal funding to Canadian business goes to businesses
in Quebec. It is easy to say that Quebec businesses have a low
productivity record. The fact of the matter is that the federal
government siphons off $31 billion worth of our taxes annually
in Quebec. It does not give us our fair share, which is about a
quarter of the money.
The federal laboratories in Quebec receive only 16% of all
capital spending on federal labs. Unless things have changed in
the past few minutes, we still have 24% of the population and
get only 16% of federal funds for federal government labs.
For research and development, the figure is generally 14%
compared to 24%, although R and D is everything and will make
our businesses competitive in the future. R and D is what makes
the difference between countries or regions of countries ranking
among the best in the world or being left by the wayside. We
get 14% of the money for research and development.
1105
No one can tell me that this does not have an impact. It has a
definite impact on the relative competitiveness of Quebec and
Ontario. Ontario gets help from the federal government, while
Quebec gets neglect.
In science and technology, Quebec gets 13% of the federal jobs.
The number one province in that respect is Ontario. For all the
expenditure items I mentioned earlier, the winner is Ontario
with 45% to 50% of all the federal funds allocated for goods and
services, investments and general capital expenditures.
For several years now we have been doing an annual tally of what
readjusting federal spending could mean in terms of job
creation, if it were based on Quebec's demographic weight. Do
members know how many jobs this means per year?
If, tomorrow morning, the federal government decided to do
justice to Quebec—it would be even better if Quebecers decided
to achieve independence and keep all of the $31 billion they
send every year to the federal government—and invested in
Quebec a fair share of research and development, goods and
services and so on, there would be between 30,000 and 42,000
more jobs on the Quebec labour market. This is a lot of jobs.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I hear a member from Ontario.
I would rather not reply. When you have it all and you start
criticizing those who are not so lucky, it is not very nice.
With 30,000 to 42,000 more jobs, do members know by how much we
could lower the unemployment rate in Quebec? It would drop by
1.2 points. This means that instead of an annual difference of
two to three percentage points for the past 25 years, there
would have been a difference of one to two points between the
unemployment rates in Quebec and Ontario, or the average
unemployment rate in Canada.
Reducing the unemployment rate by more than one percentage point
takes energy, originality, economic policies and relatively good
conditions for a fair length of time. Simply restoring the
criterion of demographic weight, i.e. 24% in goods and services
procurement, research and development spending, federal
laboratories, and their staff as well, and all the salaries this
research and development staff would receive within Quebec,
would reduce the unemployment rate by one percentage point.
Based on the latest unemployment figures, this would mean the
rate would be 7.8% instead of the current 8.8%.
That is still high, but simply by treating Quebec fairly and
adjusting payments and procurement of goods and services, the
federal government could reduce unemployment by one percentage
point, create the 30,000 to 42,000 jobs Quebecers are waiting
for and are entitled to but are being denied. They are being
denied a share of the taxes they pay.
The $31 billion in taxes they pay the federal government adds up
over time. And it is time the federal government assumed its
responsibilities and started treating Quebec fairly. We are not
asking for more than our share. We are asking for 24% of
spending, our demographic weight in terms of the total
population of Canada. There are 30,000 to 42,000 jobs riding on
the good will of the federal government and fair treatment for
Quebec.
Not surprisingly, people say they are tired of hearing
Quebecers' same old refrain about federal transfer payments ad
nauseam. This is not something dreamt up by sovereignists or
the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc Quebecois was formed in June 1991.
This situation has been going on for 25 years. Federalists in
Quebec City, such as Mr. Bourassa, have denounced this
situation, based on federal government figures.
1110
We did not make up these figures. They do not come from the
Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois or the Quebec Liberal Party.
They are federal figures from Statistics Canada. If hon.
members look in the Statistics Canada catalogues under federal
government expenditures on goods and services, by province, and
under capital expenditures, they will find them. They are not
made up.
I have a bone to pick with the members of the Liberal Party from
Quebec, across the way.
It seems to me that the first thing to do, as Quebecers, would
have been to demand justice of the Minister of Finance or the
President of Treasury Board, as far as federal transfers and
general expenditures are concerned. They have not done so.
They prefer to laugh in our faces.
Every time the question of inequality of federal government
expenditures and investments in Quebec is raised here in the
House, I see Liberals from Quebec over there laughing, finding
it funny. They find it funny that we are, year after year,
shortchanged to the tune of 30,000 to 42,000 jobs. They find
that funny.
When they receive people in their riding offices who have lost
their jobs, mothers or fathers in their forties, or in their
fifties—which is becoming increasingly frequent—they feign
compassion, saying “Oh, if only we could help you, but you know
the state of the federal public finances makes it impossible.
We will work very hard at it, though”.
They do nothing of the kind. They are a bunch of do-nothings.
The best proof of this is that, in the last budget brought down
by the Minister of Finance, Quebec got nothing. Ontario got all
the structural investment.
The Ontario ministers got something from the Minister of
Finance's budget, but Quebec got nothing. Some Quebec MPs
travelled the length and breadth of Quebec to say—
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You will agree that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is
giving a fine speech on the important subject and bill relating
to finances.
I would ask you to note that there is no quorum. You will see
that there are seven times more Bloc Quebecois members than
Liberal members in the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Charlevoix has called for quorum. We do not have quorum.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We now have quorum.
1115
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before this
interruption, there are even members from Quebec in the Liberal
Party of Canada who, following the budget of the Minister of
Finance, travelled around Quebec to explain that Quebecers got
the largest part of the budget, that they should be happy
because equalization payments, over three years, would give us
$1 billion. They were supposed to be happy as well because all
the jobs were going to Ontario and because the formula for
calculating the funds allocated under the Canada social transfer
had been changed.
It takes people who have sold out and who are intellectually
dishonest to go around Quebec saying that it had won it all in
the budget, when there were three winners in this budget:
Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. These three provinces
were the strongest supporters of the social union framework
agreement. The Minister of Finance in a way bought Mike Harris
and company with the fine gift they got in the allocation of the
Canada social transfer.
This is not the first time the minister has bought the silence
and co-operation of the provincial premiers at a cost of hundreds
of millions of dollars. Members may remember when there was the
harmonization of the GST with the provincial sales taxes in the
maritimes.
The federal government paid the maritimes almost $900 million to
keep quiet and let it have its way. That is how the Minister of
Finance and this government operate.
Quebec should be concerned. Each year it pays taxes to the
federal government and the members opposite are not even
fair-minded enough to see that Quebec gets a demographic share of
the taxes it pays.
Quebec should also be concerned when it hears that 30,000 to
42,000 jobs will not be created in Quebec as a result.
It should be concerned when it knows that, if the federal
government were to return to a more equitable allocation of
federal funding for goods and services procurement, for research
and development, and Quebecers employed by the federal
government in federal laboratories, Quebec's unemployment rate
would drop by more than a percentage point. Better yet, these
investments would have all sorts of direct and indirect effects.
Since the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is
completely lacking in compassion for the less fortunate,
shamelessly tightened up the EI rules a few years ago, Quebec's
welfare rolls have jumped by almost 200,000 and the Government
of Quebec has picked up most of the tab. If federal transfer
payments were to return to former levels, the number of people
living on welfare would probably drop as well. This should also
concern Quebecers.
This should be a major issue, particularly for the Quebec
members of the Liberal Party of Canada, who always laugh at or
make fun of figures that, believe it or not, are provided by
Statistics Canada and the federal government, and that clearly
show—the data is not from us, we simply refer to it—the
injustice done to Quebec.
There are also things that are not included in this bill. Ever
since the Liberal government was first elected, in 1993, we have
been asking for a comprehensive reform of the federal tax
system, which has not undergone any substantial review since the
late sixties, with the Carter commission.
We pointed out, among other things, some blatant injustices in
the personal income tax system.
Along with the Reform Party, we recently condemned a few of
these injustices regarding double or single income families. But
there are others.
1120
There is one, for instance, that has existed since 1986. I am
referring to the fact that the tax structure, including tax
credits, exemptions, tax brackets and income categories, is not
fully indexed.
This is extremely costly to taxpayers and will continue to be
until full indexation, which was eliminated in 1986, is not
restored. Under the current system, any inflation rate lower
than 3% is not taken into account by the federal government. The
tax tables remain unchanged if inflation is lower than 3%. And
since inflation has been around 1% for the past three years, and
was between 2% and 3% for seven or eight years before that,
there has hardly been any indexation since 1986.
It is profitable for the federal government, a kind of hidden
tax. Without the government having to lift a finger, every year
the lack of indexation means we pay more taxes to the federal
government.
Right back in its first year of application, in 1986, this
measure brought $500 million into the coffers of the federal
government. If we factor in economic growth, we probably get up
to $600 or $700 million per year that do not remain in the
taxpayers' pockets. And then we are surprised to see that the
taxpayers are getting poorer in recent years, compared to
previous generations.
Every year, their assets go down. So does their disposable
income. Measures like these are what is impoverishing people.
But they do not show. This is why the Minister of Finance does
not want to do away with this provision.
All he needs do is saunter about with his hands in his pockets,
and $500 million, at the very least, drop automatically into his
coffers, without his having to impose any unpopular measures.
This is not small change. Looking at the cumulative losses of
disposable income for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, since 1986
the average taxpayer would have lost $7,000, in today's dollars.
Had that amount been invested every year, there would now be
more than $7,000. I imagine the taxpayers would have liked to
have had that much in their pockets.
We are not equipped to keep the taxation level that high.
And this is only one example, because there is a whole lot of
bias in taxation, which means that middle income taxpayers, that
is, about 70% of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are paying more
than they ought to, had the Minister of Finance done his job
correctly.
He took advantage of the state of the economy. He did not do
much. I have often called him lazy, and I think he is. Had he
wanted to, he could have changed the tax system.
Now he is developing a bit of an interest in taxes. How long
has this been going on? Since all the opposition parties rose
in the House and said “Enough. Taxpayers have had it. The tax
system must be changed”.
So the government struck a sub-committee to tour Canada.
It will take a number of months if not a number of years before
the tax system is reformed, but there is no need to reinvent the
wheel.
I have an example about the lack of fully indexed tax tables.
The federal government could have indexed them long ago. It
could have also established a parliamentary task force to review
the tax system.
When the Bloc Quebecois published two analyses, one of personal
taxes and the other on corporate taxes, our stand-up comic, the
Minister of Finance, rose and said “Well done, you have done a
good job. It contains some interesting proposals”. He said
that in the House.
We were flattered. We figured we had not wasted our time.
The minister seemed serious when he said that these were
interesting proposals and that he would examine them. He
congratulated the Bloc Quebecois for its two reports on
taxation. Since then, what has the minister done? Nothing,
except to set up a task force, which worked behind closed doors
for several months and postponed by several months the release
of its report.
Upon reading that report, one can see why the task force delayed
its release. It focussed on corporate taxes, not personal taxes.
Why was the release of the report postponed? Because there was
not much in it. Moreover, it even contained measures that were
detrimental to the growth of businesses. It was making the
burden heavier rather than lighter in the area of corporate tax.
One can understand why the tabling of the Mintz report was
delayed. There is no trace of that report now.
My guess is that the Minister of Finance ditched it.
1125
This is how serious this government and its Minister of Finance,
who wants to become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada,
are. It sure sounds promising.
This attitude is unfortunate, because a lot needs to be done in
the area of taxation. With our small team, we were able to carry
out an in-depth review of the tax system, particularly tax
expenditures. We came to the conclusion that some of these
expenditures have become obsolete and should be discontinued.
There are also tax measures that are totally disconnected from
reality, particularly as regards the labour market.
With a hundred or so specialists at its disposal, the federal
government could have done the same thing, and it certainly
could have implemented these recommendations for fairer taxation
for everyone.
Already we can here the Minister of Finance and his faithful
members telling us that the government is barely out of the
woods, that it does not have the money, that it must be careful.
Yes indeed, it must be careful. In fact, this is a very
important issue for the Bloc Quebecois. We do not want the
Liberals slipping back into their old ways of annual deficits.
No more deficits.
In fact, that was the title of a paper we used last year as part
of a province-wide consultation in Quebec of real people, asking
them what should be done with taxpayers' money, what should be
done with the huge surpluses the Minister of Finance is racking
up at the expense of everyone but himself.
No more deficits: in fact, we were the only party to table a
bill recommending that the deficit be reduced to zero and kept
there, in other words, that the budget be balanced. We were the
only party to table such a bill.
It is not true that the government has no money. The government
has money coming out its ears. It keeps this very quiet, and
certainly does not put it in writing. There were still zeros
all through the Minister of Finance's last budget, and no sign
of a surplus.
In the fiscal year that has just ended on March 31, 1999, the
1998-99 fiscal year, the Minister of Finance had a surplus of $15
billion. As well, he took $7 billion from the employment
insurance fund. That is highway robbery, I repeat highway
robbery, and it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to do the
same with the pension funds. There is talk of the President of
the Treasury Board getting his hands on a $30 billion surplus,
but that is another story. The figure for the last fiscal year
was $15 billion.
In the present fiscal year, which runs until March 31, 2000, by
our predictions the surplus will be $20 billion. The reaction
may well be “Oh those predictions, oh those economists”.
Certainly, economists do have their shortcomings, but they also
have positive qualities.
One of the good qualities of economists, sometimes, ourselves
included, is to be cautious.
Since 1994, every year the Bloc Quebecois and its little team
have predicted the deficit, as well as the surplus generated by
the Minister of Finance, we have been no more than 2% or 3% off.
If a company specializing in predictions in Quebec and in Canada
had such a result, it would be in great demand. The average
margin of error in predictions is between 5% and 10%; ours was
between 2% and 3%.
Every time we put our finger on the true deficit, which the
Minister of Finance was hiding from us, we were dead on. Every
time we started talking surplus, and came up with a ballpark
figure for that surplus, we were dead on. So much so that the
credibility of the Minister of Finance, where figures are
concerned, is virtually zero, if not below zero, for most of the
analyses. This is not something I am inventing.
The day after the budget is presented, you open the Globe and
Mail, the Toronto Star, La Presse, any one in fact, you listen
to the analysts on television; when the subject of the Minister
of Finance's forecasts comes up, it is one big joke. People
laugh. They double over, they twist themselves in knots, they
roll around on the carpet.
And yet it is not all that funny. We have become accustomed to
the Minister of Finance giving us a false picture of Canada's
tax situation. Given such a totally false picture, Canadians
were not aware of the real state of public finances and of the
options the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government had
to do things, move, help the most disadvantaged, lower income
taxes.
1130
It is a sad thing when the government knowingly presents false
information, when six months later its figures are proven wrong.
I remember once, two years ago I think, we had predicted there
would be a certain level of surplus in February. The Minister
of Finance criticized us violently, accusing us of throwing
figures up in the air. He made fun of us. Six months later,
our exact predictions had come true.
It is a sad thing to play with people like that, play with
information, not tell people the truth and lie to their faces.
It is beneath a minister of finance and a member of parliament.
This is however what this Minister of Finance has done, half
baked, since assuming his position. He literally and
systematically hides the truth of the figures.
So, if the government had a $15 billion surplus in the last
fiscal year and now has a $20 billion surplus, it should leave
the current surplus of $7 billion in the employment insurance
fund to workers and the unemployed. The government would still
have $13 billion left to do things with.
The Minister of Finance could have done many things. As I said
earlier, he could have done justice to Quebec and restored
fairness in how the government spends money on goods and
services, investments and staff in federal laboratories.
He could have done all that. He could have said “From now on, I
will no longer use the surplus in the employment insurance fund,
except to help the unemployed or to lower contributions”. The
minister could have done all that. But in order to do these
things, one must be honest, tell the truth and take action based
on the truth.
If one's actions are based on lies, one cannot do these things.
The last budget of the Minister of Finance is nothing but a wad
of lies. All the expenditure and revenue items were cooked, and
even the auditor general was surprised, since he has repeatedly
asked the Minister of Finance to stop cooking the books like
that. There are no longer any reliable figures in the minister's
budget. There are zeros everywhere, instead of real surpluses of
between $15 billion and $20 billion. This is terrible.
So, the minister could have done a lot. He could have done more
to help children living in poverty. This is the minister's
favourite theme. Every now and then, he gets up, puts his hand
on his heart and starts talking about poor children. Child
poverty has been on the rise since 1993, but he never mentions
that.
Since the Liberals have been in power and he has been Minister
of Finance, child poverty has increased. People are poorer than
before, children as well.
How can he rise in the House, put his hand on his heart, and
talk about child poverty in Canada, knowing what he does? The
Minister of Finance knows the figures, he knows how to hide them
and how to make them say what he wants. He knows that child
poverty has increased. How can he get up with a smile on his
face and make jokes, then say that his government has done a lot
for poor children and that it has worked tirelessly, with the
means at its disposal, to reduce child poverty? How can he do
such a thing, knowing all the way that it is not true?
How can he do such a thing and, at the same time, help himself
to $7 billion a year from the EI fund? How can he say such a
thing, when less than 40% of unemployed workers qualify for
benefits under the new EI system? The other 60% or 70% are
living in poverty, on welfare perhaps, as are the parents of
these poor children the Minister of Finance says he wants to
help.
If the public were to pay a little more attention to the debates
in the House of Commons, it would soon be appalled. It is
almost sickening to hear things presented like this when we have
been fed this nonsense for six years, told that everything is
fine, under control, that the Minister of Finance is working
hard to put our fiscal house in order, when it is not true.
But he is making everybody else, the unemployed, the
disadvantaged, those who can no longer draw unemployment, do the
job. And that is truly shameful.
1135
We in opposition will continue to fight until we drop in order
to get this government to listen to reason and put into place
some real measures to help those who are in greatest need, thus
re-establishing justice and fairness in Quebec.
The figures I have just given are not fabrications, but ones
anyone can find in the Statistics Canada data. At the present
time, there are between 30,000 and 42,000 Quebecers waiting for
the federal government to restore justice and fairness to
federal transfers, because then they will be able to work and
earn their living with dignity.
The Bloc Quebecois will continue to work on their behalf, and I
can assure the House that we will spare no effort in making this
government listen to reason, because what it is doing no longer
makes any sense.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am absolutely delighted
to have the opportunity to stand in the House today to make a few
comments regarding the budget implementation bill. Budget
implementation bills tell us a great deal about a government's
priorities. They tell us about a certain value system that is
reflected in the government and in its budget.
I will try to categorize my view of this budget and the
government. I will use two or three examples to start with.
Perhaps what we should be doing today is debating whether or not
the Minister of Finance should be arrested and charged with
theft. I think it is commonly assumed that the Minister of
Finance has stolen billions of dollars from the EI fund in order
to balance his budget. I think that is fairly—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has far more experience
in this Chamber than I, but we cannot be attributing specific
motives to specific individuals. We can do that with respect to
the government, but not when it concerns a specific minister. I
would admonish the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys in that regard.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I accept that admonishment,
which is probably well placed. I was going to blame an
individual, but I suppose we have to blame the collective
government or the collective cabinet and so on.
The truth is that over the last number of years while we have
heard people applaud the government for balancing its budget and
reducing the deficit, I think it is fair to say that part of that
has been on the backs of the people who do not have a job, who
are expecting some employment insurance benefits to come their
way because they have lost their job, but in fact they do not
qualify.
The worst case scenario concerns the young people of Canada. In
the last 48 hours we have been told that only 15% of young people
who lose their jobs actually qualify for employment insurance.
The people who have been paying into the system do not qualify.
So 85% of young people who lose their jobs are SOL. They are out
of luck. They do not collect any benefits.
I say this is theft. I am not going to say that an individual
should be charged. We cannot put the whole government in jail,
so we have to assume that there is one person who has to take the
hit, and we can speculate on who the most appropriate person
ought to be. That is one example.
As we speak today to this budget implementation bill there is
another debate going on in one of the committee meetings around
the pension system for all of the public employees. Again the
government is dipping into that particular pot to the tune of
grabbing $30 billion out of the retirement fund of federal
employees, members of the RCMP and members of Canada's armed
forces. Now the minister is dipping into that to use the money
for various purposes in terms of the federal treasury.
On this side of the House we have to shake our heads with a
combination of disgust and perplexity. What on earth would a
government be doing dipping into a surplus in the EI fund of
$25.9 billion and $30 billion in the pension fund?
1140
The government tries to give the impression that somehow it has
done magical things and balanced the budget. Of course if we
take money from other people we can balance the budget. I
suspect, on a personal basis, that if we held up a bunch of
people on Sparks Street this afternoon and took all of their
money, we could say that we balanced our budgets as well. We
could pay off our credit cards and our mortgages through robbery
because we held up people and stole their money.
I suspect that people might be thinking this sounds far-fetched,
but it is the truth. Whether this is technically theft I do not
know. I suppose lawyers could argue this for some weeks.
However, it seems to me, as an average citizen, that when we dip
into places where we should not be dipping and take money that we
are not supposed to be taking, that is a form of theft. That is
the one point I want to start off with. This tells us a bit
about where the government seems to be going.
I think it is fair to say that the last budget was sort of a
wait and see budget for most folks. The millionaires in Canada
do not have to wait and see. They got a nice tax break. I
calculate that for one million dollars they would save about
$8,000 in income tax. That is not much for a millionaire, but
$8,000 is $8,000. They could go out and put a down payment on a
nice car or something. However, did mothers or fathers who are
raising children on social assistance get anything in this budget
in terms of tax breaks? No, there was nothing for them.
We have a government that says it should give a tax break to a
multimillionaire, but it should not give a tax break to mothers
and fathers who are raising children on social assistance. There
is something wrong with this picture.
I could go on to talk about a number of points. Let me make my
case and I will tell members in a second where I am taking them.
There is a very clear school of economics at work. First, should
those people on waiting lists in our hospitals and those waiting
for a major increase in support for hospital care across the
country be cheerleading this budget? The short answer is no.
The government says it is going to restore funding to health
care. To my Liberal funds opposite I say that is true. After a
number of years it hopes it will have restored the level of
funding to health care up to where it was in 1995. We are almost
at the year 2000. It is saying that if we wait a bit longer the
funds will eventually be up to 1995 levels. Is it a real
commitment to health care and medicare that we have seen over the
last number of years? The answer is clearly no. This is a bit
of a shell game. The impression is that the federal government
is playing its role once again, when in fact it is not. It is
playing a very minor role.
What about all those Canadians who are looking for work? Did
they see initiatives in this budget that will give them some
encouragement? Again, I regrettably have to say that the answer
is, by and large, no. Is there anything in this budget that will
give some hope that the future is going to be better for those
who are suffering hard economic times in the forestry sector, the
fisheries, agriculture, mining; the resource sectors that
essentially built this country? Regretfully, the answer is no.
There is nothing in this budget to give those folks hope.
What about the homeless people? What about the people who are
struggling to get their family into a decent home? We all
appreciate the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of
people today who cannot afford decent accommodation. A lot of
young people who are starting out in their careers cannot afford
to buy a house, a condominium, a townhouse or anything. They
have to rent because they simply cannot afford it. The housing
market is priced out of their limits.
In the past we have seen federal governments, and I will give
them full credit, say they would do something about the housing
crisis. They did. Those governments introduced various programs
and made various tax changes to encourage more rental
accommodation, more co-operative housing and a whole number of
programs that would enable ordinary working men and women to get
into a decent house. Was there anything mentioned in this budget
to assist those needing a home? No, to say nothing about the
tens of thousands of people who are sleeping on the streets of
our cities. If they are homeless or seeking better
accommodation, or accommodation period, there is nothing.
I will not even talk about first nations accommodations. If
there is a national embarrassment globally it has to be the fact
that so many of our first nations people are living in absolute
poverty and in absolutely disgraceful conditions.
Again, did this budget do anything to assist those individuals in
any real way? The answer unfortunately is no. Let us go on.
1145
If there is one thing that unifies Canadians from coast to coast
to coast of all ages, all cultures, all backgrounds, all economic
strata, it is the concern about the environment. We listened
carefully when the Minister of Finance delivered the budget as to
what was in it that was going to give some hope to those people
concerned about the future environment of Canada. Again there
was nothing in this budget. We are supposed to be fulfilling the
Kyoto protocol. We have a whole set of programs.
Hold it, I have to be fair to the Minister of Finance. There
was something. He was going to give to the Canadian Federation
of Municipalities $1.2 million over three years to study ways to
conserve energy. Where the hell have we been for the last 10
years? We could go down to the parliamentary library in the next
20 minutes and probably get 50 publications on how to save energy
and energy costs. It is not as though we need to find new
solutions. We have all kinds of solutions.
As a matter of fact I remember a vote in the House not long ago
where we all voted in favour by and large of an energy retrofit
for all federal buildings to make them more energy cost
effective. It makes sense to change the way we insulate our
federal buildings, to change the way we heat and cool them. In
other words, we should become a leader in the community in terms
of making public buildings more energy efficient.
It is not as though we do not know what to do. We need some
cash or we need some incentive. We need some direction and some
leadership. All the Minister of Finance could say was “Let us
study this for another three years” with the assumption that
after that presumably we will see some action. The environmental
issues were abandoned in this budget. Let us go on. I do not
want to go on too long because it gets very depressing.
I think all Canadians were listening carefully in the last
election. I know I certainly was. I know my constituents were
wondering whether they should support me because the Liberals
were saying “Elect Liberals and we are going to introduce a
national home care policy. Not only that, we are going to
introduce a national pharmacare policy, plus a national child
care policy.”
A lot of my constituents looked at me and said “The Liberals
are promising home care, child care and pharmacare. You are a
member of the New Democratic Party, you are probably not going to
form the government”. I was hopeful, but they are very pragmatic
electors. They said “Why should we support you?” I said “You
know something, I like my Liberal counterpart, a nice person, but
I do not think he knows what he is talking about. I do not think
the government will deliver on home care, child care and
pharmacare”.
Just as in the last election they said they were going to
deliver on eliminating the GST. Remember that? “We will
eliminate the GST if you elect Liberals”. The Liberals were
elected and they did not do it. It was very disappointing. I
said “When you get to the home care, pharmacare and child care,
do not hold your breath. You are going to blow up if you do
because it will not happen”.
We are now two years into the new mandate and again we listen
carefully.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I have been listening to this speech and I am really impressed.
I think it would be very honourable for other members to come
into the House and listen because there could be some lessons
learned.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
for Portage—Lisgar requesting a quorum call?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, that is what I am
calling for.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Portage—Lisgar has requested a quorum call. We do not have
quorum.
Call in the members.
1150
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is depressing when one
is up giving a speech and there is nobody here to give it to, but
now people are here and it is much more encouraging.
I realize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
is here and I know he represents a large cadre of other folks.
Perhaps we can say one represents a group.
1155
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: The important people are
here. We listen.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend the Minister of National
Revenue indicates that the important people are here to listen. I
know he listens to every word I say.
Let me get back to my theme. The original thought was that the
RCMP should be brought in to charge the government with theft and
take it to court because of the dipping it has been doing into
the EI fund and the federal pension fund.
The second theme was that a lot of people had to wait because
this budget was not going to do much for them. I am thinking
particularly of those people who are looking for work, people who
operate a farm, people who are in the ranching sector, the
forestry sector, the mining sector and the fishery. Anything to
do with primary resources is pretty light in this budget.
Restoring the funding for health care was not there. It was a
bit of a shell game. The promise for health care, home care,
pharmacare, none of the cares was represented in the budget. This
was very sad for many people.
There were some selective tax breaks and I want to focus on them
at the moment. Those tax breaks were intended to provide an
incentive for certain people to do things. We have identified
that some people need to be bribed into activity. They tend to
be wealthy people. It is said that if we can bribe wealthy
people or industrialists into doing things, this will eventually
benefit the other folks. These are fancy words for an
old-fashioned term called trickle down economics.
I know my friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance is well studied in trickle down economics. He graduated
from that university. He knows trickle down economics probably
better than most people I have ever met. It is like Peter Pan;
if we believe we can fly, we will eventually fly. If we believe
things are going to pick up, they will eventually pick up or
trickle down better yet. If we feed a bit at the front,
eventually the benefits trickle down to normal Canadians.
I want to say uncategorically here and now that Canadians are
sick and tired of being trickled on for years and years and
years. The trickling has to stop. We are almost drowning. The
trickle down theme seems to have been introduced into this
budget.
I have to identify two or three of the more general things that
were missed. I would be remiss not to quote from two or three
people about the budget. For example, the Canadian Federation of
Students said that tuition fees continue to rise while the
quality of education continues to erode.
The Minister of Finance on many occasions has talked about the
importance of education and training for the future. As we
approach the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, there
is no question that education and training are crucial if we are
going to have success in terms of economic growth and prosperity.
What was in this budget that would lend itself to support
education? Was there a break on tuition fees? No. Was there
some significant support for universities across the country?
No. Was there any support at all for persons who are graduating
from our post-secondary educational institutions with huge
debt loads? No there was not.
What are we talking about here? What is going on? We need to
have more support from the federal government for education
across the country and we did not get it. That is what is so
frustrating. I suspect people listening to this will reflect that
frustration. I know students certainly do.
I challenge my friend the parliamentary secretary and I hope he
will respond to this. Why not as a government be bold and say
“We believe in education. We believe in a quality education.
More important, we believe in access to quality education. We
can take care of improving the quality but we have to do
something about access. What can we do as the federal
government?”
We can do what many other countries have done and abolish
tuition fees from our colleges, universities, technical schools
and vocational schools from coast to coast to coast. Wipe out
tuition fees. My friend implies that this is some kind of a pie
in the sky thought. Most countries did this years ago.
1200
As a matter of fact the CEGEPs across the river in Quebec do not
charge tuition fees. Everywhere else in Canada certainly does:
$1,000, $2,000 and $3,000 just for tuition fees, let alone the
cost of books and laboratory supplies. As well the students have
to stay alive; they have to borrow money to simply live.
Why does the federal government not say that it will wipe out
tuition fees from coast to coast? How much would that cost? We
have the money. It would cost the federal government about $3
billion. There is a $3 billion slush fund. It is called a
contingency fund for special occasions. What better signal could
the government send? What better suggestion could it make? What
better leadership could be provided by the Minister of Finance
and the government than eliminating tuition fees for everyone
across Canada who wants to improve his or her education?
A cheer would go up across the country if they were to say that.
Who would say it was a rotten idea? Most OECD countries have
done it years and years ago.
Let us be bold. Let us get out there and say we will do
something completely different. However, what would we do? We
all find frustrating at this time of the year filling out tax
returns, those who can do it. Many people have to hire
accountants or take them down to the little shops along the road
for someone else to fill them out. We need tax reform, and it is
time the Minister of Finance informs us of that.
In closing, a number of phenomenal forces are at work in the
country that we must address. We did not address them in this
budget but let us do it in the next one. We must come to grips
with the forces of globalization and rapid technological change.
Technology will change. I am thinking of the impact of
electronic commerce on the way people work and the way business
is conducted. There is also the tremendous changing demography
of our country, the aging population, the major move into
self-employment in terms of lifestyle for people, and the whole
increasing urbanization phenomenon. The federal government has
to provide leadership on these issues.
Unfortunately there is a growing gap between those who have and
those who have not. On a local scale, a regional scale, a
provincial scale, a national scale and a global scale, the gap
between those who have and those who have not is increasing.
We are at a crossroads as we enter the 21st century. While this
past budget was a bit of a disappointment, to say the least, let
us look forward to a better and more timely budget in the year
2000.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I sat and listened attentively
to the hon. member. He just made a comment about how mothers and
fathers raising children on social assistance were in essence
paying tax and that the budget did nothing to deal with that
segment of society.
I caution the hon. member that as a result of the 1998-99 budget
any Canadian family raising children would pay no net federal tax
on an income of $30,000 or less. I am not saying that is in any
way an achievement for which we would stand, pound our chests and
say our job is done. We obviously need to do more in terms of
helping families raise children and ensuring that Canadians have
a better quality of life. However, with those two budgets,
Canadian families who are raising children and earning $30,000 or
less will be paying no net federal tax.
As well the hon. member made mention of the fact that health
care funding was somewhat of a sham. I caution the hon. member
that the restoration of funding to the provinces with respect to
health care took two forms. One was the $8 billion over a period
of time. The $3.5 billion immediately was meant to address what
the provinces were saying and what Canadians were saying.
The member sits on the finance committee. He toured the country
along with myself and other members of parliament. We heard from
Canadians who said that they needed additional moneys put back
into the health care system. The $3.5 billion allows the
provinces to draw that down as they see fit. I understand
Manitoba is drawing down its portion as quickly as it can. It
can do so over a three year period.
I caution the hon. member when he says it is a sham. I would
tend to disagree. Hopefully the additional information I am
providing will give him an opportunity to clarify his position.
1205
In terms of trickle down economics, I am certainly familiar with
the theory. It is a something the United States was very
accustomed to following under Reagan and Reaganomics. However I
would disagree with the hon. member. We have put in place a
number of economic policies which deal with certain segments of
society. We targeted our tax cuts initially. We took 600,000
Canadians off the tax rolls at the low end.
I go back to the elimination of the 3% surtax. As soon as we
had the money we eliminated it for individuals who were earning
$50,000 or less. We targeted our approach to those at the lower
end of the income scale.
With that information I only hope the hon. member would say that
he might not agree with everything the government does but he
could agree with the thrust and the direction of the government
and urge us to do more. I welcome the opportunity for the member
to urge us to do more as Canadians are doing. We fully respect
the priorities of Canadians and are committed to doing more.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, there he goes, the
Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance making sense
again. I must say he is right when he says that there have been
some good changes and some appropriate changes. I acknowledge
that the elimination of the 3% surtax was a good step. Next we
have to work on bracket creep, which I think he would agree was
overlooked in the budget.
I think he would also agree that I said there was an increase in
funding for health care which would eventually bring the federal
portion up to the 1995 level. If we could clap with one hand, I
suspect that is what we should do for that. It is a step in the
right direction, but taking it up to 1995 levels is hardly
something we should get too excited about. However he is correct
on that point.
I challenge my hon. friend when he says there are no net federal
taxes for people living on social assistance. The one tax change
we have been advocating is a reduction in the GST. My friend
would know that people on social assistance certainly pay the
GST. They probably buy stuff with every dollar they collect.
They buy services and they buy goods and therefore pay the GST. I
realize they get some returns on that, but we can debate these
issues in terms of the need for more refundable tax credits and
so on.
Let me go on to a point my friend makes in terms of families
making under $30,000 and not paying net federal taxes. My dad
asked me to raise a question the next time I was speaking in the
House of Commons, which I guess is today. My dad is 94 years old
and he is on a pension, an extremely modest pension. He gets by,
to be fair. He had to fill out his income tax forms. He could
not see very well so he got my ex-brother-in-law to fill them out
for them. He ended up paying a few hundred dollars in income
tax.
He asked me to ask a question of the Minister of Finance who
unfortunately is not here at the moment but will be here later.
Why should a 94 year old man who worked hard all his life, paid
taxes all his life and was never out of work, have to pay income
tax on a very modest pension income? He was frustrated. I guess
I am asking it rhetorically, but perhaps the parliamentary
secretary could respond in place of the Minister of Finance in
case my father is listening at the moment.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to say a few words in this debate. When the bill is
passed it will mean hundreds of millions of dollars to be used
for the benefit of the country.
When I think about the country many words come to mind. I think
about quality of life, security, prosperity, freedom, compassion,
co-operation and many other things other countries do not have.
Generally the very last thing we associate with Canada is poverty
and all the suffering and loss that come with it.
Most of us simply do not want to admit that the very real problem
of poverty exists in Canada. I do not think the government has
come to grips with it or wishes to admit it.
1210
Nevertheless, the reality is that for millions of Canadians
poverty is a way of life. As the poor become more vocal through
various organizations in which they become involved, through the
media and anti-poverty associations and whatnot, many Canadians
come to realize it is a very real problem.
Governments at every level will not be able to ignore that
problem much longer and will have to take action on it fairly
soon. They will have to do a bit more than actually appoint a
minister for the homeless. They will have to give that minister
the resources to do the job that needs to be done to address the
issue of poverty.
The issue of poverty is a very difficult one, as we are all
aware. The government knows very little about the true state of
poverty in the country. We have not developed an effective way
to identify and to measure poverty. We have yet to identify all
the causes of poverty. We still do not have an effective and
complete strategy to eliminate poverty.
The issue is also complicated due to the large number of effects
it has on many different social classes, whether it be women,
children, the working poor, the unemployed poor, aboriginals or
disabled persons. I am not sure if the bill does anything to
address the plight of many people who are well below the poverty
line.
We are all very much aware that back in November 1989 the leader
of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, introduced the following motion in the
House of Commons:
That this House express its concern for the more than one million
Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve
the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the
year 2000.
Jean Charest, the minister of state for fitness and amateur
sport and the deputy leader in the House at the time, moved at
the end of the debate that the motion be supported unanimously by
the House of Commons, and it was.
I want to read some of the positions of members of the PC Party,
the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party at the time on the
whole issue of child poverty. In the speech to the motion Perrin
Beatty of the PC Party, then minister of national health and
welfare, said:
We do not have to be afraid of the future. We have a prosperous
and a dynamic economy which if managed well promises to improve
even further. We have the tools to reduce the number of children
living in poverty as we have for each and every year since 1984.
In a few short weeks we will be entering the new decade. This is
a good time for us to reflect on the very real progress that we
have made in the past and to think about what accomplishments we
want to make in the 1990s. Any society that cares about its
future must care about the plight of its children today. This
government demonstrated that commitment and I can assure you it
will continue to demonstrate that commitment.
In his speech introducing the motion Ed Broadbent of the NDP
showed that child poverty had increased. He stated:
From 1980 to 1986, when the child population actually fell by
some 4%, the number living in poverty in Canada at precisely the
time that the rest of us were doing better increased by 13.4%.
He also pointed out that the rate of poor children in poor health
is 150% higher than the national average.
1215
Mr. Broadbent went on to explain how the cycle of poverty works.
He said:
There is now in Canada and the United States a vicious cycle
involving the poor. Poor kids are undernourished, underhoused,
more sickly, more poorly educated, get the second or third rate
jobs, and when the lay-offs come, they get laid off first. The
same young people marry each other and then they produce
children, statistically out of proportion, who go through the
same cycle. We have a cycle of poor food, poor housing, poor
clothing, poor education, poor jobs, poor spouses, more poor
kids. This is a vicious cycle. It is a vicious cycle that can
be broken and it is a vicious cycle that must be broken in this
Canada of ours.
Ed Broadbent said that back in 1989.
This quote is truly the most interesting quote of all. It is a
statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in
opposition at that time. In speaking to that motion, he said:
I never hear the Minister of Finance talk about the real deficit
in this country, which is those one million kids in poverty. That
is the real lack of investment. That is the real tragedy. In 10
years from now those are the children who should be tomorrow's
teachers, business people, politicians or journalists. They will
never get there because they will never get up to the starting
line. When you have a million children living in poverty, that
is the greatest lack of investment. That is the greatest deficit
we face. That is the problem, and there is nothing being done to
address that kind of issue.
This was the now Minister of Foreign Affairs who said that the
greatest deficit we had in this country were our poor children.
Even though the child poverty motion was unanimously supported
by all members from all parties in the House of Commons, very
little has been done to take action on that problem. Even today
we realize the governments of the past, and today's government in
particular, have really not taken any action on that issue.
If we were to read the quotes with a few modifications to names
and dates, we would realize that the words of a decade ago apply
to the situation we face today. In fact the number of Canada's
poor has increased and their condition has worsened.
When that motion was passed back in 1989, we had one million
children living in poverty in Canada. Today, 10 years later,
when we pledged that we would eliminate child poverty in this
country by the year 2000, we do not have one million children
living in poverty, we now have 1.5 million children living in
poverty in Canada. That is a real tragedy and one for which all
of us have to bear responsibility. It is not only this
government but governments of the past that have to bear
responsibility for the very glaring tragedy we have in our
society.
Poverty statistics are debatable and very controversial,
especially in Canada. An example of that is Statistics Canada's
low income cut-off. The low income cut-off is the most widely
used formula to establish a poverty line in Canada, even though
Statistics Canada says it should not be used as the poverty line.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that the statistics are useless
and that we should not be using them. Most of them are very
accurate. The point is that we need to develop a clear and
widely accepted formula for measuring poverty in Canada. Only
then, when we have the real hard facts on poverty, will we be
able to effectively deal with the problem.
1220
Hopefully, as the poverty task force travels the country, we
will be able to, and I think we are, gather all of the good, hard
evidence that the government will need to effectively deal with
the problem, if it is serious about dealing with it.
There are hundreds of statistics on poverty in Canada. However,
we have to make sure that we do not get bogged down in numbers
and lose sight of reality. If we only look at numbers we might
end up thinking that Canada is not a very good place to live in
this world. That is not really true. That is not the case.
With these numbers we can see that there is a major poverty
problem in Canada. However, we must not and should never lose
sight of the fact that we are doing many good things in the
country and that we are a very strong country. That is why we
should be able to find ways to eliminate the whole issue of
poverty in the country.
The issue of child poverty has always touched a very sensitive
chord with most Canadians. The reasons for that are fairly
obvious. Children are some of the most vulnerable people in our
society. They are helpless and are innocent victims of their
environment and their socioeconomic condition. Needless to say,
by eliminating child poverty, the aim is not only to eliminate
child poverty, but to eliminate all poverty in Canada. Children
are dependent upon parents. If we eliminate child poverty we
eliminate parent poverty and people poverty as well. One of our
goals has to be the elimination of not only child poverty but
also parent poverty.
In 1998, the year for which we have statistics available, 1.5
million children were living in poverty in Canada. That is an
increase of 21% since 1995, but it is an increase of 60% since
1989 when the motion to eliminate child poverty was passed in the
House of Commons. It is a very real problem.
I wonder if the government is aware of the number of people
using food banks in Canada. As travel go from province to
province, many people have come before our committee to talk
about how frequently they have to use food banks. It is
heart-rending to listen to not only the unemployed poor but the
number of working poor who come before our committee on a weekly
basis to tell us their stories of the loss of pride and how they
have to go once a month—and in most cases they can only go go
once a month—to a food bank in a country that has the kind of
resources and riches that we have.
It is a national tragedy that we have over 800,000 people per
year using food banks in the country. It is a national disgrace.
Forty-two per cent of people who depend on food banks for all or
part of their food are children and people under 18 years of age.
Can anyone imagine 800,000 people per year using food banks in a
country that has our resources and riches? It is hard to
imagine.
1225
Statistics for 1994 estimated that 57,000 Canadian children
under 12 experienced hunger due to a lack of food or money. We
are now living in 1999 and I believe that number has probably
gone up to 100,000 children under 12 who are experiencing hunger
due to a lack of food or money. The majority of hungry children
lived with lone parents and a high percentage of these children
were aboriginal people.
As our poverty task force travelled from province to province,
we had quite a number of women who came before our us to talk
about their problems. Women are struck very heavily by poverty,
especially single mothers. We do have a kind of arrogant and
cynical attitude in some quarters today toward single parents.
People tend to say, especially people in government, “they made
their bed, let them lie in it”. We hear that very often, but
that is not the way of a compassionate country.
An hon. member: Who are you hearing it from?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
will have a chance to have a go at this as well.
The hon. member can criticize me all he wishes for making these
points, but we have quite a number of women today, single mothers
and others, who are living in poverty. Single mothers in
particular have more difficulty getting jobs, and the jobs they
do get are very often low paying. We hear that every day as our
committee travels to various provinces. The lack of adequate
low-cost day care services for instance is a real problem for
some single mothers because it hinders their ability to seek and
get employment.
Fully 92% of single mothers in Canada under the age of 25 live
below the poverty line. That is a damning statistic. Getting
single mothers out of poverty through education is very
difficult. It is increasingly difficult as a result of provinces
cutting off social assistance to single parents enrolled in
post-secondary education. Every day we hear from single mothers
who want to get out of the situations they are in but find it
very difficult because the provinces have a tendency to cut off
social assistance payments to a single mom who wants to get
involved in post-secondary education. We perpetuate the problem
by doing that instead of doing all we can to try to get these
people off the welfare rolls, into a post-secondary education
system and back—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the member. Time has expired.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite
for St. John's East. He made a very compelling speech.
1230
I think he was very sincere when he spoke of poverty and single
moms and children in terms of the Canadian experience. As he was
speaking I was thinking that some of that sincerity is a little
diluted when we start to think about the hon. member's party and
former leader Mr. Mulroney and the kinds of things they did
during their tenure in power.
For example, I think of the high employment insurance premiums.
I think of the very high unemployment rate. I think of the kinds
of things that were put in place that exacerbated the problem and
the $42 billion deficit. This was the legacy that the Tory party
left to us to clean up. The hon. member with some sincerity is
trying to make his points but that sincerity is somewhat diluted.
We on the government side have been very consistent in trying to
do the right thing in this all important area. We have worked
very hard on this to ensure that we do the right thing for young
people and for poor people wherever they may live in Canada. We
have worked very hard. For example, there is the child tax credit
and other income tax measures that we put in place to ensure that
lower income people no longer have to pay taxes. Those are but
just a few tangible examples of what the government has done in
this very important area.
I used to be the chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police. When
it comes to issues like poverty there are measures that
communities, educational systems and groups throughout various
parts of Canada need to do and pull together. There are justice
and economic issues. Measures need to be put in place in a
co-operative way.
It was my experience in my former role as chairman of the
Waterloo Regional Police that if we spend a dollar now we will
save $7 later. If we bring those kinds of measures into focus it
will especially assist our young people who need that very
important first start in life in terms of where they go and how
they extend through their lifetime the kinds of things that are
important to them and their families.
Would the hon. member for St. John's East agree with me that an
investment of a dollar now for our young people is important? As
an investment it will ensure that we save $7 dollars later.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, we would fools not to
agree with the hon. gentleman that moneys invested today in youth
and in society in general will certainly pay dividends in the
future.
The hon. member talks about governments past and the fact that
we are all to blame for the child poverty issue and the issue of
poverty in Canada. I could not agree more. Members will never
hear me defend any government, whether it is federal or
provincial, on adequately addressing the poverty issue over the
last 10 or 15 years in particular. They certainly have not.
Let me point out to the hon. member that the number of children
living in poverty was actually going down right up until 1984.
Since 1984 the problem has become more acute.
We can all blame governments past, the Mulroney government, the
Trudeau government, or the current government for where we stand
today on child poverty, but I do not think we solve the issue in
that way. The numbers of people who have been forced on to the
welfare rolls because of the EI policies the government has
adopted is very evident.
1235
As members of the task force go across the country many people
come before us and say that a number of years ago they worked for
seven or eight months of the year and they would get unemployment
insurance. Employment programs have been all but eliminated.
Thirty per cent of the people who become unemployed are the
people who actually receive unemployment insurance. These people
are forced on to the welfare rolls and the whole cycle of poverty
is compounded even more.
Yes, governments have done a lot of damage, but I knowledge that
they have also done a lot of good.
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what
the member opposite had to say. The one thing about it is yes,
Canada is a great place to live. Studies show that Canada is the
greatest place to live.
The government has put $11.5 billion into health, $15 million
into cancer research, millions into breast cancer research and
millions into diabetes research.
While I am fairly new in the House, the fact is I do remember
the years when the Mulroney government was in power and ran up a
budget deficit of $43 billion. It was in power for nine years.
Imagine if it had been in power from 1983 to 1999, another six
years. That averages about $7 billion a year. The deficit would
probably be in the $70 billion range.
The Liberal government has paid down about $30-odd billion in
our deficit as far as debt load. I am very much interested in
whether the member opposite is interested in having a balanced
budget. Were there any food banks during the years when the
Mulroney government was in power?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the problem is quite
clear. We see some of the stumbling blocks that members throw up
in dealing with this problem. They keep playing politics with
people in poverty and that is not what the poor want. They do
not want members criticizing each other for policies past and
present. They want members to make a commitment to deal with the
problem in a real and very substantive way.
Yes it is very important to have a balanced budget. We all know
that. Through that we can bring in policies to eliminate poverty
in this country. However, the government has not done that. The
budget is balanced and the government again has made no
commitment to the poor, except to appoint a minister for the
homeless and not give the minister the resources she needs to
deal with the problem.
Let me give the hon. member some statistics that were passed
along to me by Statistics Canada. Back in 1987 the average
amount of expenditure for a Canadian family was $33,000. The
average income was $45,000. In 1987 a family had a $12,000
surplus of disposable income that they could use to help their
children. Families needed that money. In 1997 expenditures for
a family were $42,000 while the income was $41,900. This means
that the average family is $100 in the hole instead of having a
$12,000 surplus as they did back in 1987.
Yes, we have balanced the budget, but at what cost? We have
balanced the budget on the backs of the poor. We have balanced
the budget on the backs of the working poor. The government has
to come to grips with that.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, right off, I
would like to say that I was not really impressed by the
speeches of the members for Chambly and for Frontenac—Mégantic
the day before yesterday in the debate on the Budget
Implementation Act, 1999.
The remarks of the Bloc Quebecois members were all over the map,
referring to points in the history of Canada's and Quebec's
economy and interpreting the facts and events subjectively. In
other words, these were half truths.
1240
The pessimistic view of the Bloc members has only one purpose,
that of promoting Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada,
even though over 80% of those who pay their salaries want to
remain in Canada. These same people said in the latest
referendum that Quebec's separation was a matter for Quebec only
without a trace of embarrassment at raising the subject daily
across Canada.
The reality is something else.
While it is true that the population of Quebec is comprised
primarily of francophones, this is no reason to try, as the Bloc
is doing, to turn them into the victims of some sort of
machination, because Quebecers can stand up for themselves and
with other Canadians build a country that is good to live in.
Francophones have always occupied their rightful place in
Canada. They have proudly kept their language and their
culture. They will always have to be vigilant, not only in
protecting them but in promoting them, and they are working at
it remarkably.
Francophones have acquired a confidence that enables them to say
that they do not need to separate from Canada to enjoy their
fair share.
The Bloc, and the sovereignists, are falling into the trap of
paranoia.
Instead of proposing to Quebecers a major challenge such as to
continue to work to be competitive in Canada and in the rest of
the world, the Bloc keeps whining about alleged injustices to
Quebec.
The sovereignists are desperate to have people believe that
Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada is essential to its
survival. They are stuck in the past. They can no longer adjust
their views and opinions to today's realities and tomorrow's
challenges.
While they are talking about separation, the sovereignists are
forcing municipalities and school boards to merge, which is an
obvious contradiction. In short, the Bloc Quebecois is stuck, it
is unable to propose solutions other than to impoverish Quebec
from a political, economical and cultural point of view, at the
expense of the one million francophones living outside the
province.
The member for Frontenac—Mégantic had the nerve to say that there
are two Ministers of Agriculture and that it is one too many.
Let me give a quick example of what the federal Minister of
Agriculture has done for Quebec.
Our province accounts for 24% of the overall population but 48%
of the milk quotas. Among other measures, the federal government
recently put in place a special assistance program for farmers
who find themselves in difficult situations. This initiative
complements the Quebec program, whose objective is to help the
agricultural industry with problems relating to livestock
production, seeds, and so on. Under its initiative, the
Government of Canada will provide about $900 million. That
amount could reach $1.5 billion if the provinces are interested
in taking part in it.
Allow me to put our government's philosophy and initiative in
their proper perspective. Let me give you a more realistic and
accurate view of our last budget.
First, I would like to point out to the members of the Bloc that
the structure has evolved in such a way that the Americans no
longer have a hold over our economy. Quebec's economy is made up
of thousands of entrepreneurs who invest in the various regions
of the province, with the help and support of both levels of
government, that have developed and implemented policies and
programs, taking into account the needs of regional and local
stakeholders.
Contrary to what sovereignists are saying, it is very much in
Quebec's interest to be a full fledged member of the Canadian
federation. In fact, sovereignists lack perspective and have a
selective memory. The Liberal government remembers vividly that,
in 1993, Canada had a huge deficit of $42 billion, which we have
eliminated with the great co-operation of Canadians, who had to
make big sacrifices.
But today, the new context created by the federal government's
budget surplus, by the creation of 1.6 million jobs in Canada
and by a thriving economy has restored the confidence of
Quebecers. Their renewed confidence is also due to the fact that
the government has been able to do things that were beneficial
to them.
1245
Confidence in the Canadian economy has been restored because we
were able to create the conditions for investment and economic
growth, which means, among other things, that unemployment has
fallen from 11.4% to 7.8% in 1999. This economic recovery has
also led to lower interest rates.
As indicated recently by the federal government, the Government
of Quebec will receive about $7.4 billion in new transfers this
year and over the next five years.
This sum represents 34% of all new federal transfers, whereas
the population of Quebec represents 24% of the Canadian
population.
This is not bad, in terms of help and support for Quebec.
Our economic and budget choice was actually an easy one to make.
Our government deliberately chose to no longer mortgage Quebec's
and Canada's future. It was committed to a balanced budget.
In 1998-99, we balanced the books for the first time, and even
had a surplus. This marks the first time since 1951-52 that
Canada has recorded two balanced budgets or surpluses, back to
back.
One last statistic: in 1995-96, when the debt to GDP ratio was at
its peak, 36 cents out of every revenue dollar collected by the
federal government went to interest on the debt. Last year, this
amount dropped to 27 cents.
I will not have enough time to list the many positive actions by
our government, especially the support and magnificent work by
several federal departments during the floods in the Saguenay
and during the ice storm, which hit Quebec especially hard.
Members will recall that the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard,
was handing out $70 cheques to ice storm victims, even though
70% of this amount, or 63$, came from the federal government.
The cheques were emblazoned with the fleur de lys.
The economic and budget priorities of our government are well
known and shared by a majority of Canadians: strengthen our
universal health care system; provide tax relief; fight child
poverty, and invest in a more productive economy and a better
standard of living by expanding access to knowledge, research
and innovation.
These are measures we took in the most recent budgets, and we
will continue to promote them.
In conclusion, my message is one of optimism. It is one of
pride in being a member of the Liberal team, whose primary
concern is to do everything possible to improve the quality of
life of Quebecers in Canada, the best country in the world.
My message is also one of pride in representing the people in
the riding of Beauce who put their trust in me.
The riding of Beauce has an unemployment rate of about 4%, the
lowest or the second lowest in the country. My constituents'
priority, and ours, is to work and to improve the quality of
life in Canada.
In conclusion, my constituents have given me a mandate that is
straightforward and complicated at the same time. Not only have
they asked me to represent them well in the House of Commons,
but they have also asked me to protect their interests and make
sure that their region, like all regions in Quebec, gets its
fair share.
Their trust encourages me to redouble my efforts, for our
children and the generations to come, for Beauce, for Quebec,
and for Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Did the hon. member for
Beauce intend to share his time?
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I will not call my colleague on
the dispute between the government and my colleagues of the Bloc
Quebecois on the referendum question. Like many others, even in
the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, my region, I and my fellow citizens
do not waken up at night thinking about the date of the next
referendum. We have a lot of other priorities at the moment.
1250
There are basic concepts we do not want to let drag on and waste
our time debating, but I would like to call my colleague on the
subject of taxes.
Every time a member of the Conservative Party rises, they raise
the figure of the $42 billion deficit, but they always fail to
say that this deficit had been accumulated with the $200 billion
in debts the previous government had left us.
We are not going to change history, but it would be interesting
to compare the two governments. We would see that there was no
shame in being Conservative for nine years.
The essential issue is taxes.
The big topic of conversation at the moment is that a lot of
people are thinking of moving for tax reasons. It costs a
fortune to live in the Province of Quebec, because our tax
system is utterly regressive. I think the federal government
must also have a more progressive policy on taxes.
In the analysis done by economists Ferland and Laferrière, 14
federal measures are prejudicial. I would like the opinion of
my colleague from Beauce on that. Is it usual for a government
to withdraw all the benefits from free trade, $22 billion from
the GST and tens of billions of dollars from the surplus in the
employment insurance fund, while overtaxing by some $30 billion
at a time when people have no more money in their pockets.
We cannot afford to just say “Wait for the next budget”. For
families earning between $25,000 and $70,000 a year, it is a
disgrace to live in Canada and in Quebec at the present time,
for tax reasons. They have nothing left of their pay cheques.
They wonder how they can arrange things differently so that they
have a little bit more left in their pockets.
There are, of course, some provinces that are better off than
others at this time, like Alberta and Ontario. Their premiers
decided to say “Yes, we are going to work at decreasing the
deficit, but with moderation. We are also going to look at the
taxation system”. They know it is a key to reviving the economy.
I would like to ask my colleague from Beauce whether he does not
find it unreasonable to keep on pocketing people's money as the
Liberals are doing, to create what are almost hidden funds, to
have a taxation system that is hideously complex.
People cannot figure out what is going on any more, but there is
one thing they do know. The bottom line is: their net salaries
continue to get smaller.
There are examples of this. There are typical cases that have
been referred to in reports. People get pay raises that cost
them money. Something must be done. We must not say “Wait for
the next budget”. Administrative corrections need to be made.
It is nothing complicated.
If a single-parent family with an income of $31,000 a year gets a
$1,000 increase in income, which costs it $1,056, including a
$260 drop in the child tax benefit, we do not need to wait for
the next budget in order to remedy this. The Minister of
Finance merely needs to send a note to his deputy minister
indicating “This needs fixing. It is not right”. There are 14
different elements that have negative effects on Canadian
families, Quebec families in particular.
I am sure that my colleague from Beauce is doing his best to
represent his fellow citizens well, as did his predecessor. I
would like to have his opinion on the taxation system.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, first, I agree with the hon.
member for Chicoutimi that Quebecers are, unfortunately, the
most heavily taxed people in North America. We must absolutely
work to help people regain confidence, and I hope that the
Quebec government will do its share in that regard.
The member for Chicoutimi also said that we must not only
remember the $42 billion deficit that we inherited, but also
recognize what was done before that. I agree, but we must not
think either that the previous government does not have any
responsibility.
We have begun to lower taxes. We increased the child tax
benefit. But, we must be cautious.
Canadians have made huge sacrifices to allow us to achieve
fiscal balance. Today, we have succeeded and all Canadians are
pleased to see that tax reductions have begun and will continue,
at least as far as the Government of Canada is concerned. We
hope that the Quebec government will do like its Ontario
counterpart and that Quebecers will stop being the most heavily
taxed people in North America.
1255
Finally, I will conclude by telling the member for Chicoutimi,
who is also well aware of what is happening and who works hard
for his constituents, that we do not need to think constantly
about separation. What people want is to work and to have the
best quality of life while remaining in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise to speak to Bill C-71. This is the third time that
I rise to speak to this bill. I rise to speak because I feel
strongly about what is happening in our country, especially in
the past couple of years when we have seen taxes going up, our
financial house not being in order and the burden that ordinary
Canadian taxpayers are carrying.
I have been a small businessman and an accountant. In the last
10 years that I have been a businessman there is just one area
where I could not control the cost which dug into my profit, and
that one area was government taxation. Government fees,
government taxation, UI, EI, all kinds of taxes, from the cities
to the provincial governments to the federal government, have
been hampering the growth of small businesses.
This started with the Conservative government. Now the Liberal
government is claiming that it is working well to bring its
financial house in order. That is not what I hear from Canadians
who are coming into my office. That is not right. Despite the
claim made by the federal government that it has been reducing
taxes, that it has balanced the budget and that good times are
around the corner, those who walk into my office cannot vote for
that. They cannot say that good times are around the corner
because their take-home pay is still going down.
Why is their take-home pay going down? Costs are going up,
rents are going up and service fees are coming in. With all of
these things they just cannot seem to make ends meet. How can
this government stand and say that happy times are here?
Now we see a new debate going on. Businesses have finally
started speaking out. They are saying that enough is enough. We
hear Nortel talking about losing the brightest people in Canada.
We spend money to train them and then we lose them to other
countries.
We have free trade with the U.S.A. Now we have free trade with
Chile. We have free trade with Israel. As we go on we will have
more and more free trade, which gives Canadians the opportunity
to go to other countries where there are better conditions and
better take-home pay. They will do that and we will lose them.
While I am on the subject about losing our brightest, I want to
talk about something that is very dear to me, the student debt.
Let us talk about that for a little while.
In the past decade the average Canadian university tuition has
risen by 119%. That is a substantial increase. However,
transfer payments for post-secondary education have already been
sliced by 18%. The government has sliced this money, part of
which would have been used by the provinces for student loans.
Now the Liberal government is coming up with a band-aid solution.
The government has created the millennium scholarship fund which
will only address 300,000 students.
1300
Today I read a press release in which the government said that
it had come to an agreement with the Government of Ontario. The
Government of Ontario will be administering Canada student loans.
From a cost and efficiency perspective I think that is great. It
is a good initiative on the part of the federal government.
However, that does not address the main issue of the high cost of
tuition.
I will talk about the University of Calgary for example. This
university has charged more and more for tuition fees because it
does not have funds coming from the provincial government any
more. The federal government has refused to meet its obligations
despite the fact that it talks about the great transfer of money
it is giving to the provinces to address their educational needs
for the future.
We are at the dawn of the new millennium. Is it not important
that we look at what our students need? Is it not important to
ensure that Canada has an educational force that can challenge
others and make Canada prosperous?
I am the international trade critic for my party. I have
travelled around the world on behalf of Canada. I have seen how
competitive Canadians are. We can rise to the challenge. What is
curtailing us? High taxes are curtailing Canadians. Despite
what the Liberals say, the facts speak for themselves. More and
more Canadians are leaving.
On Monday I pointed to an example which I will repeat today. I
visited an institution in Toronto where they are teaching high
tech to students. I was told that IBM hired six students and
took them to the U.S.A. We trained them and we lost them. The
reason is high taxation.
In committee yesterday the Minister for International Trade sent
his message out to the government. I hope the minister is
listening to this. He sent a very subtle message to the
government; he was afraid he might get slapped. His chain was
yanked. He said there is a need to reduce the gap in taxation
between the U.S. and Canada since we are losing our brightest to
the United States. The minister has admitted there is a need. Of
course he had to say the politically correct thing so his chain
would not be yanked. The minister said that the Prime Minister
and the finance minister were working toward this. When will they
work toward it?
The cost of education is rising. I have repeated this many
times in this House. I have two daughters attending university
and I know firsthand that the cost of education is going up and
up and up. And what is happening? A millennium fund, a legacy of
the Prime Minister, but that legacy is not going to work.
An hon. member: Where is your leader?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, a member from British
Columbia is talking about my leader while I am talking about
taxes. Let us talk about taxes for a change.
1305
We have problems. We have a problem with education.
Post-secondary education is a problem. Small business people are
facing problems. CPP premiums have gone up. Of course the
government claims it has reduced the EI. In the overall taxation
problem people do not see any hope.
The auditor general has stated that the underground economy has
increased. I do not agree with the underground economy. When the
government provides services we have to pay for those services.
Why is there an underground economy? For the simple reason that
people feel they are not getting back what they have been paying
to the government. That is why there is an underground economy.
Ours is a voluntary system. We are supposed to declare what we
earn. In a voluntary system there must be trust, trust between
the government in what it is doing and those who are paying. If
that trust is broken, we will get a situation where people will
say that they will not voluntarily comply with it. This is what
is happening. Over the past years the trust has been broken.
The trust was broken when the Conservatives brought in the GST.
The GST was supposed to be paid toward the debt but instead it
went toward spending. That was the start of the breaking of the
trust between the Canadian public and the Canadian government. Up
until now Canadians have not regained that confidence to pay
taxes voluntarily. Canadians should pay their taxes. They should
not break the law.
We as parliamentarians can tell the government that it is wrong,
that it has not addressed the issue of what Canadians are saying.
Everybody is tired. The burden on single parents raising
children is so heavy yet the government refuses to recognize
that. Canadians brought this issue up and now the government has
a committee to address the issue. Mothers at home have not been
recognized. Again the government said it would study this issue.
The minister of state for the status of women met a lady who had
taken Canada to the United Nations. That lady had the impression
that this government or the minister herself looked more
favourably on women who went out to work and less favourably on
those who stayed at home to raise their children. I do not see
the logic.
Those who want to stay home to raise their children are equally
important to this society because they are raising the young.
They are equally important as those who are working and who come
home in the evening to raise their children. It is a choice they
have made. One choice is not better than the other. They both
have the same objective of raising good Canadian citizens. But
our current taxation system does not address that and this budget
did not address that.
Let us talk about health care. I said on Monday that a
constituent had phoned me. She said that she was afraid of what
was going to happen with health care. She did not see that this
government had addressed this issue. Despite the fact that this
government has said it is going to pour money back into health
care and despite the fact that this government is going to give
money to health care one time, it does not bring confidence. The
government has taken more since it came into power in 1993 than
what it is putting back in.
1310
The province of Ontario is going into an election. The
Progressive Conservative Party has come up with its platform for
the election. One of the points in its platform is it is going
to uncouple its taxation system from the federal government.
What does this do? This is the second province to do that.
Alberta has already given its intention to do that and now
Ontario is going to do it. Why? Neither of those governments
have any confidence and do not see that the federal government is
doing enough to reduce taxes. They want to get those taxes.
One of the reasons the provincial government was not initially
reducing taxes was the fear that if it reduced taxes the federal
government would increase taxes because it was tied into the
system. Now the provincial government is uncoupling so it can
address the concerns of its own citizens. It is uncoupling from
the federal government so that it has the freedom to do what the
federal government is refusing to do.
The other factor is both Alberta and Ontario have come up with
tax reductions for their citizens. Yet Alberta is in the same
situation as the federal government where there is no operating
deficit. Why is the federal government unable to do that? It
will claim it has done something. It will claim it has taken
away the 3% surtax. The surtax is for whom? It is for those who
earn high incomes. They pay the 3% surtax.
However even any relief that the government has put in this
budget will not kick in this year. It will kick in starting in
the year 2000. And the government claims it is giving Canadians
tax relief now. The Liberals say they are giving tax relief now.
No. Their own documents say when they are giving tax relief. It
is next year.
An hon. member: Do not give me indigestion.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I will give the hon. member some
tablets for his indigestion.
The central theme of what I have been saying is that the federal
government will have to address the issue of tax relief. It will
have to address the issue of smaller government. Get off our
backs. That is the bottom line. That is what Canadians are
saying. Get off our backs. Become efficient. We have had enough
big government and enough high taxes. Now it is time to stop.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member before he gets up to speak had
better check the facts. It was about 90% hot air, nothing on
target.
Education is a provincial responsibility. The provinces spend
the money, they set the costs. That is who is responsible. We
give them money but we do not float it all.
On the deficit, who got to the deficit? It was one of our
platforms and this government reduced the deficit. This
government put money against the debt. This government will not
borrow to lower taxes, not like the Ontario government that has
had to borrow $2 billion to $3 billion, that has had to borrow
money. There is one fundamental rule in public policy. Do not
borrow money to give tax cuts because we never get back on it.
The provincial government is off track and it will be tough to
get back on track.
The government has put money against the surplus. No other
government has hit its target in a more systematic, well planned
fashion than this federal government. It is getting praise
around the world for the prudent approach to the finances of this
country.
1315
Let the stay at home mothers and the working mothers make that
decision. It is not up to us to interfere and tell them to go to
work or not to go to work.
An hon. member: Give them tax relief.
An hon. member: Borrow it.
Mr. John Richardson: They want us to borrow it. That is
typical coming from members of the Reform Party, which is
supposed to be prudent. It will be a laugh if they ever make it
to government.
The surplus that we have accumulated in the last two years has
been put against the debt, and that is the right way to go. We
will continue to bring down the mountain of debt. We did not put
it there. It was created over a number of years. Slowly we will
bring it down. For every $10 billion we put against it we will
probably save up to $1.5 billion in expenses, which will accrue
to the revenue side for the next year because we will not have to
pay out that money.
This is an exaggeration by the Reform Party. It takes half
truths and talks about unfounded economic policies of borrowing
to give tax breaks. I cannot believe it.
An hon. member: Rubbish.
Mr. John Richardson: That is exactly it. There is no
government that would take that on. All tax policies say that we
should not borrow to give a tax break.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, talk about the hot air
that just blew over from the other corner. He just stood to ask
anything. He did not say a single word about what I was talking
about.
He talked about deficit reduction. The deficit was reduced on
the backs of Canadians. Government did not clean it up. It was
cleaned up by high taxes.
He talked about the Ontario Conservatives borrowing money. Let
me tell him this. There is no Canadian law, but there is a law
in Alberta that governments can no longer have deficits. Do that
over there and then we will talk about it.
He talked about being praised around the world. Let us ask the
people who are leaving Canada to work in other parts of the world
about this business of being praised around the world. Where is
this hot air coming from?
He talked about giving mothers a choice. Yes, we should give
them a choice. But the government's tax system has created no
choice for them. That is the problem. Even I agree that they
should be given a choice, but the government has not done that.
We know where this hot air is coming from.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
note that the member across the way said that it is simply
against government policy to borrow in order to reduce taxation.
I would like to ask my colleague if, in his opinion, this has
ever been done before. Have Liberal governments in the past ever
borrowed money? Or has the member for Calgary East heard that at
least 35% of Canadians are forced to borrow money to pay their
federal taxes? Has he heard those figures?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
asking that question. It is a good question.
Where did this deficit come from? Was it not started by a
Liberal government? It initiated this business of deficit
spending and the Tories followed. It started over there. Now
the Conservative governments are bringing in legislation to stop
deficit spending.
My colleague talked about Canadians borrowing money. I forgot
that point. He is absolutely right. I have had people in my
riding come to me and say that they had to borrow money to pay
their taxes. The tax burden on Canadians is pretty high.
1320
Let me cite some statistics. And I will give them statistics,
not hot air. The statistics are very simple. Each Canadian
taxpayer will be paying $2,020 more in taxes in 1999 than they
did in 1993 when the Liberals came into power. Canadian
taxpayers will pay $42.1 billion more in taxes than they did when
the Liberals came into power. Let us talk about facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
you to know that in no way did I intend to usurp your authority.
I am well aware of the great influence you have on the House. I
accept your leadership without question. If I had had the
opportunity I would even have voted for you.
This being said, we now have to deal with less pleasant issues.
I would ask government members to pay attention. We have many
complaints about the budget.
I want to stress again how important it is to vigorously fight
poverty. I will benefit from the presence in the House of all my
Bloc Quebecois colleagues, since I believe those who are the
most sensitive to the issue are here today. It is a quirk of
scheduling. It was not planned, it just happened that way. I
therefore feel all the more comfortable talking about this
issue.
Last year, I went on a tour of Quebec to promote community
reinvestment by banks. This idea is gathering a fair amount of
support.
I have some support from the Progressive Conservative Party. I
have some support from the New Democratic Party. I know there is
some fragile support among government members, but it is bound
to get stronger.
As a matter of fact, in his report the Parliamentary Secretary
to the President of the Treasury Board reviewed the whole issue
of bank involvement in the community.
Since 1977, the United States have had the Community
Reinvestment Act. It provides no constraint. It sets no quotas.
It simply requires banks to become involved in the community.
The strength of the U.S. legislation, which appeals to a number
of my colleagues—whom I thank for welcoming me in their
region—is that it provides for a yearly assessment of what the
banks are doing in underprivileged communities.
Banks can get involved in underprivileged communities in a
variety of ways.
They can do it by supporting community groups, by providing
lower income people with a range of financial services at
preferential rates and by making mortgage loans. All this is
called community reinvestment.
Community reinvestment by the banks is a matter of balance since
they make profits from the money deposited by individual
investors. It has to do with the multiplier theory.
I think Canada needs a legislation to assess what the banks are
doing in their communities, and that assessment should be made
available to consumers.
That is what made the success of the American formula. Once a
year, in June, the assessment of the banks' involvement in the
community is disclosed in what is appropriately called the
disclosure process. Naturally, consumers are better informed
when they have to make choices.
I do not understand why the government never proposed anything
similar in the budget or elsewhere over the years.
This brings me to talk about poverty. I think members of the
House are very sensitive to the issue of poverty.
1325
We, on this side of the House, do see a paradox in having an
increasingly rich society, which is able to produce and has
gained access to export markets like never before, yet a society
where the number of poor people has never been higher.
For example, the National Council of Welfare estimates that one
out of five Canadians lives in poverty. In certain communities,
the ratio is two out of five, and among certain groups,
particularly young people, it is three out of five.
What are we talking about when we speak of poverty? We are
talking about people who have to spend more than 55% of their
income on basic necessities, like clothing, housing and food.
Our colleague, the member for Shefford, has embarked on an
antipoverty fight—this the kind of word we should use when we
talk about poverty—and she has suggested what could be part of
the solution. Nobody thinks there can be one single solution to
the problem of poverty. We all know we need a whole range of
measures.
But the hon. member for Shefford did suggest one idea that could
be part of the solution and that got a great deal of attention
in the House and a lot of support from the Bloc Quebecois, from
me as the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, from the hon. member
for Québec, who has also joined us in this fight, and from the
hon. member for Laval East.
We did not ask the government for a budgetary measure, but for
something that could make a difference for underprivileged
citizens.
In a spirit of honesty and camaraderie, we have asked the
government to add social condition as a prohibited ground of
discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act, but not in the
charter, because it is obvious we cannot reopen and amend it
without new constitutional negotiations.
Hard to believe as it may be, this despicable government has
rejected the consensus reached by the main opposition parties.
What would have been the impact of including social condition in
the Canadian Human Rights Act? It would have given a remedy to
all those who receive federal services, or who work in companies
under federal jurisdiction.
All those who have been victims of discrimination on the basis
of their fortune or their wealth could have taken their case to
a human rights tribunal to obtain redress.
As members know, Quebec has no choice but to become a country.
It is a matter of time, of months, but Quebec will become a
country as, indeed, the case should be for any nation. Quebec,
which will be a sovereign country, has a lot of expertise in the
area of human rights. Since 1977, the Quebec Charter of Rights
and Freedoms forbids discrimination on that ground. With what
result? It has allowed us to take three major steps forward in
matters of law, in particular for single parents, who are often
women.
For instance, a landlord refuses to rent an apartment to a
single parent, on the ground that income may be inadequate,
there can be a legal challenge. A human rights tribunal has
ruled on this issue. Discrimination against a recipient of
income security is not allowed. A landlord cannot refuse to rent
an apartment to a recipient of income security in Quebec.
This is an example of what lawmakers can do to support less
fortunate people, who are often victims of discrimination.
There was a similar case regarding financial services. For
instance, there is the case of a credit union near Quebec City,
one I will not identify because it would not be relevant to my
argument.
1330
A credit union had refused a mortgage to a single parent,
despite the fact that the person clearly had the means to meet
the terms of the mortgage. Again, because the Quebec Charter of
Rights and Freedoms allowed that person to take her case before
a tribunal—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I am always reluctant to
rise on a point of order when a member is in the middle of his
speech, but I find it somewhat difficult to sit here and listen
to comments about the CRA and other matters that do not have
anything to do with the particular bill.
I know that under your guidance you offer that kind of latitude,
Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if you could ask the hon. member to
speak to the bill rather than everything under the sun except the
bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance has asked through the Chair
that members be relevant. We do have a responsibility to be
relevant when speaking to the bill. I would ask the hon. member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to keep that in mind.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary may
have had trouble concentrating. I remind him that we are talking
about poverty here. We are talking about the budget. If the
parliamentary secretary cannot see the link between the budget
and poverty, he may not be fit to sit in the House of Commons.
On this side of the House, we do see the link between poverty
and the budget.
My colleague's remark is totally uncalled for. He should remain
seated and steer clear of such irrelevant comments.
Having said that, I want to come back to the fact that we have
asked the government several times to commit to an anti-poverty
agenda.
I think the government could have done a lot more with the
budget surplus.
Let me give the House some examples. The government has more
room to manoeuvre, because they literally stole from the
provinces. We have to realize that. When we go over the budget,
because we are debating its implementation today, we see a lot
of measures taken in areas where the federal government has
absolutely no right to interfere.
First, there is the millennium scholarship fund. If government
members could just look at the Constitution of Canada, they
would have a hard time explaining how the federal government can
interfere in education. And yet, that is what they are getting
ready to do.
It was decided that money could be made available, through a
program called the millennium scholarship fund, for some of our
fellow citizens who wanted to get a post-secondary education.
Why is the government making money available for this when it
has absolutely no constitutional authority to do so? The federal
government doesnot have the constitutional power to do so and,
furthermore, since 1966, Quebec has benn offering the most
generous loan and scholarship program in Canada.
The federal government worries about training and says “We think
that it is important for people to make a commitment to stay in
school for at least 11, 12 or 13 years”.
It is believed that men and women, in the 21st century, will
change careers four or five times during their active life. So,
they will be involved in a process of lifelong learning. Of
course, the governments have the responsibility to give them
access to the money that will allow them to acquire greater
skills. However, it is not up to the federal government to give
that money directly.
1335
The Bloc Quebecois has often asked the Minister of Human
Resources Development to negotiate with the National Assembly,
which is the only parliament Quebecers can truly identify with
in America, to find a way to give them access to the money the
federal government intends to invest in millennium scholarships.
There has to be a single program, one managed by the Quebec
government.
Did the federal government listen? Of course not. It cannot shed
its old attitude of interventionism and its lack of respect for
provincial jurisdictions.
I could go on and on. I will address the whole issue of the
Youth Employment Strategy. We all know that the Youth Employment
Strategy deals with an area over which the federal government
really has no jurisdiction. It is so true that, in the whole job
training repatriation process leading to the manpower agreement
concluded between Minister Harel and the federal minister
responsible for human resources development, Minister Harel, on
behalf of the government of Quebec, asked that the Youth
Employment Strategy be included.
The Youth Employment Strategy is one of the tools available to
the labour force to upgrade their skills on the job market. The
federal government did not include it, which leaves us in a
rather paradoxical situation.
The paradox comes from the government developing a program that
does not make any sense because it is determined to interfere in
areas like job training. This program does not make sense
because it tells people that they cannot be unemployed, they
cannot be studying and they cannot be on the job market in order
to qualify for and participate in this program administered by
the federal government under the Youth Employment Strategy.
The program is therefore geared toward a very specific clientele
mainly comprised of dropouts. We certainly do not want to
suggest that we should not help these people.
For example, in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, there are 200
community organisations. These are instrumental in making my
riding such a great place to live. Very few organizations are
interested in the Canadian Youth Strategy because they are not
the clients mainly targeted by the strategy.
This program is ill-conceived. It does not make sense. It would
make more sense to be able to ask that this program and the
money spent on it be transferred to the provinces.
I would also have much to say about the interference by the
federal government in the field of health. The federal
government's interference in this area is now a well-known fact.
Canadian institutes for health research have been established.
They will constitute virtual networks bringing together
researchers and institutes to co-ordinate and target research
efforts in Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the august backbenchers are going
about their daily ritual of making noises barely loud enough to
be heard in this civilized world.
Still, I want to tell them that if they really want to help the
Canadian government and their fellow citizens, they should add
their voices to that of the Bloc in order to have the funds
available for education and health transferred to the provinces.
Under the Constitution, the provinces are primarily responsible
for providing these services to our fellow citizens.
In closing, I would like to remind the House that there is
another issue where we were entitled to expect the federal
government to act, namely the Palais des congrès. Members know
that Montreal is a hub in the tourist industry.
An hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear what the obscure
backbenchers are saying. Would you be so kind as to call them to
order?
1340
I am not asking them to come up with an idea, because that could
be hard for them. However, all I am asking them is to pay
attention a bit.
The Government of Quebec has pumped $159 million into the Palais
des congrès to attract business tourists. We also know that the
industry where the most jobs will be created in the coming years
is the tourist industry.
What did the federal government do and what did it not do? It
refused to support the initiative of the Quebec government and
to inject the $69 million that we were entitled to expect.
Did a member of parliament representing Quebec, a member of the
Liberal caucus who represents Quebec voters, get involved in
this issue where Quebec's interests were being trampled on?
Certainly not. They all kept silent, as they all do when the
time comes to defend Quebec's interests.
Fortunately, there is the Bloc Quebecois. We will continue to
defend Quebec's interests and we will continue to ask the
federal government to inject $69 million, its share in the
Palais des congrès project.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
I hear my Bloc Quebecois colleague complain about the fact that
the Canadian government is interfering in the area of health
care while five minutes earlier he was asking the same
government to get involved in his riding, I get totally
confused. He wants us to help him in his riding. He wants us to
invest in 200 non profit agencies in his riding, and five
minutes later he accuses us of interfering in all of Quebec's
affairs. I am totally confused.
He says we are not going to invest in the Palais des congrès,
but if we do, he will say we are interfering in Quebec's
affairs. It does not make any sense.
Sometimes I wonder if the members of the Bloc Quebecois realize
what they are asking us; they want us to get involved, but when
we do, they say we are interfering in areas where we have no
business.
Students in Quebec have trouble repaying their loans. We want to
help them because their own government is not. Bloc members say
“Give us the money. We will manage it”. Why are they not doing
it? They do it after we offer.
It is always the same thing. Bloc members are constantly saying
that the Canadian government, which tries to help every
province, is interfering, but then they ask us to get involved.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is being pretty
honest when he says he does not understand. It seems obvious to
me.
First, I want to remind him that Quebec sends $31 billion in
taxes every year to the federal government. The member for
Verdun—Saint-Henri has to be particularly out of touch with
reality to say that Quebec does not help students. The
Government of Quebec is the most generous government. It has
been administering a loan and scholarship program since 1966.
If the federal government wants to make money available to help
students pay their debts, it ought to do so through the Quebec
Department of Education because, under the Constitution,
education is a provincial jurisdiction.
I am asking the member to rise in his place, if he has the
courage, to tell us who, within the student community, agrees
with the proposed formula. The student community is calling
unanimously upon the federal government to make the millennium
scholarship money available through the Government of Quebec.
Second, there are 200 community organizations in
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve looking after our well-being. These
organizations need money. It makes no sense at all that the
youth strategy be managed by the federal government. It is
ill conceived. It does not meet the needs of these community
groups. It would be much more logical, in the context of the
transfer of powers with regard to manpower training, if those
funds were distributed by the Government of Quebec.
1345
I hope the member will agree with my remarks because there is a
consensus. If the member is listening to what the stakeholders
in Quebec have to say, he will know that the Bloc Quebecois is
saying the things those people want to hear.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne: Mr. Speaker,
imagine, the Bloc member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is calling for
the youth strategy to be transferred to Quebec. Job training
has already been transferred, and all the papers have reported
on the fiasco there has been in Quebec with that. Now he is
asking for transfer of the Youth Strategy to Quebec. Frankly, I
think the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve does not really
realize what he is saying.
Another thing, there are as many volunteer organizations in my
riding of Verdun—Saint Henri as in his riding. Also, I am very
proud of the fact that the Government of Canada is interfering
in my Quebec riding.
I am pleased to tell my colleague that, if the Youth Strategy,
this wonderful program providing employment for students in the
summer, is transferred, as far as job training is concerned, the
not for profit organizations in my riding are anxious to get their
hands on some funding for job training in Quebec.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I knew we could count on the
Liberal Party to stick it to Quebec, to always be there when it
is time to run Quebec down. I know that the hon. member is one
of a long line that has always done so.
In fact, all stakeholders in the workforce, the Conseil du
patronat, the unions, the bodies concerned with job training,
have expressed the wish that the Government of Quebec play the
lead role in training, since it is normal for things to be that
way.
Is it true that, during the first year of implementation of
these programs, there were adjustments that needed to be done,
things to be re-examined? Of course we are aware of that,
but what I am saying is that if the hon. member for
Verdun—Saint-Henri thinks it is a fiasco that manpower training
programs were transferred to Quebec, it is because he is
prepared to deny the interests of Quebec. It is unworthy of a
member of parliament from Quebec to hold such a view.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been an interesting morning listening to the
debate. I am sure that it is a healthy debate, but my blood
pressure rises once in a while according to the statements and
arguments I have heard.
We know we are debating Bill C-71, the budget implementation
act. This omnibus bill will implement programs from the 1999
budget. The first part of the bill includes an increase in the
CHST for the purpose of health care funding.
Let us make no mistake. A shell game is being played. In 1993
when the Liberals took office the CHST was $18.8 billion. The
measures in the most recent budget restore it to $14.5 billion,
which is still $4.3 billion per year less than when the Liberals
took office.
We see the pattern where the government guts health care and
then a few years later tries to create the illusion that it is
the defender of health care by throwing money back into the pot.
At the end of the day we are getting less health care than when
the Liberals took office.
These tactics have been used for years by federal governments
that think the public is easily fooled by the shell game. The
public is more aware than the Liberals think it is. The public
is not being fooled. It knows the Liberals are removing $3 from
the system for every $1 they put back in.
When the 1999 budget came down it amounted to a Liberal apology
for their reckless gutting of the health care system. The
government tried to regain some support by putting money back
into the system, but Canadians realize that they have never paid
so much for so little as they have under this government.
There were 188,000 Canadians on waiting lists for health care
services who would not accept this Liberal apology.
1350
When I look at my own community I see a tremendous number of
people going to the U.S. for easily accessed CT scans and health
care services, I wonder what the government is thinking.
Nurses are on strike. Nurses are demanding that they get some
more help. They are overloaded. Nurses are going to the U.S.
When we look at the nurses going to the U.S., they are not the 40
and 50 year old nurses who are established. They are the younger
trained nurses, the brain drain, the people who are leaving the
country.
It is the same for doctors. They are leaving for the U.S., not
just because of better pay but because of less taxes and more
opportunities to practise their expertise. If it were not for
South African doctors emigrating to Canada, we would be in a
terrible mess as far as the health care system is concerned.
The 1999 budget shows that the Liberal Party is still not
interested in listening to Canadians. Instead of providing tax
relief, the government chooses to spend. The budget announced
$8.5 billion in cumulative new spending initiatives over the next
three fiscal years. The budget did not contain any significant
debt or tax relief measures that would increase disposable income
or create investment opportunities for entrepreneurs. This is
despite mounting pressure from Canadians to lower taxes.
In the past few weeks we have been faced with the spectacle of
large firms operating in Canada threatening to pick up and move
south because they are no longer willing to contend with the high
taxes and the high cost of doing business under the Liberal
government.
The voices of these CEOs join the chorus of thousands of
Canadians who have been trying to tell the government the same
thing for years. However, the Liberals are ignoring the message
just like the Conservatives did in 1993, and we remember what the
results were.
An hon. member: Do you put your tax cuts on your VISA or
MasterCard?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I see my hon. friends across the
way are listening and I appreciate that. That is the only way we
will get a few things done.
We noted yesterday on television the Premier of Ontario
beginning an election based on the jobs he created. I was always
under the impression that it was all due to the Liberal
government. All of a sudden we hear a premier saying that
because of his reductions and fiscal responsibility there are
585,000 new jobs.
Actually the events of the past few weeks have shown Canadians
how confused the Liberals are on the issue of tax cuts and
productivity. In fact they are all over the map. Some cabinet
ministers suggest the country needs deep tax cuts to compete with
the U.S. Some even seem to recognize that high Canadian taxes
are driving away investment in Canada and are making it difficult
to build businesses.
At least some of these cabinet ministers seem to understand that
a policy shift is required, but the Prime Minister has been quick
to reign them in. I suppose he does not want Canadians to get
the idea that they actually deserve tax breaks. If they are
given a little finger, the Prime Minister is afraid they might
sudden ask for a hand. Then we would have a real problem because
it would come out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the
community for investment.
The Prime Minister has been quick to squelch any break out of
common sense. Canadians want less taxes and smaller government,
and he is giving them the opposite. Instead of the tax cuts that
everybody wants, we get increased taxes and less health care
under a Liberal government.
For good measure the budget also perpetuates discrimination
against single income families in the tax code by requiring them
to pay more tax than their dual income counterparts.
1355
It has been pointed out that the government overspends its
budget every year. Last year it went $3 billion over budget.
This year it is about $7.6 billion. It does this to ensure there
is not enough left in the coffers to start giving Canadians tax
relief. It is a sneaky strategy, but the government has proven
that it is quite willing to cook the books a little in order to
maintain its strategy.
The government's legacy will be its lack of foresight and its
stubborn refusal to listen to people who know how to make the
country better and more productive. Whether they are everyday
Canadians or industry experts, this is evidenced by the
government's refusal to target money where it would be most
beneficial.
Our treasury board critic uncovered some startling examples of
misspent money by the government. They include thousands of
dollars spent on golf balls for a government department and
hundreds of thousands of dollars on silverware and china for
bureaucrats. I included these examples in my most recent
householder, and my constituents could not believe that their tax
dollars were being wasted like that.
It is painfully obvious that the government cannot keep a lid on
the out of control spending of its departments. The government
spends money on wasteful things and keeps money away from the
areas where it could benefit the economy. There is no better
example than the agriculture sector. Everyone is familiar with
the—
The Speaker: Order, please. The member has 11 minutes
left and will have the floor when we return. We will now proceed
to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GRANVILLE ISLAND PUBLIC MARKET
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize the 20th
anniversary of a truly unique Vancouver landmark. Granville
Island Public Market opened on June 12, 1979. Over the years the
market and Granville Island have become a must-see attraction for
visitors. The market is recognized as one of the most successful
in North America.
Given that the market and Granville Island are seen to be
synonymous, we are taking this opportunity to celebrate the
success of this rejuvenated industrial area in the heart of the
city. I am proud that the Government of Canada, through the
CMHC, has contributed significantly to the development of
sustainable communities such as Granville Island.
* * *
CORNELIUS W. WIEBE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow an extraordinary citizen in my riding will be awarded
the Order of Canada in a special ceremony. Dr. Cornelius W.
Wiebe will be given this honour at his home in Winkler by the
governor general. Dr. Wiebe, now 106 years old, was born in a
log home in 1893 near Winkler, Manitoba.
He began studying medicine in 1920. Soon after graduation he
brought his family to the community of Winkler where he practised
medicine for more than half a century. He extended his community
service by sitting on the local school board and spending a term
as a member of the provincial legislature. His insights into
medicine, politics and agriculture were always highly respected
and appreciated.
The community today has many health facilities made possible
through Dr. Wiebe's initiatives: the Winkler Bethel Hospital,
the Winkler Clinic, the Eden Mental Health Centre and the Valley
Rehab Centre. It is an honour for—
The Speaker: The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
* * *
SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the House that May is speech and hearing
awareness month.
This is an opportunity to promote public understanding and to
educate Canadians about the challenges faced by the deaf and hard
of hearing. An estimated one in ten Canadians is deaf or has
some degree of hearing loss. Those most likely to be afflicted
are seniors. We need to recognize the importance of improving
the situation for those with hearing related communication
disorders.
1400
Speech and Hearing Awareness month is recognized by voluntary
and professional organizations which provide ongoing services to
deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
Please join me in congratulating all organizations, service
agencies, professionals and volunteers who help improve the
quality of life for the deaf and hard of hearing.
* * *
RED CROSS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that Saturday, May 8 is World
Red Cross-Red Crescent Day. This day celebrates the humanitarian
work of millions of Red Cross-Red Crescent staff and volunteers
worldwide.
Among the countless number of victims of conflict and disaster
worldwide helped by the Red Cross were the people in Central
America devastated by hurricane Mitch and now the refugees from
Kosovo.
In honour of the millennium, the international family of the Red
Cross is celebrating the theme “Power of Humanity”, the guiding
principle for all the Red Cross' work: “The rehabilitation of
people suffering the consequences of war, violence, natural
disaster and malnutrition”.
I would ask all members to please join me in recognizing the
Canadian Red Cross for its great work and in wishing them a very
successful World Red Cross-Red Crescent Day.
* * *
THE LATE ALLAN WRIGHT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I would like to pay tribute to a constituent Allan Wright
who passed away January 29 in Grande Prairie, Alberta.
In 1944, Lieutenant Wright became one of Canada's most decorated
soldiers, being awarded the Canadian Military Medal and the
Distinguished Service Cross medal from the U.S. government for
the heroic acts he performed while stationed in Europe during
World War II. The U.S. medal is second only to the U.S.
Congressional Medal of Honour. He was decorated by both the
American and Canadian governments, commissioned in the field and
wounded in action.
Like many World War II veterans, Lieutenant Wright lived with
the effects of his wounds for his entire life. Allan or Phooey,
as he was fondly known in Grand Prairie, was one of five brothers
who fought on behalf of Canada. His brother Kelly was killed in
action.
On behalf of Peace River constituents, I salute Allan for the
sacrifices he made for this great country and for the
accomplishments that he achieved. He is truly a Canadian hero.
* * *
RESERVISTS
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, reservists have always played an important role in the
Canadian forces. They have represented our country with
distinction at sea, on land and in the air. Reservists are
committed Canadians who do their military service in their
communities, both small and large, urban and rural.
The names of some of the units, like the Fort Garry Horse of
Winnipeg, are written on the pages of history books. Other
names, like the 2nd Irish of Sudbury and Her Majesty's ship
Montcalm of Quebec City, might be known only locally but we
know them today.
The names and locations might be different, but reserve units
across Canada share the same mission. They have served close to
home during the Manitoba flood in 1997 and the ice storm of 1998,
and they have served abroad in places like Bosnia, the Golan
Heights and Cyprus.
May 5 has been designated Reserve Force Uniform Day and all
members of the primary reserve, cadet instructors cadre and
Canadian rangers—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.
* * *
[Translation]
SAINTE-URSULE SECONDARY SCHOOL
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
draw attention to the remarkable performance by four musical
groups from the Sainte-Ursule secondary school in Trois-Rivières
at the Heritage Festival of Music in New York in mid April.
The only delegation from Quebec, in fact from Canada, to this
competition, which brought together 90 groups from the United
States, Sainte-Ursule school picked up two gold medals, one in
the harmony category and the other in the stage band category
and won a silver medal in the jazz vocal class.
To top it all off, this delegation won a special award for the
vibrancy, enthusiasm and public spiritedness of these young
people from my riding.
I congratulate them on proudly and worthily representing Quebec
in this top-level competition and would draw particular attention
to the work of the music director, David Labrecque.
* * *
FISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 3, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec
reached an agreement on the joint implementation of an early
retirement program for workers in Quebec affected by the
decreased activity in the Atlantic groundfish fishing industry.
We will recall that it is a joint program, with the Government
of Canada paying 70% of its cost, and the Government of Quebec,
30%.
1405
This type of program bears witness to our government's
commitment to working in partnership with the Government of
Quebec in an area as important as the quality of life of the
fishers affected by the decline of this industry.
We have here another example of the benefits of Canadian
federalism and its flexibility, especially when there is
co-operation.
* * *
PIERRE PETEL
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with sadness that we learned the passing of one
of the fathers of Radio-Canada, Pierre Petel, who died at the age
of 79, after a long illness.
Born in the Montreal neighbourhood of Hochelaga, Pierre Petel
studied at the school of furniture designing. He was a student
of Paul-Émile Borduas and a fellow of painter Jean-Paul Riopelle.
He was one of the first francophone filmmakers at the National
Film Board, where he worked from 1945 to 1950.
At the very beginning of national television, in September 1952,
Pierre Petel was the author and producer of Radio-Canada's first
teleplay, Le Seigneur de Brinqueville. Mr. Petel's death is
particularly sad since we are celebrating the NFB's 60th
anniversary this week.
I extend my most sincere condolences to the relatives and
friends of this Radio-Canada giant, and I say thank you Pierre
Petel for your lifelong work.
* * *
[English]
BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the winds of change are blowing strongly across Britain today.
For the first time in nearly 300 years, parliamentary elections
are being held in Scotland and Wales. These legislatures will
bring government closure to the people they serve. For centuries
the Scottish, Welsh and Irish have felt alienated by the decision
made in far off Westminster.
I commend Prime Minister Tony Blair for recognizing the need for
institutional and governmental reform and acting upon it. Blair
has recognized that the upper house must be accountable to the
electorate and that decisions on health, education and social
services are best made by local forms of government where the
voices of the electors are heard most clearly.
Congratulations to Scotland, Wales and Great Britain. There are
lessons for our Prime Minister to be learned from Mr. Blair. Our
Prime Minister says we do not need change because our system is
based on Britains. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, the times they are
a changin'.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as Reformers prepare to judge the united alternative
at the end of the month, they should look at its success rate for
broadening support.
In 1992 the Reform Party reported that it had 132,000 members.
Today it only has 65,000, half that number.
With that kind of negative growth, Reformers will not need to
vote themselves out of existence, they can just wait until their
support totally withers away and drops off.
One Reform MP was quoted as saying this about the united
alternative, “The sooner we can put this behind us, and defeat
this ridiculous notion and get on with our real business, we'll
be better off”.
I could not disagree more. The more time Reform spends on the
united alternative, the fewer Reformers there are. And the fewer
Reformers there are, the better Canada is.
* * *
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, May is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Sexual assault
is a uniquely gendered crime. Overwhelmingly it is women who
experience this violence. In Canada two out of three women have
been sexually assaulted, one every six minutes.
Sexual assault is a serious crime and must be stopped. It has
serious economic and political costs for women. The ability to
live our lives free from gender based violence, free to walk down
the streets is every women's right under the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Women cannot help but wonder that if two-thirds of corporate
executives or lawyers were victims of assault we would be
declaring a state of emergency. Instead we have the federal
violence prevention strategy that leaves action to other levels
of government or community groups with no commitment of
resources.
Women want the government to know that failing to take serious
action to prevent sexual assault amounts to tolerance of gender
inequality. Canadian women are tired of platitudes from this
government. They want action and they want it now.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report
released on Friday by the organization Doctors without Borders
on the situation in Kosovo implacably concluded, “It is a
planned process to extinguish a people. Albanians from Kosovo
are not only deported, but also systematically stripped of
documents establishing their identity, civil status and title to
property. By forcing them out of their homes, the Serbian forces
are clearly telling them that they are no longer from Kosovo,
never were and are never to come back”.
This timely report tells us that this is an action “whose
details, players and objectives are necessarily part of a
pre-established plan”.
The report adds that “more than half of the individual accounts
heard refer to murders committed under various conditions, thus
reflecting an extremely high level of violence”.
It is high time all the Milosevics of this world learn that they
cannot do what they want without triggering a reaction from the
international community.
* * *
[English]
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS MONTH
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May is
Multiple Sclerosis Month. Yesterday it was my pleasure to work
with members of the MS Society and members of the Speaker's staff
in pinning red carnations on our colleagues here in the House. It
was a wonderful sight.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, your staff and all of my colleagues
for their generous support of the MS Society. We raised a lot of
money that will be useful in doing research and extending help to
those who are afflicted by this disease of the central nervous
system.
Sunday is Mother's Day and the end of the annual carnation week
campaign. I encourage all Canadians to buy carnations this
weekend because so many women are affected by this illness. I
will be in the Burlington Mall helping a terrific team. It will
be a wonderful opportunity to make additional funds for the MS
Society.
* * *
[Translation]
HAUTE-YAMASKA
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, in an
increasingly global economy, our country's prosperity depends
largely on our ability to innovate and to be competitive.
As the magazine Québec Entreprise points out in its most recent
edition, the various economic stakeholders of one RCM in my
riding have taken this very much to heart. The Haute-Yamaska
region, whose main business centres are Granby, Bromont and
Waterloo, has shown that it has what it takes to compete with
the best.
A healthy economy, a strong and modern manufacturing industry,
and high-tech businesses all combine to make this region one of
the most dynamic in Quebec.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute
to all those who helped build my region and who, through their
know-how and leadership, are contributing to the economic growth
of Quebec and of Canada.
* * *
[English]
ALLERGY-ASTHMA AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the members of the House that the
month of May is Allergy-Asthma Awareness Month.
More than six million Canadians suffer from allergies and
asthma. In many cases, these conditions can be life-threatening.
Voluntary organizations, including the Allergy-Asthma
Information Association, help people gain control over their
symptoms and improve their quality of life. The Allergy-Asthma
Information Association provides educational services and support
to both affected individuals and their families.
In 1997 the association answered over 70,000 telephone inquiries
and requests for information from all regions of Canada.
Please join me in wishing the Allergy-Asthma Information
Association a successful awareness month.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
following is a poem sent to me recently from an overtaxed
Canadian:
Tax the farmer, tax his dad,
Tax whate'er he ever had;
If he's broke, it's just too bad,
Tax him hard, till he looks sad.
Go ahead and tax the man.
Tax his dog and hired hand;
Tax his cow. Tax her milk,
Tax his bed, tax his quilt;
Tax his pig, tax his pen,
Tax his flocks, tax his hen;
Tax his corn, tax his wheat,
Tax his wagon, tax its squeak;
Tax his wife, tax his boy,
Tax whatever gives him joy;
Tax the man who works for him,
'Fore his paycheque gets too thin.
Tax his buildings, tax his chattels,
Tax his truck and all its rattles;
Tax his stock and tax his cash;
Tax him double if he's rash;
Tax his light, tax his power,
Tax his payroll by the hour;
If he's making more than rent,
Add another five percent;
Tax whate'er he has to sell,
If he hollers—tax his yell.
For the finance minister.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all members of the House were encouraged today to learn
that the members of the G-8, including Russia, have agreed to a
seven point plan to bring peace to Yugoslavia. The plan is
reported to include the deployment of an armed international
peacekeeping force in which the Russians would participate.
I ask the Prime Minister what role is Canada expected to play in
the implementation of this plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for asking this
question.
I was talking earlier with the Minister of Foreign Affairs who
started to work on this compromise while he was in Moscow. I
would like to report to the House that he played a very important
role in the drafting of this resolution. Our role is not defined
as yet. We have to move hoping to have a resolution of the
security council on that so that the force can be deployed under
the authority of the United Nations.
I am very pleased to see that the Russians are part of this
agreement and that the G-7 ministers have agreed. It is a very
good sign of progress. I hope now that the isolation of
Milosevic will be so clear that he will realize he has to permit
the Kosovars to go home as soon as possible so that the bombing
can stop.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, nothing comes for free in this world and presumably the
Russians did not agree to participate in this G-8 plan without
asking for something in return from the G-8 members. For example,
it is well known that the Russians have been asking for $10
billion and more in assistance from the IMF and other economic
and trade assistance from the west to help a faltering economy.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what commitments the G-8 made to
Russia to secure its involvement and what those commitments will
cost?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I really do not know why the Leader of the Opposition is
throwing a canard like that. I think that the Russians want to
have peace in Yugoslavia, and they want to participate with the
G-8 to find a political and diplomatic solution to this conflict
that we all hope will stop soon.
I do not know of any quid pro quo for them to sign. They are
determined, like other countries of the G-8, to have a diplomatic
solution. And they did not ask a price for that. Their reward
will be the same as ours. It will be peace.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has already committed 800 Canadian troops to a
peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. Originally the plan was for
these troops to work with a British brigade as part of a NATO led
peacekeeping mission. Now they will presumably be deployed under
a UN mandate which will include both civic administration as well
as peacekeeping.
Are our Canadian troops properly prepared and equipped for any
changes in role which the implementation of this new plan may
include?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is yes.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada should do everything possible to make peace a reality in
Kosovo. That will inevitably mean committing a sizeable Canadian
military contingent to the region. I am concerned however that we
may not have the resources to extend any such commitment beyond
the current 800 soldiers who have just been deployed.
Is the defence minister considering the expansion of Canada's
current commitment beyond what we have already sent there?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has not been any request to that
effect but certainly if there is, then of course we would have a
very close look at it. There is nothing in the G-8 terms today
that would change the picture in terms of the 800 peacekeepers we
have sent over there. They can certainly play a very useful role
under the G-8 formula for a solution to this.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
our military planners talk of double tours of duty which reveal
just how strapped the Canadian forces are for personnel. Our
soldiers are already overtasked and they are overworked in
Bosnia.
Will the defence minister assure the House that any further
commitment to an international peacekeeping force in Kosovo will
not include troops who are currently serving in Bosnia?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to do that in the
immediate future. We do have a formula for people coming back
from peacekeeping duties to spend some time back here at home
before they can be deployed into another theatre.
Is the member talking about taking somebody directly from Bosnia
to Kosovo? No, we are not looking at that prospect at all.
1420
In fact, the number we came up with, 800, and the roles that we
are asking them to play in this peacekeeping are to bear in mind
the fact that we want them to come back home after a six month
period of time when they can be reunited with their families. We
have taken all of that into consideration. That is all part of
the quality of life that we want to improve for our Canadian
troops.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now
that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has admitted yesterday that
the Canadian embassy in Mexico never passed on Quebec's request,
contrary to what the Prime Minister claimed yesterday, will the
Prime Minister apologize to the House, to the Government of
Quebec, and to Mexico for the erroneous statements he made in
the House yesterday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Parti Quebecois is again trying to show that it has been
humiliated.
The President of Mexico will not be in Mexico City when Mr.
Bouchard is there. This is a rational enough explanation. I do
not know who informed the President of Mexico but, when I met
with him, he told me that he would not be there for Mr.
Bouchard's visit. It was he who raised the problem, not I.
Divine providence probably informed him, not the Canadian
government.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec was ready to change its dates, but that is not the
question. The question is whether or not the embassy passed on
the message.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that foreign heads
of state did not usually receive provincial premiers. That being
the case, how does he explain that Robert Bourassa met with two
British Prime Ministers and the German Chancellor?
David Peterson met with the prime ministers of Japan and Italy
and the Premier of China. Quebec minister John Ciaccia was
received by President Carlos Salinas in Mexico in 1993 and, two
weeks ago, Brian Tobin was received by President—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we had a well established protocol for this.
Since I have been Prime Minister, there have been numerous
examples of Quebec's Department of International Affairs not
allowing the Canadian embassy to be represented during visits by
presidents of other countries to Quebec, despite the existing
protocol. If they want a protocol, they should start respecting
it.
I apologize to President Zedillo, for he must now be having to
read telegrams about the humiliation he has inflicted on dear
Mr. Bouchard.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1974, Robert
Bourassa met with the King of Sweden. In 1975, Mr. Bourassa
visited the Shah of Iran. In 1989, Mr. Bourassa was received by
the German Chancellor. In 1992, Mr. Bourassa met with the
British Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister not putting an unacceptable spin on
international relations by refusing to facilitate a meeting
between the Premier of Quebec and the President of Mexico?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the president is not even there. So they are being humiliated.
As we know, the PQ plan is to systematically go looking for
humiliations in order to try to win a referendum they never will
win if they have the gumption to ask a clear question to the
population of Quebec.
So why bother—emmerder—foreigners with our problems, instead of
keeping them here—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Is that parliamentary language?
The Speaker: Order, please. I would again ask hon. members, and
the Right Hon. Prime Minister as well, to be very judicious in
their choice of language.
1425
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again the
Prime Minister is giving a demonstration of his legendary
nastiness toward Quebec.
Yet the federalist top guns never stop telling us that Canada is
a flexible and decentralized federation, one in which Quebec is
supposedly a society with a unique character.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by deciding what the
Premier of Quebec can and must do, he is revealing how he sees
Quebec: as a province like all the others, subordinated to their
lords and masters in Ottawa.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
might quote Jean Lapierre, a former Bloc member.
An hon. member: A former Liberal minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Paul Arcand spoke of a winning
condition. Lapierre's reply was:“There you are. The Canadian
Constitution is very clear on federal jurisdiction over
international trade and foreign affairs. There is no doubt
about that. Yet any time you want to go beyond your
jurisdiction, you know that Ottawa will say no. Such a clever
strategy”.
So there we have it. They provoke incidents. They go on and on
about interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction, while
they are trampling roughshod over federal areas of jurisdiction
all the time.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The auditor general does not report to the Prime Minister for
good reason. He reports directly to parliament, as do the chief
electoral officer, the official languages commissioner, the
privacy commissioner and the information commissioner. In some
provinces reports on ethics are fully disclosed, but not in this
government. It prefers to operate—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. My colleagues, I would ask you please
to lower your voices.
The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, you may begin your
question again, if you like.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the auditor general
does not report to the Prime Minister for good reason. He
reports directly to parliament, as do the chief electoral
officer, the official languages commissioner, the privacy
commissioner, and the information commissioner. In some
provinces reports on ethics are fully disclosed, but not in this
government. It prefers to operate behind closed doors.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to allow the ethics
commissioner to report directly to parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in exactly 62 minutes he will be in front of a committee
replying to questions of members of parliament. It is not in
hiding. It is in the open. He explains how he manages the files
and members can ask him questions. But there is too, for every
member of parliament in their private affairs, an element that
when they have blind trust, that means that trust has to be
blind. He will reply to questions. I have written a letter and I
have replied to all the questions in the House. You can ask Mr.
Wilson questions this afternoon.
The Speaker: Please direct your answers and your
questions to the chair.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, sure we
can ask questions without the benefit of a report to parliament
to base those questions on.
In 1994 this government promised to develop a code of conduct
for MPs and senators. That was over five years ago and what do
we have? Nothing. Telling proof that ethical conduct is not a
priority for this government.
The member for Halifax West has done his homework and tabled a
code of conduct. Has the Prime Minister reviewed that code of
conduct and will he support it?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across will know
that the code of conduct for members of parliament that she is
proposing is for people in their jobs as members of parliament.
1430
The member will also know, if she has surveyed her own
colleagues, that very few members of the House would want what
she says; that is to say, the disclosure of assets and everything
else of her own backbenchers. Perhaps she should check it out.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, on the
subject of the millennium scholarships, two months ago I put a
question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. He said
he was prepared to appoint a negotiator, if such were requested.
In the past two months, two agreements have been signed—with
Alberta and Ontario.
This morning the minister of education sent a letter to the
Minister of Human Resources Development. We learned today that
the minister will announce the appointment of a negotiator,
finally, after two months.
The minister is like the tulips on the Hill. He opens up,
finally, and sees the light. Why did he wait two months to
appoint a negotiator?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two months ago in the House, I
proposed a facilitator, and Quebec refused.
The foundation has concluded two agreements, with Ontario and
Alberta, two agreements that were extremely well received in
Quebec.
I am very pleased to see that the students, the educational
community, the public in general and the political milieu
recognize the flexibility of the Canadian legislation, and we
will make sure that the best interests of students in Quebec
remain a priority—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister took over two months, two tulip festivals, before
appointing a negotiator. That makes no sense.
Can the minister, who today is appointing a negotiator, tell the
House what his mandate will be in meeting the Quebec negotiator,
when the negotiator will report to the minister and when the
minister will report to the House? It is time to stop beating
about the bush. Tulip time has arrived, and we need a solution.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning, I appointed
Robert Bourgeois, assistant deputy minister with the Department of
Justice, as the facilitator in the matter of the millennium
scholarships.
This matter has moved along considerably in the past two months
and reached the point where now the Government of Quebec has
agreed to return to the Gautrin motion, the three principles of
which are provided for in the agreements signed with Ontario and
Alberta.
The mandate of the facilitator, Mr. Bourgeois, will fall within
the legislation that parliament passed last year.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
The minister has a responsibility to disclose his views on the
Nisga'a treaty, yet he sat here during three days of questions
and did not answer any of them.
This treaty creates a new Nisga'a state in the heart of British
Columbia. The Nisga'a government will have absolute power in 14
constitutional areas and the Nisga'a can grant civil rights based
on ethnicity.
This same minister has refused to grant Quebec these same
powers, and rightly so. Why has he caved in on the Nisga'a
treaty?
The Speaker: I remind members that the question is posed
to the government and any minister or anyone on this side can
answer.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has every right to question the
treaty with the Nisga'a.
What is not legitimate is that it has tried to analyse what we
mean by the spirit of our country, comparing what would be
seceding with an agreement on what is within the Canadian
constitutional framework.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not talking secession here; we are talking
sovereignty association, a sovereign state.
I asked the minister about creating a state within a state in
the province of British Columbia. I am sure that he wants to
respond again.
He says that Quebec cannot take over the federal government's
powers, and we agree. He says that Quebec is not a nation state,
but he obviously thinks the Nisga'a nation is. Why the double
standard?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we need to do some educating
for the sake of the other side.
The questions they are asking get to the heart of the issue
of the inherent right to self-government. We are not talking
about ethnicity; we are talking about indigenous people to
Canada, people who lived here before my ancestors came and before
many of theirs.
1435
The understanding is that indigenous people, first nations, were
governing themselves before we arrived and, as one of the rights
protected in our Constitution, aboriginal rights, the inherent
right to self-government is such.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, no doubt the
business people accompanying the Quebec Premier on his economic
mission to Mexico will appreciate the fact that not only did the
Canadian embassy not help them one bit, but also that the Prime
Minister thinks they are troublemakers, emmerdeurs. They are
going to bother—emmerder—people in Mexico because they want to
discuss economic development for Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister feel that the visit, 15 days ago, by his
Newfoundland friend Brian Tobin to the Prime Minister of Ireland
was also a trip made to bother people, a trip of emmerdements?
The Speaker: I would prefer that we did not use words like
“emmerdant”.
An hon. member: The example comes from the Prime Minister.
The Speaker: Order. This goes for both sides of the House.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us not get all worked up. It is not even me, it is Jean
Lapierre again who said—
Paul Arcand asked him “Then, why are the Péquistes upset?” And
Lapierre replied “Because it is a nice way to be told no and, I
am telling you, and I am telling people, do not fall for this
trick”.
For example, when Mr. Bouchard went to Washington, did he not
ask to meet with President Clinton?
We are helping the Government of Quebec. They will meet with all
the economic ministers they want to. The only thing they want is
to be told no and feel a little more humiliated.
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
appreciate it if the Prime Minister would explain his logic. Why
is it possible, normal and fine for former premiers of Quebec,
Ontario and Newfoundland to meet prime ministers and heads of
state, but a big deal—ces emmerdements—when it is the Premier of
Quebec?
We cannot accept that.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is very, very, very complicated. Mr. Zedillo is not in Mexico
City. Therefore, it is the federal government's fault.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Nisga'a treaty creates a separate race-based nation in the heart
of British Columbia. The treaty gives that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please, on both sides of the House.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty creates
a separate race-based nation in the heart of British Columbia.
It also hands over the control of 14 constitutional areas from
this parliament to the Nisga'a people.
When the Nisga'a agreement was brought to the British Columbia
legislature for debate the B.C. Liberal Party opposed it, saying
it was a backdoor amendment to the Constitution of Canada and it
should be disallowed for that reason alone.
Why does the constitutional affairs minister agree that this is
the proper way to amend Canada's Constitution?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to try
to explain to a party that refuses to understand treaties and
treaty making in Canada why its answers are so incorrect.
Let me share this with the House. It comes from the Canadian
Human Rights Commission.
Concerns have been raised that the new Nisga'a system of
government will be “racist” and “undemocratic” because only
Nisga'a may vote for representatives to the central and village
governments. In the Commission's view, these accusations are
based on a misunderstanding. The Nisga'a people governed their
own affairs within their territory long before European contact
and have never renounced that right. This inherent—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me try this another way.
The intergovernmental affairs minister calls himself the keeper
of the Constitution, but it is obvious by his silence that he is
going to go along and of course he is going to vote for this
Nisga'a agreement when it comes in.
The question is this. Since the Nisga'a band has been granted,
in essence, a form of sovereignty association within the province
of British Columbia, why would the intergovernmental affairs
minister possibly vote for a change to the Constitution of that
magnitude? Why would he do it?
1440
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, is it possible to stop this kind of demagoguery and
to stop portraying a change within the constitutional framework
to mean the splitting up of Canada, the end of our country? Is
that possible?
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
the Prime Minister is trying to change his story.
He is saying that it is because the president was not there.
But Quebec was prepared to change its date. The real reason is
that Ottawa refused—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We want to listen to the question.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Yesterday, what he said was that a premier
did not meet with a head of government.
I would like to know why the Canadian embassy in Ireland
organized a meeting for Premier Tobin two weeks ago. Why did it
then refuse to do the same thing for Premier Bouchard?
The Prime Minister went on at great length about how this was
not done, that it was contrary to Canadian protocol. Can he
tell us how it is that this protocol has changed in two weeks?
An hon. member: There are two stories.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this involves a trade mission to Mexico. We are being accused
of not informing President Zedillo. He himself informed me that
Mr. Bouchard was going to visit Mexico.
He told me that he was not going to be there that day, and he
was not. They are trying to turn it into a huge scandal. But
these are the same people who are always talking about respect
for jurisdictions.
They are clearly interfering in an area of federal jurisdiction—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: —and then saying it is our fault that
the President—
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
Brian Tobin met with foreign heads of state, that would not be
interfering in federal jurisdiction, that would be fine.
But when it comes to the President of Mexico meeting with the
Premier of Quebec, it is out of the question. Is it not true
that what the Prime Minister really wants is for all Quebecers
to be just like him, good French Canadians kowtowing to the
federal government?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Shame.
The Speaker: Order, please.
An hon. member: Kowtowing like Stéphane Dion.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. That is enough.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am extremely proud to be a French Canadian.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I am very proud to be the Prime
Minister of this country, a country of tolerance and generosity.
The pettiness of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is very clear;
I have spent 36 years defending francophones both in and outside
Quebec so that they can remain French, and continue to be proud
to be part of Canada, the best country in the world.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: He sold out.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1445
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for
Bourassa and other members to lower their voices. The hon.
member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first I want to inform the House that I am humiliated the Prime
Minister has not arranged a meeting with the Pope for me. I am
very disappointed in him.
According to the Conference Board of Canada, the low dollar has
been masking the underlying weakness in the Canadian economy. My
question is for the finance minister. The finance minister
cannot wish this problem away. The dollar is strengthening right
now. When will he cut taxes to save Canadian jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in his own mind I thought the member for Medicine Hat
was the Pope.
The conference board said that many factors affected our ability
to operate efficiently. These include organizational
effectiveness, the capacity of management, the skills of
employees, investment market, firm size and the policy framework
set out by governments. What the conference board has done is to
confirm exactly the policy of the government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
invite the minister to kiss the Pope's ring.
If the government does not want to believe the conference board,
maybe it will believe the KPMG study that the government
trumpeted just a month ago. In that study the government was
arguing, by virtue of that study, that as the dollar strengthened
more Canadians would lose their jobs. We would lose our
competitive advantage.
Why will he not cut taxes so that Canadian business does not
have to compete with one arm tied behind its back?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell the full monty that the fact is, as
the hon. member knows, that we have cut taxes. It has been
spelled out very clearly here with $16.5 billion over the next 36
months. We began cutting taxes faster than any other government
after the elimination of the deficit.
The country is on the right track and we will continue to do
that. At the same time we will invest in education. We will
invest in health care. We will invest in future generations of
the country.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
learned today that the ministers of foreign affairs of the G-8
countries meeting in Bonn have reached an agreement on the
Kosovo question, an agreement described by the Canadian Minister
of Foreign Affairs a little earlier today as still having a few
sticking points.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is not one of the major
sticking points the nature and scope of the participation of the
NATO member countries and of the force deployed in Kosovo, but
also and above all—-
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ministers of the G-8 countries have made considerable
progress. In my opinion, having an agreement that includes the
Russians is an extremely positive thing. There are details on
the nature of the operation and on how it could be organized.
It is, however, obvious that there must be NATO troops over
there, because there is not just the Serbian side. There is
also the matter of disarming the Kosovars who are involved in
violence. That is why the belligerents need to be kept
completely separated in order to allow the people of Kosovo to
return to their homes in safety.
* * *
1450
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
As our elderly population increases and health care moves from
the hospital to the home, could the minister tell the House if
Canada has given any kind of consideration to providing some form
of compassionate or eternity leave which would allow employees to
take care of terminally ill relatives without fear of losing
their jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
asking this very important question, one that is important to
those Canadians who find themselves in such trying circumstances.
There are two main questions to examine around this issue. Is
it about protecting peoples' jobs while they are on leave or is
it about providing temporary income support? Is compassionate
leave the best way to help? I have asked my officials to look
into the matter.
* * *
VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question about protecting public safety. There is more
bungling by the solicitor general. Two convicted serious
criminals walked away from Elbow Lake Camp in my riding two weeks
ago. The only reason we know about it is that they are now prime
suspects in a double murder case.
If public safety is the government's number one priority, why
does it take a double murder before my constituents are even
informed about this walkaway?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the tone of the question suggests
rumours or perceptions that are totally inaccurate.
This is a case of considerable concern. Correctional Services
Canada has carried out an investigation. The RCMP is carrying
out an investigation. They are working together in order to
pick these people up, and until such time, I believe that the
hon. member across the way should comply with the principle that
a matter under investigation is not to be commented on in the
House.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not rumour that two convicted criminals walked
away from a camp in my riding. That is a fact. It is not rumour
that they are now the prime suspects in a double murder.
Why is it that the government says that safety is its number one
priority when people only find out about these things when those
individuals commit a double murder?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada claims
that safety is the number one concern because it is.
Outside of that, the matter is under investigation. I am not in
a position to comment any further.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The CPP
investment board has purchased shares in Imasco which owns
Imperial cigarettes. The minister says that he does not want to
interfere with the investment policy of the CPP investment board.
Why does the minister not use the power under the act to issue
guidelines that would make ethical screening mandatory? Why is
it so difficult to say no to smoking, no to polluting and no to
child labour? He has the authority. Why does he not do it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we were to make any changes it would require an
agreement between the federal government and the provinces, in
fact a majority of the provinces, because the Canada pension plan
is under joint federal-provincial stewardship.
In terms of the basic issue the member is raising, the Minister
of Health has already answered it. In fact the government has an
extensive program to discourage young people from smoking. It is
one that the government fully supports.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, would the minister show some leadership and inquire of
the provinces whether or not they would support some ethical
screening for the CPP investment fund?
I have a list of several public pension plans in the United
States which ban investments in tobacco and cigarette industries,
including the New York state teachers retirement fund and the
Florida state pension fund
If they can make these ethical investments, why does the
minister not take the lead, consult with the provinces and make
sure we do the same thing in this country and ban investment in
cigarette and tobacco companies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly prepared to raise any reasonable issue
with my colleagues. As the member knows, two of the provinces
are headed by governments of his party. One thing I would say is
that there is a regular time for review and there will be regular
meetings. All these issues can be dealt with.
It is important to understand that what the fund is now doing is
not investing in individual stocks. It is investing in the
index.
* * *
1455
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP desperately needs proper funding to fight
organized crime and sex offenders. This requires greater
staffing at forensic laboratories and the inclusion of a DNA
databank in the CPIC. This databank addition will cost up to $38
million in the first five years. Our police forces need this
technology, yet the government refuses to commit sufficient money
to accomplish the necessary upgrades.
Given the public interest and the necessity to provide the RCMP
with the proper tools and technology it needs, why will the
minister not commit to the proper funding of the CPIC and the DNA
databank?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely remarkable
that such a question should be asked when, barely one week ago,
the Solicitor General of Canada announced $115 million over the
next three years, specifically to develop the system.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that we would get such a lame
answer from the parliamentary secretary.
As the B.C. attorney general and others plead with the solicitor
general and the RCMP for financial aid, the government proudly
states that it has allotted $115 million. Yet, according to
internal RCMP documents, the CPIC needs over $283 million to be
effective. Apparently the staff shortages in the RCMP show that
even this is insufficient, given these meagre tolls.
Why is the minister standing idly by while the government
destroys our national police force through these harsh budget
cuts?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations relating to what
is needed to get the system operating are totally unfounded. We
must remember, first of all, that $115 million has been
allocated to the CPIC.
We must also remember that the budget, the forecast, for the
RCMP has been increased by approximately $37 million.
We are starting to tire of these unfounded allegations. Let
them base their questions on facts and we will answer those
facts.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could the minister update the House on the status of the Lubicon
land claim in Alberta?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the claim of the Lubicon
Cree of northern Alberta is a priority for me as minister of
Indian affairs.
I recognize that I have received countless letters from
Canadians encouraging this resolution and thank so many members
of parliament who have written to me in this regard as well.
I can tell the House that there is an active table of
negotiations under way as we speak between Canada and the first
nation. The province is there. There is good momentum and I am
hopeful that we will be able to resolve this long outstanding
claim in a very positive fashion.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the justice minister told the standing committee that Leonard
Peltier was extradited to the United States for the murder of two
FBI agents on evidence other than the fraudulent affidavit
provided by Myrtle Poor Bear.
Will the minister tell the House what other evidence the justice
department relied upon in the extradition of Mr. Peltier to the
United States?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot today tell the House
the nature of that additional evidence.
However I will inform the House, as I informed members of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights yesterday, that I
will be releasing my predecessor's review of the Peltier
extradition.
The contents of that entire review will be released by me within
coming weeks. At that time everybody will be able to see the
basis on which Mr. Peltier was extradited from Canada.
The Speaker: I received notification from the hon. member
I am about to recognize that she will be signing part of her
question today.
* * *
[Translation]
CAPTIONED PROGRAMS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in sign language as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, the French speaking people who are deaf and hard of
hearing in Quebec and Canada do not have access to as many
captioned programs as their English speaking counterparts. The
main reason for this according to broadcasters is a lack of
financial resources.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Does the
minister agree that the captioning of programs must be
considered a public service and will she therefore undertake to
establish a program of support for French language captioning?
1500
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I
congratulate the member on her first question as heritage
critic.
Everyone looks forward to the return in the very near future of
the member for Rimouski—Mitis, and she is in our thoughts.
I would just say that I strongly support captioning
in French, English and a number of other languages to make television
accessible. I will follow up on the member's request with the
CRTC.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in 1953 the Primrose bombing range that straddles both Alberta
and Saskatchewan was established.
This huge tract of land that was reserved for the DND displaced
the aboriginal people from their basic hunting and fishing
rights.
The promised economic opportunities have not been beneficial for
the people of northwestern Saskatchewan. The issues for the
Metis elders and their communities, which have been directly
affected by this loss, have not been resolved.
Will the minister responsible for Canada's Metis commit today to
expedite a meeting with the Primrose negotiating committee to
resolve these injustices?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already had an opportunity to meet with the
Primrose Lake air weapons range committee. I have also
corresponded with the president of the committee, Mr. Durocher,
and the president of the Metis nation of Saskatchewan, Mr.
Chartier, to indicate my keen interest in working out a solution
to this matter.
I am indeed very interested in working with the Metis people and
the Government of Saskatchewan to identify appropriate economic
development and other opportunities for Metis communities in the
northwestern part of Saskatchewan.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, for weeks
Canadians have been reading reports about Canada and the U.S.
nearing a compromise agreement on Bill C-55.
Not only are Canadians kept in the dark as to what is being
sacrificed to appease the Americans, we are not even sure whether
negotiations are ongoing, as stated by the Minister for
International Trade, or whether they are stalled, as was
suggested by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House what we are
supposed to believe? Will she tell us exactly what has been put
on the negotiating table?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that we have had some very
positive exchanges with our American counterparts. I think they
understand that Canadian content is our main preoccupation.
We believe the table has been set for the Americans to make a
proposal, if they wish to do so, which would address the question
of majority Canadian content. Having the table set does not mean
our guests will bring the wine. Unless it is wine from a
majority Canadian vineyard, they should take a rain check on
dinner.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am curious about the legislative calendar for the remainder of
this week and next week and whether the government will have time
to squeeze in the Nisga'a legislation since the calendar looks so
weak.
Therefore, I would ask the government House leader and former
member of the elusive Butterflies what is the calendar.
1505
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that what
the hon. member said was parliamentary. It is the name of a rock
group.
First, with respect to the Nisga'a treaty, I gather from his
comments that he wants the bill to be adopted rapidly and we will
do what we can to accommodate that request.
Today we will continue with the third reading stage of Bill
C-71, the budget bill.
Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-66, the housing bill, at third
reading. I do not intend to call other legislation tomorrow if
the House completes that bill.
On Monday it is our intention to take up the report stage and,
as soon as possible thereafter, the third reading stage of Bill
C-72, the bill to amend the Income Tax Act.
On Tuesday it is our intention to take up Bill C-78, the pension
legislation, assuming of course that it has been reported on
time, and I think it is scheduled to be reported tomorrow.
On Wednesday we intend to commence the report stage of Bill
C-32, which concerns the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
On Thursday we will return to Bill C-78.
The back-up bills for this week, if we were to finish items very
early, would be Bill C-68, the youth justice bill, and Bill C-56.
The back-up bill for the end of next week, should our business
finish early, would be Bill C-54, concerning electronic commerce,
privacy and other matters.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must raise a point of order with
regard to the language used in this House. A few minutes ago, I
informed the Bloc Quebecois whip accordingly, because it
concerns words that were used by his leader and others.
I realize that we may not be able to deal with this issue
immediately, but I want to raise it nonetheless.
I wish to submit to you that two expressions were used earlier
which are not appropriate in this House.
First, you will understand that it is unacceptable to refer to a
parliamentarian as a “Canadien français de service”, a token
French Canadian. I simply want to point this out without fanfare
because I am a French Canadian myself and I am sure, Mr.
Speaker, that you will understand what I mean.
The second expression refers to something that is clearly
mentioned in Beauchesne's list of unparliamentary expressions.
It was used during oral question period. The term collabo, or
collaborationist, was used in reference to the Prime Minister. A
collabo was a sympathizer of the Nazi regime in France, during
World War II.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, under Beauchesne's rules, which were
established by your predecessors, citation 489 provides that the
word Nazi is unacceptable. That ruling was made on February
22, 1962.
One of your predecessors also ruled, on June 25, 1964, that
Canadian Mussolini, which refers to another form of nazism, is
also unacceptable in reference to a parliamentarian.
We just heard a third expression relating to nazism or to Nazi
sympathizers in reference to a parliamentarian. I submit
that it is no more acceptable in this House than the other two
expressions that were deemed unparliamentary many years ago.
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader did not name any
member in particular. He heard these words. He knows where they
came from. I would ask him who used them, and perhaps to think
about it.
I see the Bloc Quebecois whip is here now and wants to add
something regarding this point of order.
1510
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will wait for the government House leader to identify who said
what, but in the meantime I would ask him to note that the
member for Bourassa referred to members of the Bloc Quebecois as
collabos de Parizeau.
The Speaker: The member for Bourassa is said to have used the
word collabos. I did not hear it, but the member for Bourassa
is here and can answer if he wants.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid
to call a spade a spade. If the member says he heard things, he
must have heard them, but if he wants us to identify every
member who called somebody names as the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and most members who are here did, we can do
it. But we should not start playing that kind of game, we could
be here a long time.
The Speaker: Today, during Oral Question Period there was
what I would call a lot of noise. Words such as emmerdant and
emmerdé fused from both sides of the House. I believe we can use
other words than those in the House of Commons, surely. Once it
starts on one side, the other one follows. I would ask all
members to be very judicious in their choice of words.
If indeed such words were used—I asked the hon. leader of the
Government in the House to identify who did, but he did not name
any member in particular—I would ask all members to please
refrain from using them in the House of Commons from now on.
Sometimes, even, members get very loud.
[English]
When we are in question period I would appeal to members not to
use terms which just inflame us.
I did not hear the words. Members were not named. We will let
it sit there. However, we come here every day for question
period and it is up to us to conduct ourselves in such a way that
these words are not even thought of being used. I would
encourage members to do that.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House. I will start my
debate with a sentence that mentions Reform. I am sure my
colleagues on the other side will listen.
We in the Reform Party have been after the government since 1993
to develop some foresight, identify some of the inevitable
changes to agriculture and develop a plan to prepare our industry
to meet these challenges head on and safeguard our farmers.
Instead we got foot-dragging and inaction.
We pushed the government on its 1993 red book promise to
decrease input costs and implement a whole farm income
stabilization program. However, like so many Liberal promises,
it was forgotten on election night.
This past fall the government even denied that an income crisis
existed in agriculture and pointed to the NISA program as a
suitable safety net for any disaster.
Farmers know that NISA is just not designed for the type of
crisis we experienced. By the time the Liberals acknowledged
their mistake, it not only cost farmers severely but we lost a
whole bunch of young farmers.
1515
The Liberals stalled in coming up with a program and when they
finally did come up with something, it was totally inadequate.
They went through the motions of listening to people in the
industry. Then they came up with something nobody asked for.
The AIDA program is poorly designed, costly to apply for and
will not target the producers who need the compensation the most.
What is more, when it was announced, the key details of the plan
were missing. The government had enough time to study the
problem and consult but it launched its program with no consensus
with the provinces or farmers on how to implement it. It did not
do its homework. It is widely recognized as a failure. It is
not bankable, it is not providing relief.
Many farmers in my riding are not even bothering to fill out the
application because it will not benefit them. The accountants
tell them the cost of completing the form is going to be more
than they will obtain from the AIDA program. That is how much
Liberals care about westerners.
Look at the comparison when foreign governments were overfishing
in Canadian waters. The Liberal minister at that time chased
those foreign boats across the high seas and even fired a few
guns. But when foreign governments attack our Canadian farmers
with tens of billions of dollars in unfair subsidies, we get
inaction and useless rhetoric.
Recently the Liberals struck a committee to travel in the west
to try to understand why westerners will not vote for them. They
do not understand that the answer lies in their own record.
This lack of foresight is so evident in our trade negotiations.
One of the reasons for the agriculture income crisis is that the
Liberal government dropped the ball in the last round of
international trade negotiations.
Our negotiators agreed to a 15% reduction in subsidies to
farmers, which is what everyone else was supposed to follow, but
we reduced our subsidies by 85%. While the U.S. maintained 24% of
its subsidies in a green box program, Canada only maintained 8%.
Today European subsidies are providing farmers with an average of
$175 an acre to grow a crop plus a $2 per bushel export subsidy
in the event of a surplus. We created an unlevel playing field
that is financially breaking every farmer in western Canada.
This is just a lack of anticipation and planning and this
Liberal government has to take responsibility for it. That is
why farmers will not vote Liberal. Farmers have no money left to
tax. I heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat so appropriately
recite that poem about taxation and it fits perfectly the bill of
the western farmer.
On the whole, the government's high tax policy has undermined
the productivity of the Canadian economy which in turn has
reduced our standard of living. We have seen devastating results
from the wrong-headed policies of this Liberal government and the
Tories before it.
In 1970 Canada ranked number four in the world in terms of per
capita income. In 1995 after 25 years of overtaxation and
overspending our per capita income global rating fell to 12.
Next year the average Canadian family will be paying $5,000 more
in taxes than they were in 1993, and they were already overtaxed
then.
Our finance critic has pointed out that our standard of living
has fallen behind those of the poorest states in the U.S., such
as Alabama and Mississippi. The downward spiral seems to be
well established and there is an urgent need for a policy that
will regain our standard of living and the stability of our
economy.
1520
Unfortunately the current government seems unwilling or unable
to meet this challenge. The bill we are speaking to today is a
prime example of how the government continues to overspend and
still not reduce taxes.
I have heard a lot of complaints today about taxation and
overspending. A lot of blame has been pointed in different
directions, at provincial governments and federal governments.
We are getting to the point where we will finally have to blame
Christopher Columbus for all the problems. The impression is that
he was a Liberal. Why was Christopher Columbus accused of being
a Liberal? When he started off from Spain, he did not know where
he was going; when he got to North America, he did not know where
he was and he did it on borrowed money.
Maybe that is where the fault lies because we do not seem to
understand in this House that it lies with previous federal
governments.
I remind taxpayers that an election is coming. Reform is on the
move. No matter what the opposition says, we will be there in
the next government and we will fix things properly.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is with a sense of duty that I rise in this House today to
speak to Bill C-71. I am not doing it with pleasure because the
measures contained in the budget being implemented through this
bill are not very positive, particularly for Quebec, but I feel
it is my job and my duty, as parliamentarian, to express my
views on this issue.
Not much has changed since the tabling of the budget in this
House, since the budget debate in this House and since the
beginning of the debate on the bill before us today.
It makes us wonder if anyone in government is paying any
attention to the views expressed here by parliamentarians from
Canada and Quebec, which views reflect the concerns, fears and
expectations of the people.
For example, on the night the budget was tabled, I brought
together in my riding office a number of socio-economic
stakeholders from my riding to hear their preliminary reactions.
Then, not wanting to limit this exercise to preliminary
reactions, I invited these people to share with me, in writing,
their concerns, their expectations and what caught their
attention in the federal budget.
I take this opportunity to thank the socio-economic stakeholders
who went to the trouble of spending a few hours in my riding
office to listen to the budget speech and share their views with
me on the impact of the budget's content. I also wish to thank
socio-economic stakeholders who later went to the trouble of
sending us their comments and suggestions on the budget.
If I may, I would like to list the following people:
representatives of the Voluntary Self-Help Centre of
Saint-Amable; representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry of Varennes and of L'Envolée, the
Voluntary Action Centre of Sainte-Julie, among others.
This being said, I would like to express some concerns I have
been told of. After that, I will make my own personal comments,
which are mostly based not only on my personal perception and my
own analysis of the federal budget and on my political
expertise, but also on the analysis done by my fellow citizens
which have expressed their own views, namely through
socioeconomic stakeholders who took part in the consultations in
my riding.
1525
We noted, among other things, the lack of measures and funds to
support the community. We are well aware that the budget cuts
made by the Liberal government since its election in 1993 have
had a severe impact on provincial budgets, since there have been
cuts to transfers for health, social programs and post-secondary
education.
Consequently, provinces were also forced to make cuts.
Finally, a part of the social mission of the Canadian state and
the Quebec state has been passed on to community organizations
in our respective communities, without giving them, as a
counterpart, any financial or material or human resources that
would have allowed them to cope with the increased workload
governments forced on them because of federal cuts to provincial
transfers.
Some concerns have also been expressed regarding the increase in
the estimates for national defence.
Some would argue that the living conditions of our military
personnel made it necessary to index the estimates, to increase
them substantially. It is amazing to see the government coming
back after years of drastic cuts, particularly in the defence
budget, and saying “our military personnel have atrocious living
conditions and something has to be done to improve their
standard of living”.
If the national defence budget had not been cut so drastically,
perhaps the government would not have had to increase it again a
few years later. There seems to be some inconsistency in what
the government says.
I shall now make a few comments, if I may, on the measures
announced in the budget for transfers to the provinces. As far
as health care is concerned, I would like to read part of an
article which speaks for itself. This article, written by Manon
Cornellier, was published in Le Devoir Saturday, March 4, 1995.
I quote:
“Ottawa is not planning on spreading the social program money
based only on the demographic weight of each province” said
Minister Marcel Massé during an interview. “It would be the
worst possible situation for Quebec, so much so that it makes
absolutely no sense to me that this could be the solution” said
the minister.
There is also another interesting article that appeared as well
on March 4, 1995, this time in La Presse. It was written by
Philippe Dubuisson. I quote:
A new formula is supposed to be established for the distribution
of federal funds between the provinces. The Minister of Finance,
Jean Campeau, said the worst case scenario would be the
distribution of social transfer payments on a per capita
basis...But the federal minister, Marcel Massé, clearly
indicated this formula would not be used, because it would
penalize poorer provinces, to the benefit of Ontario, Alberta
and British Columbia.
In view of these very clear and precise assurances given by the
minister, we would have believed the government would maintain
this position and would not have changed the formula to
calculate social transfers to the provinces.
And yet, without warning, the government decided, during the
months following this fine statement from the minister, to
change the formula in such a way as to adapt at least 50% of
provincial transfers on a per capita basis, to calculate them
according to population.
1530
This new formula was to be established over a period of 5 years.
Provincial governments, including of course Quebec, prepared
their budgets according to these announcements and to this
policy the federal government had put forward.
However, in the last budget, the Minister of Finance suddenly
announced he was unilaterally changing the formula.
The government has announced that, instead of 50%, all of the
social transfers will now be granted on an equal per capita
basis and that not only will the new formula be applied to 100%
of the transfers, but the transition will be made over three
years instead of five.
This is totally unacceptable to Quebec, especially since the
provinces that stand to benefit from the federal government's
generosity are the ones identified four years ago by the
President of the Treasury Board as the ones that would benefit
from this new formula, namely Ontario, Alberta and B.C.
I just want to point out that, under this new formula, the have
provinces of Canada will get the following amounts in addition
to the transfers they would have normally received. Ontario will
get close to a $1 billion increase in transfers, B.C. almost
$400 million, and Alberta some $300 million a year, while Quebec,
the second most populated province of Canada, will get a mere
$150 million increase in transfers.
This is totally unacceptable. We saw the consequences yesterday
in the budget brought down by the Government of Ontario.
It is obvious that all the benefits coming from the federal
government allowed the Ontario government to further reduce its
taxes, thereby widening the existing gap between the current
taxation levels in Quebec and Ontario. In turn, this will
accentuate the difference in the rate of economic development
between the two provinces.
In the best of cases, we could have understood the decision to
use the per capita formula for health and education. But how can
one explain the use of the same formula for welfare?
It seems to me that the transfer levels for welfare should have
been based on needs, not on the number of inhabitants in each
province.
The number of welfare recipients should have been taken into
account in the calculation of the transfer payments. But even in
this respect, the federal government chose to use the per capita
formula, putting Quebec at a great disadvantage because, as we
know, Quebec has a proportionately higher number of welfare
recipients than Ontario.
They would have us believe that a transfer payment of $1.4
billion, which is supposed to compensate for the current
shortfall due to the new calculation formula, is a good deal for
Quebec.
The comparison is biased. They are comparing apples and oranges.
First, richer provinces like Ontario, Alberta and BC, will
receive these additional amounts every year, while the $1.4
billion will not be a recurring payment. It will be paid only
once, this year.
1535
Moreover, it should be pointed out that this $1.4 billion is not
a gift. It is only an adjustment on amounts owed to Quebec in
the last few years. These amounts were owed to the Government of
Quebec anyway, but so far the government has not been able to
rely on this money to fulfil its obligations.
A few years later, the federal government pays up and says “This
is compensation for money given to the more affluent provinces”.
It is not compensation, it is money owed by the federal
government.
This shows, beyond any comparison, that Quebec is maintained in
a state of economic subordination within this federal system,
where economic development programs are, of course, far more
generous for provinces such as Ontario than they are for Quebec;
the federal government is generous with Quebec only when it
comes to social welfare.
Let us talk about the per capita question. If we were to apply
the same logic to structuring programs, to wealth-creating
programs, to economic development programs, to job-creating
programs, we would have a completely different picture.
Quebec, with almost 25% of Canada's population, receives only
15% to 17% of federal government research and development
spending, goods and services procurement, and capital assets.
Had Quebec received its fair share of productive spending, it
would probably not be receiving equalization payments, but
making them to the have-not provinces. Whence my earlier
conclusion that Quebec is obviously being kept in a state of
economic dependence within Canada.
I now wish to address the issue of health.
Among the blatant illusions held out by the Minister of
Finance's last budget, the one about health was certainly, to my
way of thinking, the biggest and the most insidious.
In fact, the public is hard hit by the major cuts to the health
care system resulting from the federal government's cuts to
provincial transfer payments. By the way, 80% of the cuts made
in Quebec's health care system by the Government of Quebec were
a direct result of cuts in provincial transfer payments by the
federal government.
The public is therefore only too delighted at the announcement,
or the illusion being held out, that more money is going to be
put into the health care system.
And this is where the problem lies, because the budget in fact
does not reinvest a cent in the health network. In fact, they
announced, nobody dreamt it, an additional $11.5 billion in
health transfers to the provinces over five years, including $2
billion in 1999-00 and $9 billion between now and 2004.
This increase in transfers the federal government is dangling
before the provinces is nothing more than a reduction in the
amount of the cuts planned. Instead of absorbing cuts of $42
billion between 1994 and 2003, the provinces will have only $33
billion drawn off. And they are expected to be grateful for
that.
What is more, this announcement of $2 billion for all of Canada
in 1999-00, is barely the amount Quebec alone is deprived of
annually and barely a third of the $6.3 billion the provinces
had sought annually from the federal government in order to
nullify the effects of its cuts. However, the government
remained deaf to these requests.
1540
It has chosen to accumulate huge surpluses, which it hides in
its budget activities, on the backs of the particularly
disadvantaged, the sick, the unemployed, the workers and the
provinces.
This is a lazy government that has made others carry its
responsibilities. Barely 11% of federal cuts were made in its
own operating programs and budgets. The rest were imposed on
transfers to the provinces and on employment insurance.
This budget, which the bill before us is to implement, is
discriminatory, unacceptable and unfair to the public, and we
must oppose it vigorously.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively and I
have again come to the same conclusion: Bloc members continually
pit one against the other and continue to pit Quebec against the
rest of Canada. That is their mission. Since that is why they
are here, what else can one expect?
The member also talked about how, when we moved to the equal per
capita formula, Ontario somehow benefited more than Quebec and
that B.C. and Alberta somehow benefited more than Quebec. I
point out to the hon. member that Quebec did in fact balance its
provincial budget when it received a $1.4 billion increase in
equalization payments.
I want to remind the hon. member that the province of Quebec
also benefited from an increase in equalization payments. The
province of Quebec receives 34% of transfers from the federal
government. It has, as the hon. member mentioned in his speech,
just under 25% of the population. One has some difficulty
understanding how a Bloc member can continue to stand up and say
that somehow the rest of Canada is being so unfair to the
province of Quebec.
He asked why we had moved to the equal per capita? Is the hon.
member actually saying that in the eyes of the federal
government—and there are a number of people sitting in the
gallery today—some Canadians are more equal than others
depending upon which province they live in?
We inherited a system which was a cap on cap. When we were able
to find the resources, we moved to an equal per capita so that
every Canadian, regardless of what province they lived in, would
receive an equal amount of money in transfers that go to the
provinces for health care services and education. I do not
understand how the hon. member can say that we are being unfair
to Quebec because we are moving to an equal per capita system for
all Canadians.
The member also talked about economic dependency. Has the hon.
member ever thought that perhaps the economic dependency that he
is talking about is really triggered by the consistent push by
the Bloc for separation? That underlying theme does have an
impact on Quebec's economic development each and every day.
I guess the bottom line is that they have nothing to add to the
debate so they will just pit the rest of Canada against Quebec
and say, “oh, my God, we are being unfair again”.
As a member of parliament, he should at least have the decency
to say that there are things the federal government offers to the
province of Quebec and to all Canadians, regardless of where they
live, that are of benefit. There is a reason to be part of this
great country and that is to ensure that we all move into the
next millennium in a way that we are able to prosper together.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker,
the parliamentary secretary might have benefited from listening
to my presentation, since it contained a number of the responses
he is seeking. I will, however, be pleased to remind him of a
number of things.
First of all, yes, of course, the Bloc Quebecois is a
sovereignist party, because we consider, and have numerous
occasions to demonstrate, that the federal regime penalizes and
disadvantages Quebec, and that Quebec would have a better chance
to develop if it were not part of the Canadian federation.
1545
In fact, Quebec and Canada would be in a far better position to
look to their own development, in partnership with each other,
if they agreed to acknowledge that they are indeed two distinct
countries, completely different one from the other.
Our mission in the meantime, however, also involves defending
the interests of Quebecers to the best of our ability. I cannot
therefore accept the argument put forth by the parliamentary
secretary that we are here for the sole purpose of denigrating
everything the federal government might do.
There is no doubt that the recent budget, which provides that
the transfer payments will now be calculated on a per capita
basis, is totally unacceptable and detrimental to Quebec.
It is not I nor the Bloc Quebecois saying that, it is the
President of the Treasury Board. I will quote him again, since
the parliamentary secretary did not listen. In 1995, the
President of the Treasury Board said “This would be the worst
possible situation for Quebec. It would be so bad that, in my
opinion, it does not make sense that this could be the
solution”. After all, it is not the sovereignists who decided
that. Yet, this is the solution chosen by the government.
Where were the Liberal ministers and members from Quebec when
this per capita formula for transfers to the provinces was
adopted at Quebec's expense? What did these people do? Why did
they remain silent, instead of protecting the interests of the
Quebecers who elected them?
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who
found the right words to describe an unfair situation.
I am convinced that our fellow Quebecers who listened to him
will share his views. Why is it that we, sovereignists, really
want to have our own country, while they do not want us to leave
this country? The government claims that it gives a lot and that
it is fair. As for us, we say that something is not working.
Even in the budget, one can see that the regions are not getting
anything. The government collects a lot of money from the
unemployed, but it does not give them back that money.
I have a question for my colleague.
What would he call a situation like this, where the poor are
getting poorer, where 1.5 million children do not have enough to
eat, and where the government keeps saying that everything is
just fine? What would the hon. member call such a situation?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Matapédia—Matane for his excellent question.
I would tend to call it blindness. They refuse to see reality as
it is, to acknowledge that this formula puts Quebec at a
disadvantage, so much so that Liberal members of Quebec have
voted for the budget and will probably vote for the bill we are
now debating. In doing so they will go against what the
President of the Treasury Board said four years ago about that
formula.
I heard the secretary parliamentary trot out the rhetoric that
the government has been spouting in recent months, saying, for
instance, that without the $1.4 billion, Quebec could not have
balanced its budget.
I wish to say at the outset that without the cuts the government
put in place two, three and even four years ago, the Quebec
government would have balanced its budget and eliminated its
deficit. The federal government, by its unfair reduction of
provincial transfers, delayed by four years fiscal balance in
Quebec. This was my first point.
Second, I believe I clearly explained earlier that the $1.4
billion is in no way a gift to Quebec. This money was owed to
Quebec according to the federal government's own calculations.
The federal government had not paid this amount and waited until
this year to do so. Therefore, that payment is in no way
exceptional. This was money Quebec was supposed to have in any
case to draw up its budget.
1550
Incidentally, I mention to the parliamentary secretary, for his
own personal information, that for this year the Government of
Quebec announced a surplus of $2.9 billion in its budget.
This means that even without the $1.4 billion in equalization
payments the Canadian government brags about giving Quebec,
which allegedly allowed it to balance its budget, the government
of Quebec would have reached a balanced budget om any case, in
spite of all the obstacles put in its way by the federal
government.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to make some remarks on Bill C-71, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget. Throughout the debate so far,
and this includes what I have heard in my riding, one clear theme
has emerged: if we want tax reform, vote Reform. That is the
first message.
I will take a few minutes to talk about the government's no
relief tax policies as shown in Bill C-71 and the effects they are
having on Canadians. I want
to talk about Canadians who live in the Prince Albert riding, not
Canadians in general.
We are having difficulty retaining our youth and our talent. I
recognize that they are not always the same, that talent is
talent at every age but youth is confined to youth. This
phenomenon affects our ability to engage in entrepreneurship and
takes away our young people with talent, older people who have
been trained in the university system, in the arts and
technologies, and our business people.
These people are leaving Canada. Patriotism and pride are not
enough to keep them. Patriotism and pride do not feed them or
their children. They do not pay the mortgage. They do not make
the car payments. They do not pay for fuel and they do not pay
the taxes. People are voting with their feet and with their
moving vans. That is what is happening in the country under
the Liberal government and its high tax policies.
A person may well ask who are the beneficiaries of the high
policy. It is the foreign recruiters and moving companies. Very
few other people, if any, are benefiting from high taxes aside
from possibly tax collectors.
I also want to talk about the negative effect high taxes are
having on the protection and maintenance of health care and
social services not only in Canada but in Saskatchewan in
particular. In that regard I have a letter that I wrote to my
constituents which has been copied by another hon. member of the
House. It shows the effect of high taxes on Canadians.
What are the Liberals calling this budget? They are calling it
the health reinvestment budget or the health budget, but as usual
their numbers do not add up. We can just take a look at what the
Liberal government's so-called reinvestment in health care
amounts to in this budget as evidenced in the details.
In 1993 when the Liberals took power the Canada health and
social transfer was $1,453 per taxpayer. When we take into
account the latest budget the amount will be $1,005. That is
quite a decrease, $448 to be exact or a 31% drop compared with
1993. In 1993 it was $18.8 billion in total. This restores it
to $14.5 billion, which is still $4.3 billion less than when the
Liberals came into power.
To put this into further context, we should not forget the six
years of bracket creep when people had inflationary raises. Also
inflation reduces the power of those who have not even managed to
get a so-called inflationary increase in their wages. We begin
to see the effects this is having on individual Canadians.
The Liberals will be putting back $11.5 billion over the next
five years. Big deal. They are taking three dollars from the
system for every dollar they put back in. The hon. member for
Macleod illustrated this very effectively with a blood bag and a
syringe to show how much less is in that blood bank after the
Liberal budget of this spring.
The government will raise the income threshold at which the
Canada child tax benefit begins to be phased out by $9,590 from
its current level of $25,921. When it was announced in the 1998
budget and implemented in July, replacing it with the working
implement supplement, the new Canada child tax benefit began
clawing back benefits at lower levels of income than the existing
system.
When it was announced in 1998 the clawback began when a family's
after tax income exceeded $25,921.
1555
What effects are Liberal high tax policies having on Canadians
with no tax relief in sight? Let me give one example that
happened to me recently. I had a request from a family who
wanted to see me in my office. In came a young father, his wife
and their little child. What did they say? The man was
completely mad; he was really upset. The wife was near tears
and the child was just plain cute and did not know what she was
growing up into.
They are both working trying to put their lives together and to
maintain a lifestyle that is suitable for a married family. It
turns out with two incomes they are unable to make ends meet.
They are looking at possibly losing their car. If he loses his
car, he loses his job.
What was he complaining about? He was not complaining about the
gross amount of his salary. He was complaining about high taxes,
high Canada pension plan premiums and high employment insurance
premiums.
The employment insurance surplus was $19.1 billion at the end of
1998. The public accounts indicate that the surplus is
considerably larger. We know there is nothing less than that in
the account. The premiums were reduced all the way from $2.70 per
$100 of insurable earnings to $2.55 per $100 of insurable
earnings. These are nickels and dimes. These people are going
under and they are crying out for relief from those kinds of
things.
The Canada pension plan contribution rate increased to 7% from
6.4% in January 1999, which is an annual increase of $1.4 billion
taken out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, whether they are
business owners and their businesses are having to pay their
portion or people who are actually on the frontline doing the
work. The Canada pension plan rate has increased every year
during the Liberal tenure. It started at 5% in 1993. By the end
of 2003 it will rise to 9.9%, which is a 98% increase.
Personal income tax increased through bracket creep. It was
never eliminated and it was not mitigated in this budget. We will
see another $900 million taken out of the pockets of Canadians
through bracket creep.
The tax pain is causing the brain drain. What good is it for
the government to promise good health care when the effect that
high taxes have over time is to actually diminish the tax base
required to support the health care and social services Canadians
desire?
I want to turn to how high taxes contribute to an overall
depleting effect on our tax base. It does this by driving away
our youth and our talent. That is a sad reality. John Roth,
chief executive officer at Nortel, stated just last week:
That results in a reduced tax base. Peter Foster in yesterday's
Financial Post wrote:
Does the Prime Minister not know this? Surely he must. Maybe
he just does not care. We wonder what his answer would be. He
seems to think that high taxes are part of the Canadian way of
life. If he really thinks that, he is living in a dream and it is
not the Canadian dream. The rest of them are living in a
nightmare.
The Prime Minister might think that high taxes are just part of
the Canadian way of life, but he knows they cannot keep
increasing. The tolerance threshold has been reached and
surpassed this year. The government continues to ignore the
actual effects of high taxes on society as we began to see in the
past few years. We are watching our youth and our talent go
elsewhere.
Those of us who travel back and forth to western Canada or other
parts of Canada talk to young people who have been recruited by
foreign firms. They are going to find out what improvements are
available to them in other tax regimes and they are not looking
back. They are not only going south. They are going in other
directions.
I want to paraphrase a letter that was written to my
constituents, and borrowed by another member. The so-called
brain drain phenomenon is created by high taxes and is a growing
cross-generational problem. Many Canadians think of the brain
drain primarily in terms of the younger generation who are
heading south to more favourable tax and employment conditions.
However, events taking place in northeast Saskatchewan this month
highlight a new reality. The brain drain is not limited to
youth. It is a serious problem that crosses generational
boundaries.
1600
Consider first the recent commentary from influential Canadian
entrepreneurs Paul Desmarais and Jim Pattison concerning the
insidious effects the high taxation policies of successive
Liberal governments, including the Mulroney Conservatives, are
starting to have on our country.
Montreal's Paul Desmarais calls Canadian taxes exorbitant and a
drain of potential income for Canada. “When the government is
too greedy”, he says, “people find other solutions”.
Jim Pattison, also a self-made billionaire from Vancouver, calls
high taxes the number one issue for every senior executive in the
country. Although he remains in Canada out of a sense of
loyalty, he says he does not blame those who leave in favour of
lower taxes and a stronger dollar.
One could argue that the opinions of wealthy businessmen are
irrelevant to the debate over taxation of the broad Canadian
population. However, it is not only boomer billionaires are who
are speaking out, people at all income levels are raising their
voices in protest, including those whom we assume are the meat
and potato beneficiaries of our current tax system, our
professionals.
This fact was reinforced to me as I prepared to sponsor a forum
on health care in my riding involving my colleague, the member
for Macleod, who is the Reform Party's health critic.
In the course of conversations with physicians, other health
care professionals and concerned constituents, I was surprised at
the interest shown in discussing, not health care, but the havoc
the Liberal government tax policy is wreaking on our society.
In a letter and subsequent telephone conversation, one doctor,
whose name is being withheld at his request, was invited to
discuss health care. He said:
As a physician working in this country for 24 years, I now
discover that I have no alternative but to leave this
country...over the past five years I have seen friends and
colleagues leave this country in disgust due to the brutal levels
of personal income taxes...I now pay 54% in taxes and
contributions to government...and could not afford to ever retire
if I remain in this country...it is obvious that the governments
of the day have no interest in meaningfully reducing personal
income taxes.
He went on to say that he and at least two of his colleagues
were planning to move within the next few months.
This poses a further, more immediate problem. Who will practice
medicine in Saskatchewan? How can Saskatchewan, already facing a
shortage of rural doctors, ensure a quality health care system
when its doctors say they are being taxed out of the country?
The brain drain is neither a phenomenon of youth nor a minor
issue. It is a symptom of stress and the predictable result of a
bad tax system. We must take it seriously by providing
sustainable tax relief or suffer the crippling long term effects
into the new millennium.
What I see from this is that the doctor was not even looking for
more money. He was not looking for better working conditions or
a new place to go. He was not asking for a new hospital, a new
office or new operating equipment. He wanted to live a life
commensurate with his actual income which is taxed to the point
where it is not the income he thought he would have and not
enough for him to retire on without being required to work the
rest of his life to try to turn his practice over to someone
else.
Social science has identified at least one fundamental
characteristic of human motivation and that is that humans are
motivated to avoid pain. If one is to be motivated to avoid pain
then one moves away from it. If the Canadian tax system is
causing taxpayers pain they will move away from the tax system,
and that is to other countries where the tax regime is not so
onerous.
It is easy to understand why our youth and talent are leaving
Canada for the U.S. and, I might add, for other places. It is to
avoid the pain of paying high taxes here.
Neither loyalty to Canada, nor our good lifestyle, nor the
natural beauty of our country is enough to keep them if they
cannot make a living. That is a base need of all people.
1605
I also want to mention that we are paying a lot more but getting
a lot less. It is the impact that taxes are having on services.
We see this dismal aspect in the budget every time we think about
the services that Canadians are getting for the taxes that they
are paying.
As I pointed out, despite the increase to the health and social
transfer, which was not very much, we should remember it was the
Liberals who gutted and savaged these things. We have to
question their priorities.
I want to talk about an issue that arose in my riding as a
result of what the government would call tax cuts or tax savings,
which I think is poor spending. The government will open a joint
office with the Saskatchewan government, ostensibly to save
money. This office will serve a very large rural area with a lot
of aboriginal people who use that as their service base.
We will no longer have a federal presence in the town I come
from, which has a population of around 5,000 people. To go from
there to the next town where there is an employment insurance
office takes one hour each way.
These people come into town to use the services, to buy their
groceries, to visit the doctor, to visit the dentist, to visit
the lawyer, to do their dry cleaner and maybe even their laundry.
Whatever services they needed they could get in that town. All
of a sudden, those who most need employment insurance services
will be forced to drive at least another hour one way to access
those services. That means those Canadians who may now be off
the government's tax roll, thank goodness, are all of a sudden
having to pay their own way.
I have to wonder what the net benefit will be of this.
Businesses in my home town will be losing business because these
people will drive right by. There is another negative effect of
the system, but do they get their tax dollars back? Nothing
doing.
How does the government find creative ways to spend the money it
says it is saving? We will now have two people driving out a
couple of times a week to sit in an office. They will both
probably need to have laptops because desktop computers no longer
do the job. We all know laptops are more expensive.
They will probably need a vehicle to drive. I have heard a
rumour, but I would not doubt it, that they will be driving a
Jeep Cherokee to get there. They will be paid overtime for
travel. As the weather in northeast Saskatchewan is notoriously
unpredictable, more often than not, they will have to stay
overnight, in which case they will probably be paid right through
the night. They will be on overtime for the rest of the week.
They will have their hotel and meals bills paid. What kind of a
saving is that going to be?
Consequently, I think we are definitely paying more. We keep on
paying more and we keep on getting less under this regime. It is
so frustrating for the people in my riding. I had to say these
things on their behalf because they have had it.
The young family that came into my office to express their
despair at the situation in which they find themselves, both
working, paying for child care, paying high taxes, paying high
employment insurance premiums and paying high Canada pension plan
premiums, where do they find themselves? They are going to lose
everything because this Liberal government is simply continuing
to collect taxes and Canadians are getting fewer and fewer
services for the money they are putting in.
The last two things they asked me was how they could get
politically involved and how they could fight the system. I gave
them a name and it sure was not the name of the Liberal organizer
in my riding. I do not think they would have wanted it even if I
had given it to them. They agree with what I said when I started
at the top of my speech if Canadians want tax reform, vote
Reform.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House of
Commons moves to a final vote on the 1999 budget, I would like to
take this opportunity to talk about responsible government.
The theory of responsible government is at the heart and soul of
how democracy functions. It is at the heart and soul of our
parliamentary system. It is the foundation of Canada. The
government is democratically elected and it is expected to fulfil
its mandate on behalf of all the people in the country. Members
of parliament are elected as democratic representatives of all
constituents.
1610
In the old days there were feudal lords and robber barons but
democracy changed that. It is thanks to democracy that Canada is
year after year chosen as one of the better countries in the
world in which to live.
As the member of parliament for Ottawa—Vanier, I happen to
represent some of the very richest people in Canada and some of
the poorest people in Canada. What I am going to say may be more
popular with one group than the other, but upon reflection they
will hopefully all agree.
Several corporate leaders in the past few weeks have somehow
come to the conclusion that the government should ignore the
democratic mandate on which it was elected. They have this
notion that they set the political agenda and the fiscal agenda
of the governments. Some have even tried issuing veiled threats
to coerce the Government of Canada into providing lower tax rates
for high income earners.
Absolutely corporate leaders have an important role to play in
consulting with the government and making their views heard.
However, in this country it is one person, one vote and not the
size of our chequebook that determines our democratic rights.
Part of responsible government also means conducting responsible
debate. That means playing straight up with the basic facts. The
Business Council on National Issues, the BCNI, purports to speak
on behalf of the chief executive officers of Canada's 150 largest
corporations.
Two weeks ago the president of the BCNI criticized the Minister
of Finance saying “enough is enough” and added, “what we are
asking the minister to do is to demonstrate his commitment to the
importance of bringing down personal taxes as a priority”. What
an absurdly unfair comment for such a business leader to make.
The Liberal government has already provided tax relief in this
and in last year's budget. We have taken 600,000 poor Canadians
off the tax rolls altogether. Families trying to raise two kids
on $30,000 will no longer have to pay income tax. Families with
incomes of $45,000 will have their taxes reduced by at least 10%
this year alone. Middle to high income earners, and yes, even
every millionaire in the country, has had their 3% surtax removed
in this year's budget. The government has made reducing taxes a
priority. It is just that we have been responsible about it.
In considering the BCNI's call for lower tax rates, I will point
out some facts. The average compensation for CEOs of Canada's
top 100 companies was $3.4 million last year. That was up 26%
from the year before; a 26% increase in one year. I am not
begrudging those people what they have earned. That would be up
to their shareholders. I merely mention it to keep things in
perspective.
There are thousands of public servants in my riding whose pay
was frozen while the government attacked and eventually
eliminated the federal deficit, as we said we would do. These
public servants have now received pay increases averaging 2% to
3% after years of being frozen. Not a 26% increase.
Public servants, who are so often criticized, know that their
sacrifices have made a huge difference. They know that the
Government of Canada balanced the books. They know that the cost
of borrowing in Canada is far lower today than it has been for
years. It is even lower than in the United States. They know
that inflation has been virtually wiped out. They know that we
have put the recession far behind us. They know that Canada
creates jobs at a healthier clip than most of the European
democracies.
When the government received its second majority in June 1997,
it made a contract with the people. That is what the principle
of responsibility is all about. It contracted to devote half of
the budget surpluses to debt reduction and tax relief and half to
pressing social needs like child poverty, health care, education
and investments in research for our collective long term benefit.
That was the principal mandate on which we were elected. As a
responsible government we must fulfill that mandate. That is
responsible government in its traditional form.
There is also responsible government in the sense of acting
responsibly for the future. What certain corporate leaders seem
to be suggesting is that we should ignore everything else and
give them a tax break. I suppose the Minister of Finance could
have acted differently. He could have borrowed to pay for tax
cuts. However, the Minister of Finance said “No, we will not do
that. We will provide tax relief the responsible way after we
have eliminated the deficit”. That is exactly what we have
done.
1615
That still leaves us with a $580 billion debt in Canada, a debt
which was built up during the lifetime of every adult alive in
the country, a debt which costs Canadian taxpayers in excess of
$40 billion annually in interest charges. The only responsible
course of action is to continue to take chunks of any budgetary
surplus and pay off some of that debt, as we said we would do.
We must reduce the debt. We have no right to pass that debt
untouched to our grandchildren. To do so would be to exercise
greed today at the expense of our kids tomorrow. As citizens and
as parliamentarians we cannot wash our hands of our
responsibility in this matter. I do not often agree with
columnist Andrew Coyne of the National Post who said of the
growing call for irresponsible tax cuts, “I suppose we ought to
be ashamed of ourselves”.
Debt reduction is structural and its benefits permanent. People
who became wealthy over the last 30 years as the country
accumulated debt ought to understand that reality.
On team Canada missions abroad, business leaders rightly talk
about Canadian values. They talk about safe streets, our health
care, our ability to sustain linguistic duality, our ethnic
diversity, our public infrastructure, our transportation and
communications systems, our commitment to the elderly, our
commitment to human rights, our commitment to fairness. They
point out that Canada is not a polarized society with unseemly
disparities of wealth or incomes. They point out that this is
why Canada is a safe place to invest. They are right when they
say that abroad. I would just like to hear them say it more
often at home.
To talk of Canada and the United States strictly in terms of tax
rates is to imply that our nations, our values, our cultures are
otherwise interchangeable. I would suggest that if people really
believe that, they should try to get elected to parliament on
that platform. If the president of BCNI really believes that, he
should try to get elected on that platform.
This government has balanced fiscal prudence and the upgrading
of social programs at the same time. We have balanced debt
reduction with tax relief. The tax relief has gone for the most
part to the people in our country with the least money who needed
it more. If someone thinks that people with the most money
should be the first ones to get tax cuts, let them run for
parliament on that platform.
As the governor of the Bank of Canada indicated a few days ago,
Canada is on the right course and tax differences with the United
States are not the cause of Canada's problems. If someone thinks
that the governor of the Bank of Canada is wrong, let them run
for parliament on that platform.
Responsible government means representing all the citizens who
live in Canada. Responsible government also means protecting the
interest of Canadians who have yet to attain the age where they
too can participate in the election of their government.
Responsible government means balancing the interest of taxpayers
with the interest of the common good. For all of us that is what
the 1999 budget achieves.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations to the member opposite. I listened carefully to
his speech.
I wonder if the member shares my disquiet about the recent
comments from one particular corporation operating in this city.
I am referring to Nortel. I am old enough to remember that Nortel
was once Northern Telecommunications which was a Canadian crown
corporation. In his comments he talked about the wealth that has
been generated for individuals over the last 30 years. I wonder
if the present board of directors of Nortel appreciate that the
investments that were made by Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian
public over the years have helped to put Nortel in the position
that it is in today. The wealth that it is generating has come
from the public and in fact there is some obligation that is owed
back to this country. Would the hon. member care to comment?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that
the enviable position of Nortel today is due in part to the
benefits from government programs in the past. It is due in part
to the benefits of government purchases of the systems and
equipment which that company produces. It is due in great part
to the benefits of having a well educated labour force to draw
upon.
All of those conditions have been created with public support.
1620
There is no doubt in my mind. I think that others at Nortel,
other than the executive vice-president, have tried to correct
the impression left and there is indeed a great deal of
allegiance from the company toward the country. I suspect that a
majority of the board of directors of Nortel also feel this way.
This is just one of the examples we have heard about in recent
days of what I call corporate leaders trying to set this agenda
that at all costs we must provide immediate tax relief and so
forth. I have argued that to do so and to forget the debt we
are carrying is to not act in a responsible manner.
This government campaigned on applying half of the surpluses to
debt and tax relief and half to social and economic programs that
were very much needed. Over the course of our mandate it is my
fondest hope that we will achieve that commitment.
From listening to some of the comments of some of our corporate
leaders, they would forgo too rapidly the benefits of spending
some money in some very needed areas such as health care as we
did in the last budget.
I am here representing a riding that has some of the richest
people and some of the poorest people in the country. I would
not be comfortable with myself if I had not made the comments I
made today. To not take care and reduce the debt somewhat would
be irresponsible. I would not be prepared to support such a
notion.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pose some questions to the member opposite and point out
some facts about this budget, about what it has done to Canadians
and about what this government has done to Canadians since it
came to power in 1993.
I wonder if he would like to talk a little about bracket creep
and the amount of money that has been taken out of Canadians'
pockets, out of the pockets of families. That has hindered
families from making ends meet. Each Canadian taxpayer is paying
$2,000 more in taxes now than they did in 1993. Canadian
taxpayers overall will pay $42.1 billion more in 1999 than they
did in 1993.
The issue of disposable income should be hard to argue. Between
1993 and 1997 disposable income for Canadians fell by over
$2,000. That is right out of the pockets of every Canadian. It
takes food off the table and clothes off of kids' backs.
Would he not agree that Canadian taxpayers are getting $448 less
each in health care dollars from this federal government than
they got in 1993? Overall the health care budget is $4.3 billion
less. There are almost 200,000 people in this country on waiting
lists for health care. We get calls every day, as I am sure the
member does, from people who are waiting for health care. There
are 200,000 people in Canada waiting for health care.
Would the member like to comment on some of those issues?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like
to comment.
The budgets of this year and last year propose essentially to
provide some relief that does away with the phenomena of tax
bracket creep mentioned by the member opposite. I will not get
into a precise number argument because we could be at it all day.
The cuts over the next three years are certainly more substantial
than the bracket creep the member mentions. If he did his
homework he would have to agree with that. There is real tax
relief in this budget after bracket creep, as he mentions.
I am a little perplexed with the attitude of some of the members
opposite who do not seem to care about the level of debt we have
accumulated over the past decades. We should be serious about
tackling that.
1625
If the hon. member is serious, then he should be applauding this
government's success in eliminating a $42 billion deficit in less
than five years, for the first time in three decades paying off
some debt and therefore reducing on a permanent basis some of the
carrying charges. He should be applauding the government for not
having borrowed money to effect tax cuts.
That is a very responsible approach to government. That is what
this government has done and continues to do in its budget.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty to
inform the House that we have now arrived at the point in our
debate at which there are 10 minutes for debate with no questions
and no comments.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here in the House today to speak
on the budget and Bill C-71, an act to implement provisions of
the budget.
We will hear different comments over the course of the day in
regard to the budget, the value of the budget, $150 billion or
whatever it is, $130 billion last year. These kinds of figures
are thrown around but to average Canadians sitting in their
homes, in their small businesses or on their farms, we are
talking about figures that they find very hard to comprehend.
Even I find it hard to comprehend some of these gigantic figures
we deal with in the House. These figures are backed up by the
work, sweat and toil of all Canadians who provide this parliament
with the money we are budgeting and spending. It is absolutely
incumbent upon us to do that wisely and to get our priorities
straight when we go about spending the money we collect from
taxpayers.
The question of how much in taxes we should be taking from the
people is probably one of the predominant questions we are
dealing with in this day and age. The consensus around the
country and certainly in Manitoba and my riding of
Selkirk—Interlake is that too much money is being taken away
from taxpayers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Forgive me, but I
must interrupt the hon. member. It seems we made a little
mistake and got a little ahead of ourselves. In fact, there is
another hour in this debate before we get to the 10 minute
portion of the debate.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake does have a full slot. He
will have 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and comments.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for those
words on the progress of this debate and how it will be carried
out and when it will end.
Certainly in talking about the time to debate these issues, the
more time the better. The more fully they are explored by all
parties and the more ideas that come in, the greater the benefit
is to the government of the day as to where its priorities should
lie and how it should handle the money taken from the taxpaying
public.
Earlier on, an hon. member discussed a figure from the past. I
believe it was the fellow who discovered America, Columbus. The
member suggested that he was kind of lost. He related that to
the government of the day.
What we have is more like Dr. Livingstone in Africa. It is a
government that is wandering around in the bush, in the forest
and the jungle, not really knowing which way is out. The only
way the government is able to survive is to have a gigantic
increased flow of taxes. By having this gigantic increase in
taxes, it can wander around the jungle and continue to survive.
Hopefully at some future date, which could be referred to as
election day, someone from the Reform Party would come along and
show the government the way out of the jungle.
1630
In any event, we will talk about the jungle of taxation in this
budget. It is not unlike a jungle because it is very difficult
to comprehend the whole thing at once. I will touch on some of
the highlights. We will see where the budget has some strengths
and where it has some weaknesses that could have been improved.
Its is expected to be a balanced budget, something that is
absolutely vital to any small business and to any government. We
never learned in the past the lesson that we have to pay our
bills, that if we borrow money we have to pay it back. The
situation we find ourselves in now is having a balanced budget
and having to pay it back.
The budget was balanced on the backs of Canadians. There is
only one taxpayer, the average Canadian who earns an income in
the business world or on the farm. The balanced budget indicates
an underlying surplus of some $3 billion for 1998-99. By
subtracting the $3 billion contingency fund, the budget balance,
the surplus, is expected to be zero for this year and future
years. There is some dispute in the financial world between the
finance minister and the private sector. The two do not seem to
jive. One is saying there is a budget surplus while the other is
saying in essence that it is barely a balanced budget at zero.
With the high spending levels of the government we cannot stand
any bit of a downturn in the Canadian economy. The surplus of
funds which keeps the government in operation would start to dry
up and be much smaller. Without a corresponding reduction in
spending we would end up borrowing and going deeper into debt.
The time to start reducing spending is not once the downturn
comes. The time to start spending reductions is when we have a
vibrant, strong economy. One of the big failings of the budget
is the big reductions in spending that should be happening. The
government would still end up with more tax dollars to spend
because it is going from roughly a $130 billion to a $156 billion
budget.
This kind of thinking is what we in the opposition parties are
trying to put across to the government to ensure that it looks at
it, not as a high spending money grows on trees type government
but as some prudent common sense average citizen would handle his
or her business affairs.
The budget announced $7.7 billion in cumulative tax reductions
over the next three years which sounds good. Excluding the
employment insurance rate reduction of $1.54 billion in
1999-2000, $2.81 billion in 2000-01 and $3.4 billion in 2001-02,
in reality taxes will increase by just over $2 billion in the
next three years.
I always get interviewed in my home riding after a budget comes
out. People ask me if it is a good budget for them or a poor
budget. My advice to them is always very simple. When a budget
is in place and has been implemented for six months or a year
they should keep track of their paycheques to see if at the end
of the day they have more money. That is the bottom line for the
average Canadian. The figures being thrown around by the
government often do not tell the whole story.
I talked about how some of this budget money is used.
1635
I would like to talk for a moment about the millennium
scholarship fund which was raised at an agriculture committee
meeting I attended this morning. Five deans and presidents of
universities gave presentations. They talked of more funding for
research and more funding for the operations of their
universities.
I took the liberty of asking one of the presenters if the $2.5
billion that will go into these scholarships was the best way to
move that money into the education system. Having good graces,
these people did not criticize the government straight out and
say that this was about the worst way we could fund education.
However they certainly made it well known that their wishes,
their desires, their way of funding education, would be to have
that $2.5 billion go directly to the universities for all
students to have an opportunity to get the highest possible
levels of education.
It is a good example of the priorization being right, that money
is needed in education, but the vehicle by which the government
decided to do it was wrong. I assessed it on behalf of my
constituents. By giving the money directly to universities the
government would not receive the accolades and the votes it would
get from buying individual voters, individual people who would
receive these scholarships.
More or less if you vote for me we will give you a scholarship.
It would not be that direct, but the suggestion would be that the
government had done something great for the person getting a
scholarship and he or she should feel indebted to the government
and vote the right way the next time. That is a very poor way. I
felt a bit reinforced in my thinking on this subject by these
university professors and leaders in education.
When we talk about priorizing spending, once again a lot of the
spending that is not being properly priorized should be rethought
by the government. Agriculture is one area that could use some
additional spending by the federal government. The reason I say
that is not so much that it should give subsidies straight to
farmers, but the priorization of spending on agriculture should
have greater emphasis.
We know that agriculture creates tremendous wealth for the
country by bringing in hard offshore currency. Many internal
domestic industries simply recirculate cash inside the country.
When we see something that is a real big export dollar earner,
that sector deserves strong government support.
When we take away the $900 million AIDA package we end up with
government support of agriculture to the tune of $600 million or
certainly less than $700 million from the federal government.
That is insufficient for such an important industry.
Some will ask for ideas on where to find some of that money. I
do not intend to go through everything today, but certainly CBC
television is one area that could be handled very well by the
private sector.
As Canadians we spend a lot of money on it every year.
1640
We need a bit of gun control in terms of handguns but we do not
to spend upward of $1 billion over the next year to register
lawfully possessed private property like rifles and shotguns.
I ranch and have a hired man. I will have to pay not only for
me to have all these permits but I will have to pay for his
training. That adds an absolutely unnecessary cost on to a
business.
The rural development secretariat working in the health care
field, which I raised in committee and bears repeating again in
public, is trying to find doctors for remote areas and that sort
of thing. In each province across the country the health care
system is working very hard and spending millions of dollars to
find doctors for remote areas. We are wasting money duplicating
what is a provincial responsibility. They are doing the best job
that can be done. This is something that could be repriorized by
the government and the money used for something else.
The transitional jobs fund is one of those programs which has
good projects and bad ones. A small remote town in my riding
received a health care facility which was partially paid for by
money from the jobs fund. People no longer have to travel close
to 100 miles to visit relatives who have Alzheimer's disease, for
instance.
The structure of the program is like the structure of the
millennium scholarship fund. It has a built-in opportunity for
the government of the day to abuse it. I think we saw some of
this abuse with regard to hotels in Montreal having a strong
connection to the government and to the Prime Minister himself.
According to my last accounting some $1 million went into that
particular transitional jobs fund project, which I can only refer
to as a patronage, slush fund type payment.
I have a final comment to make on where money could be saved
rather than wasted. Newspapers indicated today and yesterday
that $83,000 had been paid for an assistant to the justice
minister to deal with the CHST, the Canada health and social
transfers system. The government should repriorize its spending.
Canada health and social transfers have been cut drastically
over past years. With the government's announcement in the past
budget we see that money has been put back into the health and
social transfers. That will only bring it up to the 1993 level
of funding, which is clearly insufficient for the health care
needs of today.
Once again I encourage people to contact their members of
parliament and ask them for more details on the budget, on the
funding, on the spending and on the priorities. It must get
message out to Canadians on what the budget is about. In
closing, I can only say that by having an informed Canadian
public we can have better government.
1645
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the 1999 budget and to address some
of the concerns which the government has failed to address.
The principal issue that I want to address is that there has not
been meaningful, broad based tax reduction, which the country
desperately needs to grow our economy in order that we can be
more competitive and, yes, more productive. As has been pointed
out in the last number of days and weeks, Canada indeed has a
productivity problem, which is largely due to the fact that our
society is overtaxed.
It may come as a shock to Liberal members that personal income
tax as a percentage of our gross domestic product is 18% higher
in Canada than in the United States. Corporate taxes are 17%
higher than they are in the United States. And we wonder why
growth in our economy is stifled compared to what we see in the
United States.
There is another price that this country pays for its high tax
regime. More and more often our best and our brightest, the best
young minds that we have in the country, are faced with a
shocking fact. They are likely to finish an undergraduate degree
owing $25,000 to $30,000. They are faced with decisions. Where
do they seek opportunity? Where will they get paid more? Where
will they get taxed less? Where can they have the best quality
of life?
I am very proud to say that I still believe the best quality of
life is found within the borders of this great country that we
call Canada. However, we are going to lose more of our best and
our brightest if we do not provide them with a tax regime which
makes it competitive enough for them to stay here. I am saying,
quite simply, that we need to lower taxes to end the brain drain.
I also want to point out what small business has pointed out
time and time again. I would like to refer to a document from
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which indicates
where small business feels their concerns were missed in terms of
the excessive, extraordinary payroll taxes that we pay in this
country. This government takes in over $6 billion more annually
through the EI fund than the program actually consumes. That
money belongs in the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers. It is
plain and simple.
The CFIB also indicated where the concerns of the younger
generation have been missed. As a younger person and a younger
member of the House, I can say that the younger generation is
very concerned about this. We have a $600 billion national debt
which has been run up over the last 30 years. Now we are asking
the younger generation to bear the burden of that debt. We owe
it as parliamentarians on all sides of the House to make prudent
investments to begin to pay down the national debt. It is our
moral obligation.
There are other reasons for us to pay down the debt. As long as
we have an enormous debt, as we do today, we will pay over $45
billion annually to service the debt. We will always be
threatened with high taxes. We can never lower taxes unless we
eliminate the causes of high taxes, and the principal cause is
the national debt.
We need broad based tax reduction.
Government members stand in question period, day in and day out,
and say “We have lowered taxes”. I know people who are capable
of lowering taxes. If there has been any growth in this country
over the last decade it has been largely due to our export driven
economy. Why is that? Where did that growth come from? It came
from the free trade agreement of 1988, which was expanded by the
NAFTA in 1993, which the Liberal Party opposed.
1650
The government likes to take credit for balancing the budget. I
would like to make it very clear that it was the Canadian
taxpayers who made sacrifice upon sacrifice in the last number of
years to get our fiscal house in order. It has been quite an
ordeal. It has been a 15-year work in progress. I applaud
Canadian taxpayers because they made the sacrifices to balance
the budget.
Getting our fiscal house in order and once again having growth
in the economy of this country is largely due to the Ontario
government of Mike Harris. Since its election in 1995 it has
lowered taxes and has made a commitment to balance its budget by
the year 2001. If Mike Harris and Ernie Eves had not started the
economic engine of this country again, that being the province of
Ontario, nobody would have balanced the budget, not even this
finance minister. That is very clear.
I would also like to point out where the real fiscal leadership
in this country came from. From the political perspective, it
clearly came from the provinces, first and foremost. I know it
hurts, but it was the Progressive Conservative Government of the
province of Alberta, led by Ralph Klein, which made a very firm
commitment to pay down the debt because it believed it was wrong
to burden the younger generation with it.
Gary Filmon, the Progressive Conservative Premier of Manitoba,
also brought forward initiatives to balance the budget. He is
the senior statesman of the provincial premiers in terms of the
balanced budget legislation that he brought forth.
Again it comes down to the growth that has been created by the
province of Ontario, which has been driven by the export sector
and the lower tax regime.
I would also like to pay tribute to the government which was in
power between 1984 and 1993 in terms of the tax reform which it
initiated. If it was so wrong, why has the government not
changed it? If free trade was so wrong, why has the government
not changed it? Mr. Speaker, I know that you know the answer,
being the very learned gentleman that you are. The reason the
government has not changed it is simply because it works.
I believe it is imperative that we take some initiatives to
invest in the future of the country.
It was a sin for the government to get its fiscal house in order
by hacking transfer payments by more than 30%. Those transfers
pay for our priority programs, such as health care,
post-secondary education and social services. The government is
not going to do anything. It is passing the burden of the
problems to the provinces. I am very happy to say that the
provinces met the challenge.
There are some investments to be made. I want to highlight one
priority, the student debt level. It is a sin for an
undergraduate to finish a degree today with a debt of $25,000 to
$30,000. Why is that? Because the government slashed transfer
payments by over 30%—
Mr. Norman Doyle: It was 35%.
Mr. John Herron: It was actually 35%, the learned member
from St. John's East has pointed out to me.
If there is one investment that the government needs to make it
is to ensure that we put more money into post-secondary education
so that our best and our brightest can go to school. I have
talked to the member from Compton—Stanstead about this on
numerous occasions and I know that he shares the same sentiment.
He is very fearful that some of our best and brightest will
choose to not even go to university. I am extremely concerned
about that.
1655
The government has no plan, in terms of health care, to attract
doctors or nurses; nor does it have a visionary concept to
attract doctors to rural Canada. That is very important to the
residents in my riding of Fundy—Royal.
The government takes credit for putting money back into health
care through the transfer payments, the CHST. However, the
province of New Brunswick was getting less money. It was getting
$11 million less because of the 1998 budget. This year it is
actually getting a little more. The government is playing a bit
of a shell game with our health care dollars. I find that to be
a travesty.
I will sum up by indicating what this government missed in the
1999 budget.
There should have been a prudent, serious commitment to paying
down the $600 billion national debt. It should have sent a
signal to Canadians that it was the right step.
It should have provided Canadians with the broad based tax
relief which they rightfully deserve. Doing that would have
given our economy the injection it needs so that we could become
the country we know we can be.
I want to ensure that the government puts money into priority
programs, not silly programs like the transitional jobs fund. We
need to put money into priority spending areas, such as health
care. I am particularly concerned about rural health care. We
also have to ensure that our best and brightest have access to
affordable post-secondary education.
As the environment critic for our party, I would point out that
the finance minister is a former environment critic, yet the
environment department is still one of the most underfunded
departments in this government. That is a shame.
To set the record straight, it was the provincial governments
which actually provided the political leadership in terms of
fiscal responsibility, primarily the Progressive Conservative
governments of Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta.
We also need to pay tribute to the people on the front lines of
this debt and deficit debate, the Canadian taxpayers who
sacrificed to get the job done.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to ask a question of the member. It is nice to see him in the
House today, wound up like he is. I sit on the environment
committee with him and this is quite unusual. He must be
speaking from the heart.
We have an accumulated debt in this country of $580 billion. In
the projections of this government for the next three years that
will not go down one nickel. If it says that it is paying down
the debt, it is not.
What part of the national debt should be paid down first, the
part this government ran up or the part his government ran up?
Should we use the GST money to do that? When his government was
selling the GST it said that it would use that money to pay down
the debt. I would like him to explain what happened.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to have the
opportunity to address such a very constructive question. I know
that was the intent of my hon. friend from the environment
committee.
First we have to look at the GST, which is a tax itself. No one
likes taxes, but the GST was a replacement tax for a hidden
federal manufacturing tax. It was a good thing to do, according
to this government. Otherwise, it would have changed it. It was
such a good thing that the minister of heritage decided to run
twice on the very same issue.
When it comes to the national debt and which part of the debt we
should pay down, we need to take a very serious look at the debt
issue itself. There is a partisan swing there, but the overall
impression is this. The past government lowered the debt as a
percentage of GDP.
1700
To be quite honest, more should have been done and more needed
to be done. We need to continue to use our export driven
economy, our access to the American market to keep our economy
growing and pay down the debt in a very serious deliberate way so
Canadians know we are making investments in that. We have a
moral obligation to do it. We have a reason to do it from a
productivity perspective.
I will be very pleased to answer any questions.
I thank my hon. friend and colleague from the environment
committee for his interest in this particular issue.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot help but object to the member's comments welcoming debate
on paying down the debt.
As my hon. colleague for Lethbridge has pointed out, the
cumulative debt stands at $580 billion which has saddled this
country into low productivity. Year after year after year
Michael Wilson and Brian Mulroney told us that this debt was
going to go. I remember it well.
In 1984 Mr. Mulroney campaigned and indicated that we were $170
billion in debt courtesy of the Liberal Party and this was going
to sink us under a whole margin of debt. Mr. Mulroney's
government was going to fix this when it took office. From 1984
to 1993 the Mulroney government ran up the debt from $170 billion
to approximately $450 billion. The Liberals continued on and ran
it up to $580 billion. It was the Reform Party coming over the
horizon and saying that if things did not change we would take
over this place that caused the Liberal Party and that rump down
at the far end, the Progressive Conservative Party, to change
their minds.
The member says he wants to enter into a debate about the
national debt. Let us remember what two parties created the
national debt. It was the Reform Party that came here and caused
them to change.
The member talks about the GST replacing a hidden tax. The
manufacturers sales tax did not affect me much as a consumer but
the GST hits me in the pocket every time I go to the cash
register. People do not like it. It was brought in over the
protestations of every Canadian. The Liberals kept it even
though they promised to get rid of it.
I want to know what the member is going to do about the GST and
high taxes. There are $40 billion in interest payments every year
because of the national debt.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
respond to my hon. colleague's question. I want to set the
record straight on a couple of issues as well. Let us think this
through.
In 1987 the Reform Party was formed. Its members would have us
believe that they wanted to get our fiscal house in order because
they were worried about the direction in which the country was
going. There is a little bit of history. As a younger person I
find it very uncomfortable lecturing some of the more senior
members in that regard.
In 1984 the deficit was approximately $40 billion. In 1987 the
deficit was around $17 billion or $21 billion. The government
was headed in a much more prudent fiscal direction in that
regard. That was the Progressive Conservative government of the
day. For Reform members to say that they became a party because
they were concerned about the fiscal element within this country
is a faux pas. I am very sad to say that.
When Reform decided to become a party it was headed in a
positive direction. Instead of encouraging the government and
jumping on side to make investments, Reform decided to have a
party to split the right. Now Reform is saying perhaps it was
not a good thing to do and we should all cuddle up and try it all
over again.
1705
I want to talk about very serious issues. The partisanship is
not important. What is important is we have a $600 billion
national debt. We have the capacity to show the Canadian
taxpayer that we are serious in addressing it and that we want to
pay down the debt with very measurable targets.
That is the commitment Canadians want to hear, not the partisan
rhetoric. They want to hear that we want to pay down the
national debt in a very real way in terms of our debt to GDP
ratio and in a very real way as compared to EU nations. That is
what we want to do. We want to make that commitment.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Tories do not have any credibility when they talk
about debt and deficit. They have left a record debt and a
record deficit.
The hon. member used the example of Mike Harris. For the
record, under Mike Harris we have sent thousands and thousands of
nurses out of the province of Ontario. We have slashed spending
on education and research. We have slashed the social programs.
If the hon. member is going to hold that person up as an example
of the kind of government he aspires to, I can only say that he
is dead wrong.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping we would have
a question that would be a little difficult. This one is a bit of
a lame duck.
In any event, the reason the province of Ontario had to make
some tough decisions on health care and education was that this
government cut transfer payments for health care and education by
over 35%. Whoops, I guess the hon. member actually forgot that.
What Mike Harris has been able to do by growing the economy of
Ontario, and I can point out growing the economy of this country,
is the government of Mike Harris is investing more in health
care, more in education than ever before by any government that
has ever governed the province of Ontario.
Next time hopefully I will get a tougher question.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I know
there are a couple more members who would like to participate in
the debate. If you would please indicate when 10 minutes are up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is of the
opinion that there are not any members other than yourself who
have indicated their desire to speak.
The hon. member for Palliser has 20 minutes for debate, plus 10
minutes questions and comments.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today
to talk about the implementation of the 1999 budget. I want to
make several points, but since it has been dubbed the health care
budget I will start with that.
Perhaps just as an aside to the member for Fundy—Royal, and I
do not want to get into a big debate about this, but the record
will show that the first provincial government that eliminated
its deficit was not Mr. Klein's in Alberta or Mr. Filmon's in
Manitoba. It was in fact the Romanow government in Saskatchewan.
All across Canada the years of federal neglect and cutbacks have
taken their toll. The fact that the Liberal government felt
compelled to come up with a health budget is a credit to the
thousands of Canadians, some of whom may be actually watching,
who have written, or faxed or phoned their members of parliament
in recent months.
We do not forget on this side of the House that the government
only a few months before the introduction of the budget refused
to admit that the health system needed an infusion or a
transfusion of cash. It is only with constant public and
political pressure together with a relentless stream of
individual horror stories that the government was forced to put
some money back into our ailing health care system.
What is striking about this budget when we strip away the hype
is that it really does not offer very much at all. It is really
a lesson in underachievement. It may abet the Liberals'
political crisis but it does not come close to solving the larger
health care crisis. If there was ever an opportunity to have
taken dramatic steps to set things right, we had it in this
budget.
1710
The deficit was gone and there appeared to be enough surplus
money to make a difference, but by holding back, Canadians will
actually have to wait for several more years before the money
that has gone out of the system is put back into our health care
system. I remind the House that the Liberals with the
introduction of the Canada health and social transfer back in
1995 cut more than $21.5 billion out of health and social
funding.
More than half of that $21.5 billion was in the health care
funding. This year the budget put back only $2 billion, not quite
the cause for celebration that some on the other side would have
us believe. Members of the government keep repeating $11.5
billion. We heard it this afternoon. That is what they want us
and Canadians to remember about the budget. What they want us to
forget is that the $11.5 billion is spread out over five years.
It gets worse. We do not get the ongoing benefit of that $11.5
billion because it is not cumulative. By the end of the next
five years only $2.5 billion will have been permanently added to
the transfer, $15 billion per year, up from the current $12.5
billion. It is like a wage bonus instead of a wage increase. It
is a one time fix that leaves us no further ahead.
More important, the federal share of health spending is not
going to change significantly either. When medicare began, the
federal-provincial ratio rate was 50:50 funding. When the
Liberals came to power in 1993 the federal share had dropped all
the way to 18%. Now it is down to about 11%. In the next five
years it is going to go up only 1.5% to about 12.5%. How much
clout will 12.5% buy us when some provinces would like to slide
into a two tier American style health care system?
Our look at the federal budget has helped us realize that much
work lies ahead for all Canadians who care about our public
health care system. New Democrats certainly do. We cannot count
on the government. It is now obvious that only continued public
pressure will keep the government from backsliding on its
commitment to health care. Will next year's budget just be
another corporate affair?
There has been some conversation in this debate about the
previous prime minister. It was interesting to see not long ago
that Mr. Mulroney was congratulating the current Prime Minister
for his success in implementing the Progressive Conservative
agenda for Canada. I remember the former prime minister used to
say that in 20 years we would not recognize this country. After
nine years of Mr. Mulroney and now six years of the Liberal
administration we do scarcely recognize our country.
We saw it again today in the House of Commons during question
period. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance gave us
happy talk about all the good things that are happening across
the country, how the dollar is strengthening, the deficit has
been eliminated, and the debt is being managed. That is not what
they are saying behind closed doors.
The other day I read an economic summary of a report written for
the use of federal deputy ministers. This report discovered what
most of us already know from our very personal and family
experiences. That is that the average income of Canadian
households has declined in the 1990s. In fact in 1996 family
income was a full 6% less than it was seven years previously.
This is the legacy of the government: falling incomes, rising
uncertainty, and fear about the future.
Members may ask why this is happening. The report I referred to
says that this decline was mainly due to loss in market income,
in other words, income from employment. Remember this was a
report done for deputy ministers of the government. The authors
warned of their growing fear that after 15 to 20 years, income
inequality is now very much on the rise. The stage is set for a
growing gap between the affluent and the poor in our society.
There is plenty of evidence around to suggest that it is already
happening.
I do not have to tell the House of Commons or the folks who live
in many Canadian cities of the homelessness and the lack of
affordable housing and the crisis proportions this has resulted
in. What I found most interesting in talking with an economist
about this recently was the observation that if it had not been
for Canada's social programs, the decline in household income
would have been much greater than it was between the 1989 and
1996 period.
1715
If it were not for programs such as health care and social
assistance, as wounded as these programs currently are, the
inequality among the rich and other Canadians would be much
greater.
At the same time this economist told me that there have been
what he calls massive increases in the economic insecurity being
experienced by Canadians because of deliberate cutbacks the
government had made to employment insurance, health care and
other programs.
Canadians know, for example, that if they lose their jobs it is
difficult if not next to impossible for them these days to get
employment insurance. That is not the way it used to be, but
that is the way it is now since the government has changed the
rules so severely.
Health care is under attack, as I have said, and people know
that if they get sick they have to pay for many of the services
that used to be provided from tax revenues.
With regard to employment insurance as it is now known, or
unemployment insurance as it used to be known, the government has
raided the employment insurance fund. It was at $26 billion at
the end of March. The government has placed the surplus in the
employment insurance fund as a nest egg to spend as it pleases,
rather than provide adequate benefits to workers, increase the
benefits, or help more people to utilize the fund.
In the city of Regina where I live only one unemployed person in
five is now eligible or actually receiving any form of employment
insurance. In fact, the two cities of Regina and Ottawa share
the distinction of having the lowest percentage of unemployed
receiving employment insurance benefits.
This is clearly a deliberate government policy. The result is
insecurity and hardship for thousands of individuals and
families, and the loss of millions of dollars to small businesses
that the unemployed can no longer afford to patronize by
purchasing groceries, gas or children's clothing.
These policies are callous and unacceptable. People do matter.
They pay into employment insurance and when they lose their jobs
it has to be there for them. Our caucus has made this issue a
priority and we will push hard for improvement.
We have talked in the House in recent days about Bill C-78. I
believe it was before the committee today. It is another $30
billion tax grab that the government wishes to take out of the
pension plans. Last week we heard the parliamentary secretary
talk about the fact that the government was responsible for
losses and therefore should enjoy the benefits of the surplus. He
said in his response that the government had dipped into the plan
by some $13 billion, which therefore justified it being able to
take out $30 billion.
We simply do not buy that. We have talked to the retirees. We
have talked to the current employees. They are not saying that
the $30 billion all belongs to them, but they are saying that it
needs to be shared. That is a message the government is not
interested in hearing whatsoever.
On homelessness, Canadians know only too well that the
government has done little or nothing for the homeless in our
country and very little for the poor. The United Nations last
fall published an in depth study which was not at all flattering
to Canada.
Although it was referred to earlier that the United Nations has
said that Canada is the best country in the world in which to
live, this study said that in addressing budget deficits the
federal government had not paid attention to adverse effects for
the population in general. In other words, the government had
balanced its books on the backs of ordinary families and those
hurt most were those most at risk.
The committee says that homelessness in Canada is an area of
grave concern. The report states that it is of grave concern
that little or no progress has been made to improve the lot of
aboriginal peoples, especially in the areas of housing,
unemployment and safe drinking water.
The world's poor is also worthy of some attention in this budget
address. The Liberal government has demonstrated a lack of
concern for the poor not only in this country but the most
vulnerable in many other countries. The budget introduced in
February provided only a modest increase of $50 million for
development assistance. This amounts to a mere 0.2% of our gross
domestic product.
In the 1960s a more generous Liberal government set a target of
0.7% of GDP.
1720
We are providing about one-third of what we actually promised
more than 30 years ago in developmental assistance to the third
world, despite the fact that Canada remains one of the richest
countries in the world.
Stephen Lewis, a former Canadian High Commissioner to the United
Nations and a social justice advocate at the international level,
said last year the fact that Canada was not meeting even this
modest 0.7% of its GDP was an international tragedy. This
overseas development assistance, according to Mr. Lewis, is used
for health systems, nutrition, education, water and sanitation,
the things we cannot get private sector investment to undertake.
Along much the same line, I was disappointed that the finance
minister was silent in the budget about any commitment to forgive
the debt owed to our government by some of the world's poorest
countries. Many thousands of Canadians are involved in the
Jubilee 2000 campaign to cancel the bilateral debt owed to Canada
by 50 of the world's poorest countries. These countries are so
indebted that they will probably never be able to repay us.
Our gesture in forgiving that debt would have both generous and
symbolic importance. Leaders of the Jubilee 2000 campaign met
with the minister last fall. They felt he was sympathetic. They
came away encouraged, but they and the poorest of the world's
poor came up empty handed when the budget came down.
In conclusion, we are very concerned about the direction the
country is going in. We will be watching vigilantly human
development and continuing to ensure that Canadians are protected
against sickness, against unemployment and against poverty.
We are certainly in favour of creating wealth but we want to see
that wealth shared in a fair and equitable manner. Too many of
the Liberal government's policies in Ottawa are both callous and
unacceptable. People matter and we on this side of the House are
prepared to work with Canadians to fight for things that matter
most to them and to their families.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the hon. member. I know one of his concerns is
agriculture. He talked a lot about social housing and health
care, but I would also have liked him to deal with agriculture.
I have a question for him on this.
When the Liberals came to power, the Department of Agriculture
had a $2.2 billion budget. For fiscal 2001-02, it is forecast to
be $1.1 billion, a cut and a shortfall in the order of 48%.
Moreover, during the same period the government, through the
Department of Agriculture, has started charging farmers fees in
at least 42 areas where, previously, services were provided free
of charge.
I would like to know what the member thinks of this situation
and how our farmers are going to be able to remain competitive
in such an environment.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, the member's comments are
very accurate in terms of the drop in financing for agriculture.
We are in a very real dilemma in agriculture, particularly on
the prairies where grain prices and world commodity prices have
dropped precipitously. Input costs are going up. We thought we
got the government's attention last fall when it made a
commitment toward an agricultural income disaster assistance
plan.
The plan came into effect or the details were announced in
February and they are not at all promising. Most farmers with
whom I have spoken feel that they will not benefit very much, if
at all, from this AIDA program.
1725
There are some real concerns. Members on all sides of the House
will recognize the important role agriculture has played,
especially in recent years as we have begun to grapple with the
debt and deficit and to improve our balance of payments.
Agriculture is now the seventh leading sector in Canada. Yet I
fear that we will throw out the goose that laid the golden egg by
simply grabbing everything we can and leaving our farmers
impoverished, to the point where many of them will have to walk
away from their agricultural responsibilities or opportunities,
those things which they love to do most, simply because the
government is either unable or unwilling to give them the
protection they need so that they can compete effectively with
their counterparts, farmers, producers and ranchers in the United
States and Europe and in other countries around the world.
The member has raised a very important issue which the
government will need to address in the days and months to come.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I see
it is coming close to the end of the day. Whether I want to
start another speech or ask another question is a moot point so I
will just ask a question at the moment of my hon. colleague who
represents the New Democratic Party.
That party always seems to be more in favour of regulation and
programs. It always wants to come up with another way to help
people through more taxes and more programs.
We are dealing with the Budget Implementation Act. The Minister
of Finance is sitting on a bundle of cash augmented by $30
billion the government will take out of the civil service pension
plan. Putting that aside, he is now sitting on substantial
amounts of cash courtesy of Canadian taxpayers because taxes have
not been cut yet.
As a member of the New Democratic Party, does the member for
Palliser feel that we have some leeway with deciding whether we
will reduce taxes or have more programs? Is it more beneficial
that we have tax relief for Canadians right across the board so
everybody can start breathing more easily and have some money in
their pockets to pay their bills? Or, does he believe that we
take it now that we have it and use it for some other program?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced
approach, in answer to the member for St. Albert. Certainly
there are areas where we need tax relief. I remember back to the
Carter commission in the 1960s when we talked about tax reform.
It has never happened in the last 30 odd years. We do need that
but we also need good social programs.
I would say Canadians are a bit schizophrenic. Some people say
that Canada wants a Scandinavian social program paid on an
American tax base. We clearly cannot do that, but we need some
direction from Canadians about which they want more.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The vote is
deferred.
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]
CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved that Bill C-441, an
act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from
extirpation or extinction, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): During Private
Members' Business the unanimous consent of the House is required
for a member to split his time.
The hon. member for Davenport has requested the unanimous
consent of the House to split his time in Private Members'
Business. Does the House give its unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might start
this debate by asking ourselves the following questions: Why are
we in this predicament? Why does Canada have some 300 species
which have been identified as being at risk?
Part of the answer may be found in a study by Donald Ludwig, Ray
Hilborn and Carl Walters recently produced at the University of
British Columbia and entitled “Uncertainty, resource
exploitation and conservation: Lessons from history”.
They conclude first that scientific certainty can rarely be
achieved especially in answer to the question of how long our
resources will last. If we delay and wait for a definite answer,
the only certainty will be to find that we are likely to run out
or will run out of fish, forest, certain animals and plants.
Their second conclusion is that humans are often motivated by
greed in exploiting natural resources.
There is a need therefore to act in a way that compensates for
the two realities they have identified. That is why we need
endangered species legislation with certain characteristics.
Who should decide? It seems to me that the role of scientists
ought to be defined as to who would determine which species is
threatened, vulnerable or endangered. Scientists, therefore,
would, through a special committee, have the power to determine
which species need protection, and then find ways of ensuring the
recovery of the species. The scientists would work at arm's
length from government. Once they determine a species is in
trouble, the procedure leading to protection would also be set
into motion.
The next question is: How do we protect the living spaces of
endangered species? It seems quite clear by now that they must
be protected. It means that to protect a species at risk without
protecting the land and water that the species depends on is not
possible. To protect an owl without also protecting the area
that provides it with food and nesting material will not do. It
does little to protect a large carnivore like the polar bear,
which has been listed as vulnerable since 1991, without ensuring
its territory and ensuring that it is not devastated by human
activities, including mining operations. The same arguments
apply for the many animals lower on the food chain, as well as
plants, that are at risk in Canada.
1735
How to proceed in the federal system is a difficult question to
answer. It is often said that strong legislation is not possible
because we are a federation. The possible answer to that is
mirror legislation, which would work in the following way: When
a province decides to protect endangered species within its
territories, it would ask the Government of Canada to sign an
agreement that once that province has equivalent protections in
place for the species, then the federal law would not be enforced
in that particular province. It would be a coming together
between two jurisdictions with the same kind of approach for the
purpose of protecting the endangered species.
This approach is necessary because species do not know the
meaning of borders. If their extinction is to be prevented,
there cannot be a patchwork of protections from province to
province with no protection at all in some, weak protection in
others and so on.
The other reason we have to move with this particular type of
legislation is our international commitments. In 1992 in Rio,
Canada was the first nation to sign the convention on biological
diversity. The Government of Canada made a commitment to
conserve our biological heritage for future generations. Other
countries are beginning to take note of our lack of progress on
this front. It has been seven years since we signed the
convention and we still have no law protecting species at risk.
Protecting species also means protecting a part of the global
commons; the resources that belong to everybody, to the global
community. Therefore, when damage is done to one species, every
other species somehow suffers and is affected by that.
Some people fear that an endangered species legislation would
threaten private property. There is no need to panic, because a
solution can be found for this particular concern.
The emphasis should not be on what individuals can do to protect
the global commons. The emphasis should be on finding solutions
and establishing roles for the individual and for the communities
in order to arrive at a solution, rather than identifying the
obstacles whereby we should not be acting. When it comes to the
issue of private property, the tendency has been to magnify that
particular issue rather than in developing approaches that would,
in the end, result in a solution to that particular problem.
This kind of legislation is now becoming very urgent. The
Canadian public is certainly very keen. It has responded very
favourably to every initiative made by parliamentarians in
alerting the government to the need for moving in this direction.
I hope this bill will serve the purpose that it was originally
intended to serve, namely to provide a benchmark for the
Government of Canada to possibly adopt in its fullness so that we
can have an effective piece of legislation that will be
functioning properly in a federal system and that will be
adequately removed from political pressures.
I would be glad now to defer to my colleague from
Lac-Saint-Louis.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
born on Mauritius, a small island in the Indian Ocean. Before
colonization, it had 29 species of fauna that were unique in the
world. Today, only three remain. The other 26 have
disappeared, including the legendary dodo.
1740
The three species left are the Mauritius kestrel, the echo
parakeet and the pink pigeon.
A few years ago, all that remained were nine of one species,
three or four of the other, the kestrels, and 20 pink pigeons.
The Durrell Foundation in New Jersey captured these three
threatened species and raised them in captivity in New Jersey.
Now, thanks to a conservation and recovery program, these three
species are living in nature on Mauritius.
[English]
Three years ago I visited Mauritius where I was born. For the
first time in my life, a long life so far, I was able to see a
pair of kestrels myself. This was something I had heard of and
read about in books and there it was in front of me. I found it
a very moving time because it was part of my natural heritage,
something that as a kid I could not enjoy. Today, thanks to the
Durrell Foundation, we have managed to save the three species but
twenty-six others have disappeared.
Learned people, like Professor Wilson of Harvard University,
have counted the number of extinct species in this century alone
at possibly one million. Jacques Cousteau, the great explorer,
told how, on visiting the Amazon, he thought of a beautiful
cathedral going back into centuries or a magnificent library of
the most precious books. He wrote that losing the species in the
Amazon was tantamount to a cathedral or a wonderful library of
precious books burning to the ground because we can never replace
them.
This is why I am extremely grateful to my colleague from
Davenport for having brought this bill forward to protect what
really makes species live: the habitat and the ecosystem.
Without habitat and the ecosystem there are no species and
species disappear. If we clear cut there can be no birds and no
wildlife because there is no place for them to live.
This is what has been happening. We have been destroying the
habitats and the ecosystems. There are 300 species at risk in
this wonderful country of Canada.
This is why this bill is so precious to us. It gives us the
ability to protect the habitat. Let us protect the habitat and
the species at risk right across Canada. If we must, let us give
equivalence to the provinces which have a prime right in many
ways if they can show that they have equivalent legislation for
them to act. The bill also provides for automatic listing at
arm's length of species at risk, another essential element of any
such legislation.
It hope these three elements will be found in any legislation
that the government brings forward later on. The bill is clear.
It is strong. It is logical. It is going to prevent extinction
by addressing the root causes of extinction; that is, habitat
conservation and preservation.
I will finish my speech with the same analogy I started with. On
my own native island of Mauritius there is a little 375 acre
island way out in the blue called Round Island. Of all the
places in the world, it was the one that contained the most
species of plants and wildlife unique to any one place anywhere
in the world. They were innumerable on Round Island. Today we
can count them on the fingers of one hand. The famous hurricane
palm has only one specimen left in the world and it is on Round
Island. Thanks again to the Durrell Foundation, they are trying
to preserve that unique tree, hoping that in the future they
might reproduce it in larger numbers.
I have seen so many species in my own lifetime disappear from my
eyes on this tropical island where there is so much wonderful
wildlife. I see it happening in Canada as we cut our forests and
we toxify our streams and rivers. We must stop it. This is why
Bill C-441 is so important. It sends a message, and sets a model
for us.
I congratulate my colleague. I think he has done us a great
turn by bringing this bill before parliament so that it can serve
as an example for possible legislation to follow. This is my
fondest wish.
1745
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to debate the merits of Bill C-441, an act
respecting endangered species protection.
The sponsor of the bill, the member for Davenport and the
chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development, is a learned man and a man committed to
a cause. He puts his heart and his soul into environmental
protection and is not reluctant to speak out, even against his
government many times.
However there are times when I disagree with my colleague on the
means that should be used to accomplish the end. I come from a
background that promotes smaller, less invasive government, a
government that does not overwhelm its citizens with mind numbing
layers of bureaucracy. I am a firm believer in motivating people
to take action through positive incentives, not through the
threat of heavy handed government action.
It is because of these distinctions that the member for
Davenport and I sit on opposite sides of the House. However, I
am grateful that when we have differences of opinion we can
engage in a public debate and let our positions be judged on the
merits of our arguments.
Wildlife is an intrinsic part of the Canadian identity. From
the days when native peoples roamed the lands to the days when
the first European settlers arrived and today when Canadians
spend over $11 billion in their nature pursuits, Canada's rugged
beauty has captivated our souls.
We value nature and its wildlife for many reasons. We depend on
a healthy environment for food and raw materials. We value the
medicinal and health benefits we receive. A vibrant ecosystem
cleans our air, purifies our water and nourishes our farm lands.
The economic spin-offs that come from recreational nature
pursuits or from sustainable harvesting of our natural resources
are a significant part of our national economy. Most important,
we believe that we are given the duty of stewardship by our
creator. We have a duty and an obligation to ensure that our
environment is preserved for future generations.
This deep respect for nature and wildlife has created an
international reputation of goodwill for Canada. This respect
led Canada to make international commitments to protect its
biological diversity. Canada was one of the first countries to
ratify the UN Convention on Biological Diversity which committed
Canada to a path of sustainable development. This convention
also committed Canada to pursue an agenda of sustainable
development and bound Canada to develop or maintain necessary
legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection
of threatened species and populations.
In spite of being home to almost 20% of the world's wildlife,
Canada is failing to live up to these international obligations.
Canada's wildlife is only protected through a piecemeal approach
of federal and provincial legislation. This legislation while
protecting some species does not adequately protect Canada's
wildlife at risk.
In my role as the chief environment critic for the Reform Party
I have repeatedly asked the government when it would be
fulfilling its obligations by introducing responsible endangered
species legislation. Despite my efforts I still have no answers.
In response to a letter that I wrote in March 1998 the
environment minister promised that she would be introducing
endangered species legislation before the end of that year. That
target has passed and now the latest target date promised by the
minister is quickly approaching. The minister recently promised
to introduce legislation before the summer recess, but it is
doubtful that she will even meet that target.
The Reform Party supports developing responsible endangered
species legislation. It is even given specific mention in our
blue book. Members of our party realize the important role that
the federal government can play in protecting our wildlife at
risk. We realize that the typical method of government
intervention is outdated and ineffective. The command and the
control authority that the government so dearly clings to do more
harm than good.
One need only look to our southern neighbours to see the results
of top down command and control, heavy handed government
regulation. The United States endangered species act has been a
complete failure. Billions of dollars have been spent on
bureaucratic paper shuffling while not one endangered species has
been delisted because of a successful recovery.
The hostile climate that this bill has created between private
property owners and the federal government has done more harm to
the cause of endangered species protection than having no
legislation at all. The complete disregard for private property
rights and absence of any positive stewardship incentives have
virtually destroyed any spirit of co-operation between the
government and landowners.
1750
The government practice of seizing private lands without
providing fair compensation has led to the so-called shoot,
shovel and shut up syndrome where landowners would rather
eliminate a resident endangered species on their land than run
the risk of government seizure. This is perhaps the most telling
statistic of this law's complete failure to recover one single
species despite spending over $13 billion since its inception in
1973.
I fear for the well-being of the country when I hear calls for
Canada to develop legislation based on this draconian example.
This is not the protection that Canada's wildlife at risk needs.
Canadian endangered species legislation should be driven by those
people who are intimately connected with Canada's wildlife.
Instead of being driven by invasive government actions regulated
by a far removed bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that has no idea of
the subtle nuances of the local endangered species, protection
should start on the ground with those who will be directly
affected.
On crown lands means fish and wildlife officers, wildlife
experts, conservation groups and land users. “On private
lands” means the farmers, ranchers and resource sector
employees. These individuals should be our first line of defence.
Stewardship of the land has a long tradition in Canada among
those who depend on it for their livelihood. These responsible
land users realize that if they treat the land with respect it
will continue to sustain them with its bounty and goodness.
However it has not been the tradition of the government to give
the proper respect to private property landowners. The last
attempt by the Liberals to introduce endangered species
legislation trampled the rights of landowners, granting the
government the authority to arbitrarily seize lands without
adequate compensation. It ignored stewardship initiatives in
favour of government programs. It expected landowners to bear a
disproportionate financial burden simply because they own the
land.
Unfortunately I see this tradition continued in the bill we are
debating today. The bill broadsides the rights of private
property owners. Although the act applies to all lands there is
no mention made of compensation for affected landowners. It pits
neighbour against neighbour, allowing endangered species
protection actions to be launched without even waiting for an
investigation. If the government investigation clears an
anonymously accused individual, the report does not require that
the name of the accuser be made public, creating an environment
of suspicion and hostility between neighbours.
In true Liberal fashion over half of the bill pertains to
enforcement and punishment measures, while giving only cursory
mention to recognizing private stewardship initiatives. The bill
is about control. It is about giving unfettered power to the
central government.
Landowners should be our first line of defence in the fight to
protect endangered species. This means working with landowners
instead of working against them. It means including them in
decisions affecting their lands. It means educating them and
assisting them in working with recovery plans. It means offering
them compensation if their land is affected.
Responsible landowners who display proper land management
practices, who have actively sought to protect and nurture
endangered species, deserve to be recognized. Incentives can be
used by the government to encourage and reward responsible
stewardship practices. Responsible legislation will recognize
this need and will provide for a process where governments and
landowners can reach a mutually compatible, voluntary contractual
agreement that protects wildlife at risk and respects private
property rights.
My time is short but I would like to close with a few comments
that I hope the member and his minister take under advisement.
Science should be kept above politics by all means.
Recommendations for species at risk should be made by an
independent body based on scientifically sound evidence. However,
the final decision must rest with parliament, for it alone has a
democratic mandate which entitles it to balance the competing
interests of economic and environmental needs. Although the bill
rejects the concept of balancing economic and environmental
needs, we cannot have a healthy environment without a healthy
economy.
Finally, and I think I can say above all, I ask the minister to
bear this in mind as she develops her own legislation.
Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most
successful. Our chosen environment is liberty and is the central
organizing principle of Canada. There is a direct and positive
relationship between free market societies and the healthiness,
cleanliness and safety of the environment. Free people work to
improve the environment and liberty is the energy behind
environmental progress.
1755
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-441, an act respecting
the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction.
This bill is almost identical to Bill C-65, which died on the
Order Paper. Some changes were made regarding the role of
provinces, but the bill still does not respect provincial
jurisdictions.
The purpose of this bill is to protect wildlife species at risk.
It provides for the establishment of a list of designated
species as well as a recovery process.
The designation of species, the scientific criteria used to
include a species on the list and the recovery plans will be
among the responsibilities of the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. There will be a
complete restructuring of this organization from its current
form. It will be made up of nine members appointed by the
Minister of the Environment, and they will be paid.
Bill C-441 will apply to the so-called federal species such as
migratory birds and aquatic species. It also deals with
transboundary species as well as all species found on federal
lands, and their habitats.
This bill prohibits anyone from killing, harming, disturbing,
harassing, capturing or taking an individual of a species at
risk as defined in the bill. Also, no person shall destroy its
residence, its den or its nest.
Those who contravene the act will face heavy fines and
penalties.
Bill C-441 directly threatens the provinces' jurisdiction in
environmental matters. In fact, on the pretext of meeting the
requirements of the international convention on biodiversity, the
bill introduced by the hon. member for Davenport interferes in
areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Bill C-441 does not respect the constitutional division of powers
with regard to the environment because it is based on a much too
broad interpretation of the definition of territory and because
it does not respect the joint responsibility of the federal
government and the provinces with regard to certain species.
The bill gives the Minister of the Environment broad
discretionary powers, in particular regarding appointment of the
COSEWIC members, listing by COSEWIC of threatened or endangered
species and the authority to implement or not recovery plans,
etc.
It should be noted that even if there is an amendment to section
5(3) regarding admission criteria, our concerns remain
basically unanswered. The Minister of the Environment still has
discretionary power.
One fundamental fact we must remember is that, since 1989,
Quebec has had legislation on this and that the legislation
works well and has had good results. We should avoid creating
more bureaucracy and useless duplication—I am sure the member for
Davenport will agree on that—and we should also use our energy
for what we believe is important, that is the fate of threatened
species.
This bill, rather than allowing provinces to participate in the
designation and recovery process of threatened or endangered
species, excludes them.
In its preamble, the bill tries to demonstrate that the
protection of biological diversity is a fundamental issue, so
important that it is a national concern. Hence, the bill
introduced by the member for Davenport tries to grant the
federal government powers that would allow it to intefere in
what is clearly provincial jurisdiction, by putting forward the
necessity to abide by the biodiversity convention. The bill
validates interference by federal government.
1800
In our view, the federal government cannot justify such
interference by putting forward the necessity to abide by a
convention, because it is the provinces that have to implement
the convention on their own territory.
I would also like to raise another point and that has to do with
the definition of federal land. I have a problem with that,
because the definition in the bill is much too general.
It defines federal land as land, including any water, that
belongs to Her Majesty, and the air above that land, the
internal waters of Canada as determined by the Territorial Sea
and Fishing Zones Act, including the seabed and subsoil below
and the airspace above those waters, and any other lands that
are set apart under the Indian Act.
You will understand why I cannot subscribe to such a broad
definition which implies that the seabed, the subsoil, and the
airspace above internal fresh waters, which normally come under
provincial jurisdiction, will be managed by Bill C-441. The
definition of federal land refers to other legislative texts
giving jurisdiction to the federal government over the fisheries
and shipping on internal waters.
As a result, this bill gives the federal government much greater
and broader authority over everything connected with these
lands, including the protection of endangered species.
I want to clarify by describing in greater detail the division
of powers regarding the protection of the environment,
especially wildlife, under the Constitution. As could be
expected, the protection of wildlife and its habitat is not
provided for in the Constitutional Act of 1867.
However, under this act, the provinces have jurisdiction over
the management of public lands, they belong to the
provinces—subsection 92(5), property and civil rights—subsection
92(13), and generally all matters of a merely local or private
nature—subsection 92(16).
These powers are specific enough and broad enough to allow the
provinces to legislate with regard to wildlife on provincial
public lands as well as on private properties.
The use of the term “federal species” is confusing because this
notion does not take into account the territory where those
species are found. Under Bill C-441, migratory birds are
considered federal species, even though they have always been
recognized as a joint responsibility of the federal government
and the provinces.
The bill states that, under the Constitution Act, 1867, the
federal government has jurisdiction over sea coast and inland
fisheries—section 91, paragraph 12—and may therefore appropriate
any power with regard to the protection of fish, marine mammals
and marine flora found in Canada's territorial sea and internal
waters, including the subsoil below and the air above. Nothing
less. Similarly, this bill gives the federal government
jurisdiction over the habitat of migratory birds, whether the
said habitat is on provincial land or not.
Combined with the definition of “federal land” and with section
35, which deals with transboundary species, this is certainly
one of the most questionable provisions of this bill.
So the bill gives the federal government the power to intervene
with wildlife species and their habitat, aquatic species and
their habitat and migratory birds.
I would have added a lot more things, but I can only
congratulate the member for Davenport for having introduced this
bill to the House. I know how interested he is in everything
that concerns the protection of species at risk and the
environment.
The Bloc Quebecois criticizes this bill primarily because it
totally changes the rules of the game by not establishing a
species' territory and confirms direct meddling in areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
1805
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise this evening to speak to Bill C-441, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction.
I would like to thank the member for Davenport for an excellent
bill. His wisdom, vision and leadership are appreciated. His
efforts to improve the protection of the environment for this and
future generations are evident in his position as chair of the
House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development.
The bill before us reflects the hon. member's vision. Canadians
can only hope that the environment minister's proposed species at
risk legislation will be as well written to ensure the protection
and recovery of species at risk in this country.
Canadians have told the government to act. The Prime Minister
received a letter signed by 638 Canadian scientists, calling for
specific action to be taken on the scientific listings of
endangered species and the explicit need for national habitat
protection for transboundary species.
Two letters from the scientific community, dated February 1997
and October 1995, stated explicitly that one cannot protect
species at risk without protecting their habitats, the places
where species feed, breed, rear their young, and so on, which are
critical to their survival and recovery. The letters stated that
habitats can be geographically dispersed and are not confined
within political boundaries, but must each be effectively
protected to ensure a species' well-being.
Regarding the scientific listing of endangered species, the
letter to the Prime Minister is quite pointed. It reads:
Identifying and listing species at risk is the foundation of
endangered species protection. Your government recognized this
in its 1995 legislative proposal, and agreed that species at risk
should be identified and listed by COSEWIC—an independent
committee of scientists drawn mainly from government and
academia—and that mandatory listing should follow COSEWIC's
determinations.
Since then, your government has abandoned this principle in two
ways. First, the federal environment minister recently decided
to strip most of COSEWIC's non-governmental scientists of their
voting rights. This change (which was made without public
notice) weakens COSEWIC's independence by opening the door to
political interference in species listings.
The Prime Minister's letter also refers to this government's
effort to give cabinet the power to override the scientifically
based list of species at risk. As I mentioned at the outset, we
Canadians can only hope that the environment minister's proposed
legislation will be on par with Bill C-441.
I encourage all members to read the summary of this very sound
legislation. It states:
The purpose of this enactment is to prevent Canadian wildlife
species from becoming extirpated or extinct and to provide for
the recovery of those that are extirpated, endangered or
threatened as a result of human activity.
This is a vision which has protection and recovery as its
purpose. We need a sincere, non-partisan approach to address the
crisis that faces Canada's biodiversity today.
The bill's preamble presents an outline for a working framework
between all jurisdictions. There is a specific reference to the
conservation efforts of individual Canadians and communities that
should be encouraged and supported and their interests should be
considered in developing and implementing recovery measures.
This is a specific reference to the role of citizens and
communities.
There is also a specific reference to the role of aboriginal
people and of the wildlife management boards established under
aboriginal land claims. I thank the hon. member for his
continued diligence in traditional aboriginal ecological
knowledge and the important role that this presents for Canada
and future generations.
Throughout the interpretation section the definitions are good.
The definition for residence is especially important, as it notes
the basic facts that wildlife is mobile and is affected by
seasons. A bird does not spend its entire life in a nest and the
caribou feed and calve in different areas.
Prevention of species loss and species recovery provides the
basis for this bill. I do not believe the minister will be able
to match this principle due to politics.
1810
I have not seen the Prime Minister's leadership and vision for
proactive environmental initiatives, so I fear there is a strong
probability that these basic principles will be missing from the
current government's legislation.
Bill C-441 sets a standard for the responsibilities of ministers
and the delegation of responsibilities between departments and
jurisdictions to ensure this legislation works. Consultations
with stakeholders are ensured. Funding requirements are outlined
in section 9. These references include specific management and
fiscal responsibilities. It is refreshing to see legislation
where accountability for a minister's action is defined.
The hon. member for Davenport includes an excellent proposal for
a specific Canadian endangered species conservation council.
With specific reference to the Prime Minister, I hope the
wildlife species listing process described in Bill C-441 will be
included in whatever legislation the government assembles for
this crucial issue.
The basis for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada, COSEWIC, would address the scientific, academic,
non-governmental organizations and overall concerns for effective
legislation. This means effective protection, prevention and
recovery. Otherwise, why waste the trees to print a meaningless
and toothless biased law?
It is unfortunate that the government is setting a dangerous
precedent in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA,
which is about to enter the House. We can expect the government
to throw out the democratic committee process once again with
CEPA next week. We fully expect industry bias and that the
industry and natural resources ministers will overrule the
environment and health ministers. Canadians can only hope that
this government will attempt to reverse the current trend toward
environmental devolution and degradation with a well written
endangered species act.
The proposed recovery and management plans are based on
realistic terms. They represent a conscientious approach that
includes the necessity for public buy-in. There is a requirement
for landowners' needs and concerns to be addressed and
considered.
On the international stage Canada is falling behind. It is well
reported that our North American neighbours have effective
endangered species legislation. The United States has had this
legislation for 25 years. As signatories to the Rio biodiversity
accord, Canadians can only expect that this government will
finally act.
I will read some comments from a publication I received while I
was at the United Nations in New York recently:
Currently, a grizzly bear can lumber across the border from the
American state of Montana, where it is protected by law, and die
quite legally in a hail of hunters' bullets in the Canadian
province of Alberta. Similarly, wetlands and forests critical to
creatures like the whooping crane and the spotted owl enjoy
virtually no protection in Canada, though they are rigorously
policed by the U.S....which is why the American conservation
groups...have gotten in on the issue...they are attempting to use
a 30-year-old American fishing law to pressure Canada to conform
to a 55-year-old convention on wildlife by passing a species law.
The mechanism they plan to use is the Pelly amendment to the
Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967. Their filing of a petition
under this amendment would require the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior to evaluate Canada's efforts to comply with
international programs to protect endangered species.
Not only are Canadians knocking on this government's door,
international neighbours and the world community is also looking
at Canada to take leadership and to make a move on protecting our
species.
The publication sums up our current status, which is why Bill
C-441 is necessary for the protection and recovery of species at
risk.
I thank the hon. member for bringing a worthwhile bill into this
House and I ask all members to vote in favour of it.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-441, an act to
protect wildlife species in Canada from extinction. Ninety-four
per cent of Canadians, an overwhelming majority, support
protection for endangered species. Estimates of extinction range
from two to three species a day to three to four species an hour.
1815
In 1992 Canada signed the International Convention on
Biodiversity. Under the terms of the convention Canada made a
commitment to protect threatened species and habitats. Under
article 8(k) it had to develop the necessary legislation to
provide that protection. Sadly, six years later we were without
any legislation. It is soon to be seven years.
In October 1996 Canada's 10 provinces and two territories and
the federal government all signed a national accord for the
protection of species at risk. It committed each jurisdiction to
establish an effective endangered species program. To date, four
Canadian provinces have laws in place that specifically protect
species at risk. They are Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and
Manitoba.
While only a few provinces currently have plans in place, most
notably a federal plan remains outstanding. We wonder why it is
taking so long. The solution is simple. The federal government
has to introduce a bill that identifies species needing help,
that does not allow for them to be killed, that gives them a home
and helps them recover. Bill C-441 proves it can be done. Any
bill introduced by the minister should follow its lead and
achieve at least the following goals.
Ideally a Canadian law should apply to all federal lands with
complementary legislation from the provinces. It should have a
specific listing of the species at risk and the habitat required
for survival. It should automatically prohibit the destruction
of the species and its critical habitat. It should require a
recovery plan within one year for endangered species, two years
for threatened species and three years for vulnerable species
from the time of listing. This will prevent what I call the 911
approach to species protection.
If we invest in the earlier years when species are vulnerable,
we can actually protect them from entering the more costly stage
when they become endangered and we may not have the resources or
the time to address the issue.
We also must require protection for critical habitat and require
the advance review of projects that may adversely affect the
protection or recovery of an endangered or threatened species or
its critical habitat.
The federal government already had a chance to put forward a
bill that could have accomplished these basic goals. To date it
has failed to do so.
The government introduced Bill C-65 during its past mandate but
it was widely criticized for several key weaknesses. It
protected species on federal lands only. It protected them from
direct harm, or harm to the nest or den only, which was known as
a residence. The bill required recovery and management plans but
never required them to be implemented. Cabinet, not scientists,
was given the authority to list a species as endangered. That was
a tragedy. It required action only after the species had hit a
crisis situation, again the famous 911 approach.
Nonetheless the bill was sent to committee for a lengthy review
process. I know firsthand about lengthy review processes of a
bill. We just endured six months of reviewing the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
The bill that returned from the committee was significantly
stronger but it still had key weaknesses. The bill still only
covered federal lands and waters and cabinet still only did the
listing of endangered species.
Due to many problems identified by both industry and
environmental NGOs, Bill C-65 was allowed to die on the Order
Paper at the dissolution of parliament in 1997. Since then the
Liberal government has been promising a new bill that will
hopefully address these concerns.
Bill C-441 certainly does. It addresses the crucial weaknesses
identified in Bill C-65 and meets all the ideal criteria for a
new federal law. Although it has not been deemed votable, I can
assure members that Bill C-441 is the standard against which any
future federal legislation should be measured.
The goal of any endangered species legislation should be to
create an atmosphere where the landowner will act in a way that
positively contributes to habitat protection.
Allow me to say it again. The goal of any endangered species
legislation should be to create an atmosphere where the landowner
will act in a way that positively contributes to habitat
protection so that existing endangered species are protected and
future endangered species are prevented.
1820
This does not necessarily mean taking over land management of
private property. If an endangered species is found on private
land, then the landowner must be doing something right and should
be encouraged to continue.
Encouraging stewardship programs will create an atmosphere where
the benefits of biodiversity are valued and recognized. This is
the approach the Canadian Nature Federation has taken. It
ensures that landowners, industry and environmental NGOs are
actually advancing in a common cause the best, well balanced
piece of legislation possible. The work that Sarah Dover has been
doing on behalf of the Canadian Nature Federation and the
coalition should indeed be acknowledged.
Legislation that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of
landowners and resource users is the most effective way to
achieve co-operation. Without the co-operation of the provinces,
landowners and resource users, the most stringent criteria of an
effective endangered species act will be impossible.
Legislation should implement stewardship, including recognition
and compensation programs across the country to ensure that
landowners and resource users would consider land management
practices that protect species.
Critical to the success of the upcoming bill the government
plans on introducing is it should not be restricted to the
residence of a species. It should include its core habitat.
Survival of a species depends on its having a place to sleep, eat
and breed.
The vast majority of Canadians want the federal government to
implement strong endangered species legislation. It will set a
standard for the provinces to achieve.
Information sharing is also critical. It is essential to
species recovery. Effective species recovery is not only dictated
by limited resources but also by limited knowledge. Endangered
species protection legislation must focus on encouraging the use
of information to protect species. Imperfect information can
result in underestimating or overestimating the value of a
habitat and will result in negative net benefits.
Information from the scientific community, traditional knowledge
and landowner concerns must be considered when deciding how an
endangered species will be protected.
Information sharing should also be used to alleviate the fears
of landowners who will lose their property rights should they
become involved in the recovery of a species. The wildlife
department must show that all of society will bear the cost of
endangered species protection.
We also need to ensure that we are rewarding stewardship
activities. It is far more effective than outright control of
private property. Simply purchasing land in most cases is not
the most effective method of protecting species. The economic
benefit brought from the land is lost and other unforeseen
problems can arise. But there is a moral hazard in purchasing
land because the landowner benefits while the rest of society
pays.
In the time remaining, I would like to outline some of the other
initiatives which have been done around the world.
American legislation is known as command and control approach
legislation. It is largely ineffective and does not have the
support of the resource users or landowners. It does actually
promote the shoot, shovel and smile approach which we do not
necessarily want to advocate. We want all of society to show
leadership in protecting species at risk.
The British legislation actually has some innovative approaches
in terms of having land preservation or specific areas where a
species is provided a core habitat. It is something that should
be included.
In conclusion, regardless of which plan the government decides
to introduce, it is imperative that the legislation work. The
American law is strong but ineffective. We do not want the same
thing to happen in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member,
but his time has expired.
If the hon. member for Davenport wishes to exercise his five
minute right of reply, he may do so now. I should advise the
House that when he speaks, he will close the debate.
1825
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow
me to express my words of thanks to the hon. members who
participated in this debate and provided their comments, views,
suggestions and criticisms.
It is unfortunate to hear the Reform Party expressing its lack
of belief in the role of government and its belief in the fact
that somehow society should find a way to solve its own problems
by way of some mysterious activity which is not the result of the
decision of society to govern itself by way of established rules
that come about when we decide to have a government.
The Reform approach is one that would lead to very few decisions
being made in the name of society at large. I suspect that we
would not have social security or programs that bind society and
distribute wealth if we were to fully bring to its ultimate
consequence the philosophy of the Reform Party.
With respect to this bill it is very doubtful that we would ever
be able to protect endangered species and come to some tangible
results if it were left to the enterprise of individuals, as well
intentioned as they may be, to come to some initiatives that
would ensure protection of the species.
I was struck by the comments made by the hon. member from the
Bloc Quebecois who spent much time describing the issue in terms
of federal and provincial species. This is an interesting
political point of view and an interesting way of dividing the
fauna surrounding us. However the fact remains that birds and
animals do not understand political jurisdictions.
We would not want to have a system whereby a bird landing on a
provincial stone would be out of luck because the particular
province did not have specific legislation to protect birds.
However, if the same bird were to land on a federal stone it
might have some degree of protection.
Surely this is not what the hon. member intended to imply as the
ultimate consequence of her logic. It seems to me that she is on
a very dangerous slippery slope if she tries to judge legislation
on the basis of jurisdiction that is of a political and human
made nature and does not take into account the reality of the
fact that animals move. There are not only migratory birds that
she generously attributes to federal jurisdiction. There are
also animals that do not respect provincial boundaries.
There is a consensus among all participants on the recognition
of the absolute necessity of protecting habitat. Habitat is the
key to the legislation which ought to have some impact and ensure
the protection of endangered species.
It seems we have a consensus that is rather encouraging. I hope
it will give the Government of Canada sufficient material on
which to build interesting legislation. It is quite obvious that
without habitat there cannot be adequate protection of endangered
species.
In this sense I hope the hour we have spent on this bill has
been a productive one and one that can be used for the design of
good and lasting legislation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
[English]
It being 6.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
ten o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)