36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 48
CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 10, 1997
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BIG BOB
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| DRUNK DRIVING
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| BAFFIN REGIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| CMHC
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1405
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| JOURNALISM
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| BILL C-14
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1410
| AIR CRASH
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| MARCIA ADAMS AND MARLENE MCCUTCHEON
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. John McKay |
1415
| DEPUTY CLERK MARY ANNE GRIFFITH
|
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FEDERALISM
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SABLE ISLAND GAS PIPELINE
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1445
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| CANADIAN NATIONAL
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1450
| MILITARY SITES
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| NAV CANADA
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1455
| CANADIAN LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1500
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Interparliamentary Delegation
|
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
1505
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1510
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-28. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| CREDIT CARD INTEREST LIMITATION ACT
|
| Bill C-301. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| FISHERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-302. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1515
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| PETITIONS
|
| Assisted Suicide
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Public Nudity
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Rail Transportation
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1520
| Japan
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1525
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCE
|
| Motion
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1555
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1600
1605
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1615
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCE
|
| Motion No. 9
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1725
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1730
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-215. Second reading
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1735
1740
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1745
1750
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1755
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1800
1805
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1810
1815
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Devco
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1820
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1825
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1830
| Dairy Industry
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1835
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1840
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Summa Strategies
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1845
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1850
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 48
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 10, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Vancouver Island North, with the help of students in Grades 1 to
6 from Good Shepherd School in Gloucester. Leading the choral
will be Mrs. Michelle Hundertmark.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the national anthem was sung]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BIG BOB
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate a House of
Commons security guard affectionately know as Big Bob for
creating a sense of national unity around Christmastime.
Bob has requested the Christmas cards of members of Parliament
of all political parties in order to decorate the Christmas tree
located in the Confederation Building. The tree is a true joy
and I applaud the efforts of Big Bob and the rest of the security
guards for creating something truly unique during this time of
year.
I welcome all to come to see the tree. Merry Christmas, Happy
New Year, Joyeux Noël.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government has made it clear that 50% of any future
surplus will go into spending. There is compelling reason to
make debt reduction and tax relief a higher priority.
I appeal to the government's supposed social conscience. The
negative impacts of exploding debt and excessive taxation are
felt directly by the old, the young, the sick, the poor, the
unemployed and families.
These are the people the Liberal government is turning its back
on when it says new spending is its number one priority. The
interest on the federal debt is eating the heart out of social
programs. Health care, education, employment insurance and old
age pensions combined receive less than what we spend on interest
payments each year.
Reformers believe social responsibility and social conscience
demand that the Liberal government reduce the debt and cut taxes
in the name of the old, the young, the sick, the poor, the
unemployed and families across the country.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is International Human Rights Day. In 1948 the
international community adopted the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights and observed December 10 as Human Rights Day.
The respect for human rights is one of the cornerstones of a
functional democratic nation. The world is rife with human
rights abuses. Every day in one way or another we are informed
about human rights violations in various parts of the globe.
Individual rights are either violated by oppressive regimes or by
the actions of others. In some instances others have lost their
lives as they struggle for even the most basic human rights.
Canadians and the government must not take human rights for
granted. As a nation we must continue to work at upholding and
promoting human rights in Canada and around the world.
* * *
DRUNK DRIVING
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the many
organizations that wage a daily battle against drunk driving.
Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have changed the
attitudes of Canadians. People who may have considered driving
drunk before probably do not now because of stiffer penalties and
RIDE programs.
As the Christmas season approaches I encourage everyone to make
this a safe and happy holiday. If you do drink, don't drive.
In our gallery today we have a group of students from Bishop
Smith Catholic High School in my riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. One of those students is Miss
Kathleen Forder.
Miss Forder is the Ontario provincial chair of Students Against
Drunk Driving. It is the leadership shown by Kathleen and other
young Canadians like her who will help keep the pressure on
parliamentarians to ensure that people continue to realize that
driving drunk is not socially acceptable. We must work together
to make our highways safer for all Canadians.
Kathleen, keep up the good work.
* * *
BAFFIN REGIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday I was privileged to attend the Baffin Regional
Youth Council meeting in Broughton Island. I met with youth
representatives from each Baffin Island community to discuss
several issues affecting young people in Nunavut.
These future leaders are great ambassadors for the north. Their
determination, hard work and leadership skills are proof of their
abilities as role models for Baffin youth.
I commend their work and look forward to working closely with
them toward the common goal of creating our new territory.
[Editor's Note: the member spoke Inuktitut]
* * *
[English]
CMHC
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last spring a young couple purchased a lot in Tumbler
Ridge, B.C., and then bought a trailer to put on it. After it
had been installed on the property, Shirley and Don were notified
that a mistake had been made and they did not qualify for a CMHC
mortgage unless they put another 20% down. They simply did not
have the money.
They are now out $20,000, renting, and their dreams of owning
their home are shattered. CMHC has designated Tumbler Ridge a
special risk community, which means anyone working for the local
coal mine needs at least 25% down before CMHC will even look at a
mortgage.
This is ludicrous. If the mine ever shut down they could move
the trailer to a new location. Where is the risk for CMHC? You
can work in a corner store and buy a house in Tumbler Ridge, but
you cannot if you work in the mine.
This is discrimination at its worse. On behalf of all Canadians
living in resource based towns, I call on the federal government
to review and amend CMHC special risk policy.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today I wish to join forces with the other Bloc Quebecois members
in drawing attention to International Human Rights Day. This event
is even more meaningful this year since it coincides with the start
of celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Every day, events remind us of the importance of these
fundamental rights and freedoms.
There is no doubt that they have contributed to legitimizing the
principle of the constitutional state, to democratization, and to
the broadening of civil, political, economic, social and cultural
rights.
Despite these real advances, however, there is still much to
be done. The tragedy of the Palestinian refugees in the Middle
East, the scandal of the loagai in China, the denial of the rights
of the aboriginal communities in Chiapas, are all examples which
rightly trouble the international community.
1405
For this reason, governments, the Government of Canada
included, must loudly reaffirm the inalienable and universal
character of human rights, the rights of women in particular, and
must continue to remind—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauce.
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
researchers are reacting strongly to the PQ government's threat to
cut off research centres and universities which accept funding from
the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
The PQ government, on the other hand, is demanding its share
of the sums to be allocated to R and D.
The former leader of the Bloc, the man who believes his party
is destined to disappear, the hon. member for Roberval, indicated
on February 28, 1996 that they believed R and D investments were
needed to create jobs.
Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard said on October 3, 1995:
[English]
Quebec only gets 18.6% of federal funds compared to 50% for
Ontario.
[Translation]
The federal government is taking action, but the PQ is
complaining and protesting against the action of the Government of
Canada with respect to Quebec institutions. By making the
researchers pay the political price, the Parti Quebecois is acting
against the interests of Quebec. The Bloc ought to join with those
who are speaking out against this action by the separatists.
Let us have protection of the public at heart.
* * *
QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we heard sad news this morning: the Quebec minister of
labour, Louise Harel, hit the wall with her cabinet yesterday when
she presented her social assistance reform proposal.
It was somewhat reminiscent of the last Parti Quebecois
congress when those who were hoping for socio-economic improvements
were disappointed by the PQ government.
The Parti Quebecois needs social agencies when it comes time
to promote Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada, but when it
comes time to give people real help, they are told the Quebec
government has no money.
This attitude is called disdain. So when the sovereignists
try to give us a lesson in social politics, we can send them out to
pasture, because they are doing worse to the people of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
JOURNALISM
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week Diane Francis wrote about Quebec terrorist Ray
Villeneuve. On Friday in her member's statement the separatist
member for Laval Centre referred to patriotic Canadian editors
and columnists as stalinizers.
To equate thoughtful journalism to Stalin the slaughterer is
shameful. Stalin murdered millions of innocent people. My
ancestors and other Canadians who fled Russia are disgusted and
insulted by the separatist's comments. How dare she minimize the
memories of such a murderous madman.
Convicted killer Villeneuve and his guerrillas continue to
threaten innocent people. Senior citizens, for heaven's sake,
are being beaten in the streets of Quebec by separatist thugs
while our justice system stands idly by.
Villeneuve brags about taking hammers and bombs to federalists.
The separatists should be attacking the hammer and sickle
techniques of Villeneuve, not the media that are merely reporting
the facts.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-14
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
their latest national council, the members of the Parti Quebecois
unanimously passed a motion introduced by the riding of Argenteuil,
the Conseil régional des Laurentides and the Conseil exécutif
national, which reads as follows:
“It is moved that the national council reiterate Quebec's full
rights to administer a general policy on Quebec waters and condemn
the latest federal infringement in an area of provincial
jurisdiction with the introduction of Bill C-14.”
The people of Quebec will never agree to let the federal
government appropriate this common wealth, which belongs to Quebec.
It alone must have control and it intends to keep it.
* * *
[English]
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 13, 1991 Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, ensuring the right of every child to a standard of
living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual,
moral and social development. However development cannot begin
unless we provide the most fundamental necessities of housing,
clothing and, above all, nutrition.
The government's commitment to children is very clearly
demonstrated through our numerous initiatives such as the
prenatal program, the Canada child tax benefit and our national
children's agenda.
We all need to do our part in our communities to see that
children do not go hungry, especially at this time of year.
[Translation]
When I held my open house for the holidays, I invited the
people of the riding of Ahuntsic to help out those less fortunate
by donating food to Magasin-Partage of the community help and
nutrition service (SNAC). Thanks to these donations, some 350
families will have food for the holidays.
1410
[English]
I congratulate my colleagues who have put forward such
initiatives. We must all do our part, not only during this
holiday season but year round.
* * *
AIR CRASH
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday afternoon in my riding tragedy hit Little Grand Rapids,
a remote community some 260 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg.
A plane crashed killing the pilot and two others. A child also
died later in the hospital. The remaining passengers, some of
them critically injured, are being treated in a tiny nursing
station near the crash site. Only now are the injured being
air-lifted to a hospital in Winnipeg.
Residents travelled to the site by skidoo to assist the injured.
Volunteers were up all night bringing needed supplies to the
nursing station. For more than 20 hours, rescue planes were
unable to land due to treacherous weather conditions. The
airport at Little Grand Rapids, like many remote communities, has
limited resources and equipment, increasing the potential for
dangerous landings.
Today we extend our deepest sympathy to the families and friends
of those who died in the crash. We also commend the community
and the many volunteers who have offered their help to the
victims of the crash.
* * *
MARCIA ADAMS AND MARLENE MCCUTCHEON
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to honour two people whose lives touched many in my
community.
Last Friday a terrible car accident took the lives of two school
teachers, Mrs. Marcia Adams and Mrs. Marlene McCutcheon. The
entire community has suffered a tremendous loss.
Marcia Adams was an exceptional woman and an example to all
young teachers entering the profession. Her devotion and her
love for her job and the children she taught were only surpassed
by the respect she gained in the community.
Marlene McCutcheon was just starting in her career, but already
she was distinguishing herself as someone who cared about the
young people she taught and the betterment of her school.
While we mourn our loss we also remember their lessons of
determination, self-esteem, compassion and devotion. We will all
miss them.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, Statistics Canada recently confirmed what Canadians have
known for years: the face of Canada is rapidly changing.
According to StatsCan, 4.7 million people reported a mother
tongue other than French or English. That is a 15% increase in
just five years.
Canada is much more than francophone and anglophone. It is time
for the government to scrap outdated policies such as official
multiculturalism and bilingualism that fail to reflect the
reality of Canada. Multiculturalism is a misplaced policy which
does more to divide Canadians than to unite us. Bilingualism is
costly, unfair and discriminatory.
It is time for a national debate on the true nature of our
country. It is time to redefine what it means to be Canadian and
to embrace the new reality. It is time to capture and foster a
new national spirit.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This milestone reminds us that human rights are the foundation of
women's equality in Canada and around the world.
Internationally, Canada uses venues such as the United Nations, the
Commonwealth and the Organization of American States to promote women's
rights.
Here at home, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees equal protection and benefits under the law to Canadian men
and women.
Women have used the charter to challenge legislation which discriminates
against them.
The Government of Canada will continue to fight discrimination
against women and support their efforts to find solutions to the
problems confronting them.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today in commemoration of the
50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This milestone gives us cause to recognize that human rights are
the foundation of women's equality in Canada and around the
world.
Internationally Canada continues to play a leadership role in
support of human rights at the United Nations, the Commonwealth
and the Organization of American States.
Here at home the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees Canadians equal access and equal benefit under the
law. Women have used the charter to challenge legislation which
discriminates against them.
The government will continue to support women who face
discrimination based not only on their gender but also on their
race, their age and their disabilities. We will continue to
support them in their efforts.
* * *
1415
DEPUTY CLERK MARY ANNE GRIFFITH
The Speaker: My colleagues, I want to pay tribute before
we start our question period today and you will understand why.
Today, for those of us who are House officers, is rather a
bittersweet day because Mary Anne Griffith, Deputy Clerk of the
House of Commons, is sitting for the last time as a table officer
in this Chamber.
[Translation]
She is leaving us after 30 years in the public service, 27 of them
here, in the House of Commons. During her long career in the House, Mary
Anne achieved a lot.
[English]
In April 1883 she became a table officer—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: She looks so well.
The Speaker: Forgive me. And in 1983 she did it again.
As the first principal clerk of the Table Research Branch and
later the clerk assistant, Research, she contributed greatly to
this House's current status as a Commonwealth leader in
procedural research and information.
[Translation]
In 1987, she became the first person to be appointed Deputy Clerk.
In 1994, she took over the responsibility for administrative services,
the position she will be leaving next month.
[English]
I know, my colleagues, that you will join me in recognizing Mary
Anne's distinguished career. I want to wish you, Mary Anne, your
husband Greg and your family, good health and every happiness in
the years to come. You have done a great service for us here in
the House of Commons and we are deeply appreciative.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Best
wishes, Mary Anne, from the new members as well as the old
members.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked to hear of a tragic plane
crash last night near Little Grand Rapids, Manitoba. Our hearts
go out to the families of the four people who died.
An armed forces Hercules circled above the crash site but were
unable to help the injured below. It could not land. It was the
Winnipeg Sun that had to come to the rescue. It chartered
a commercial helicopter, landed at the site and ferried three of
the injured to safety.
It is our understanding that the government is supposed to be
responsible for search and rescue. Therefore my question for the
Prime Minister is why did a newspaper have to do what this
Liberal government could not?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone in the House joins in offering
our condolences to the families of all of those who have been
injured, as well as to the families of the deceased.
The weather conditions have been particularly bad in the area
but I was informed just before question period that the Hercules
was able to get in and complete its mission.
Transport Safety Board representatives will be there as soon as
possible with Transport Canada representatives to fully
investigate this very unfortunate crash.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, our search and rescue teams are among the best in the
world but they cannot do their job if we do not give them the
right equipment.
Because this government has been dithering about helicopters for
four years, it took the Winnipeg Sun to rescue injured
Canadians. Why must Canadians continue to pay the price for a
foolish campaign promise that this Liberal government made in
1993?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we did not proceed with the buying of helicopters in
1993 for one very obvious reason. The program required the
government to spend $6 billion and at that time the government
could not afford to make such a large expenditure.
In the meantime, we still have search and rescue helicopters.
Sometimes they are close to a site, sometimes they are not. Most
of these helicopters are used near coastal areas. I do not know
the exact situation in Manitoba for search and rescue, but I do
not think he is referring to the same situation that we are
debating with the—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, these weak excuses which we have heard time and time
again will not meet the safety needs of Canadians. They were let
down again by this government which seems to put political
decision making ahead of public safety time and time again.
When will the Prime Minister end this cabinet squabble and buy
the search and rescue helicopters he has been promising for four
years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to note that the Leader of the Opposition was
in favour of the $6 billion project proposed by the previous
government. At the same time he was asking us to cut
expenditures. That is exactly what we have done. That is why
today we have the interest rates we do and that is why the
economy has turned around. At that time we could not spend $6
billion on helicopters and at this time we cannot spend $6
billion on helicopters.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister will recall that in our budgets we at least
allotted $2 billion more for the military and it would have those
helicopters now if we were sitting over on that side. This
government has been playing partisan politics with the search and
rescue helicopters for so long now that civilian organizations
have to go and do the job.
We salute the initiative taken by the Winnipeg Sunand the
brave pilot who flew that mission, but Canadians should be able
to count on their military. I ask the Prime Minister when he
will stop playing games with public safety and give our military
the equipment it needs to do the job.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition should stop playing
politics with a very tragic event.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: A crew of nine search and rescue
technicians spent over 15 hours in aircraft. They had to wait to
be in a position to land because of the terrible weather
conditions that existed, weather conditions that contributed to
that crash. They have finally been able to land.
First they put out medical supplies and now they have been able
to land. They are on their way to the hospital in Winnipeg with
the survivors.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe this minister and his lack of knowledge of what
happened there today and last night. One plane took off with
three injured yesterday and a Sun helicopter landed today.
The military circled around. The minister said that they did not
have the equipment to do the job properly. Nor did the military
say that.
I ask this question of the Prime Minister. Were there any
helicopters on the ground at CFB Winnipeg? If so, why were they
not dispatched to go and do the job?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my understanding about the private
helicopter is that it was able to get underneath the ceiling.
However, it did so at considerable risk. A risk assessment is
something our people have to take at the time. It did not do it
in that much of a different time from what it took our own
Hercules to be able to land and to carry out the rescue mission
for the vast majority of those people.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the consensus of finance ministers from all provinces is clear.
They have told the government it should begin by putting the money
it took from the provinces back into social programs, health and
education before spending right and left on new federal programs.
Now that the federal government is getting ready to free up
surpluses, does the Minister of Finance, who reduced the deficit on
the backs of the provinces, not find it indecent, even insulting,
to now hand out gifts using a small part of the money it cut the
provinces?
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, when the country's financial situation forced us to
make cuts, we made them at the federal level first, and gave the
provinces a period of notice.
That having been said, as the prime minister announced in June
and the Minister of Health and I confirmed two days ago, we have
put $1.5 billion back into the Canada social transfer. This is one
of the government's largest areas of spending. Furthermore, it
shows the benefit of putting our fiscal house in order.
At the same time, my colleague in human resources development
and I have invested over $850 million to help the most
disadvantaged in the provinces.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): The Minister
of Finance is such a generous fellow, Mr. Speaker. He tells us
that, instead of cutting $48 billion, he is only cutting $42
billion, and then he wants us to think he is giving us $6 billion.
Honestly.
The minister is the only one telling us that the surpluses
belong to all Canadians. I therefore ask him why he does not come
around to the consensus of all provincial finance ministers, who
represent the people of Canada and of Quebec from coast to coast to
coast, as they are so fond of saying. Should he not go along with
this consensus rather than spending money in provincial areas of
jurisdiction? That is what we are asking ourselves.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, I would like to tell the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that
the cuts we were obliged to make in provincial transfer payments
amount to half of the Province of Quebec's cuts in its
municipalities' budgets and, second, that we gave a period of
notice, a courtesy the Province of Quebec did not extend to its
municipalities.
In addition, is the member saying that the provinces did not
want us to help students with their debt load? He is mistaken. Is
he saying that the provinces did not want us to help the children
of disadvantaged families? He is mistaken.
We did exactly what Canadians from coast to coast to coast
wanted us to do.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance should be a little more reasonable. All the provinces, all the
provincial finance ministers—every single one of them, including the
one from Quebec—were unanimous in asking him to give back a portion
of the money he had taken from them instead of squandering it.
Does he not realize that his current position is terribly isolating
for him and his government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance ministers of all the provinces agreed that the priorities set,
that is to say children, poverty and health, are both their priorities
and ours.
Similarly, all the provincial finance ministers agree that lowering
interest rates to their lowest level in 20 years greatly helped them
reduce their debt load.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even though the
Minister of Finance claims to have made poverty his priority, the truth
is that he cut $11 billion from education, health and social assistance.
Here is my question for the minister. If today his government wants
to pour money left and right into all sorts of programs, it is only to
increase the federal government's visibility. They want cheques with
little maple leaves in the corner to be circulating all over the place.
That is what they want.
The Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
federal program does the hon. member object to? Does he object to our
helping the aeronautical industry in Montreal? Does he object to our
helping children from broken families in Montreal? Does he object to our
helping parents set money aside for their children's education? Does he
object to our helping students with huge debt loads? Does he object to
our investing in the future of Quebeckers and Canadians alike?
* * *
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the prime minister.
Yesterday, in an outburst of generosity, the Minister of Finance
recognized that the budget surplus belonged to Canadians. Canadians have
made sacrifices to create that surplus. Now they want what is owed to
them.
1430
Is the prime minister prepared to reinvest the people's money in
health and education?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer is yes.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians need more than a fiscal dividend from government.
Canadians need a country with vision, unified by common purpose,
unified by health care, educational opportunities for our young
people, and freedom from the fear of poverty. These are the real
guts of national unity.
When the Prime Minister meets the premiers, will he work with
them to reinvest in medicare and our other social programs that
make Canada Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, this is exactly what we have done. We have
reinvested $1.5 billion into the program that gives transfers to
the provinces for health, post-secondary education and social
programs because we have done better than predicted. That is why
we have invested in innovation. That is why we have a program to
help the children in poverty. The statement the hon. member made
is the statement we have been making since the election.
* * *
FEDERALISM
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
We are very concerned with the Prime Minister's paternalistic
approach to co-operative federalism. The Prime Minister's
approach to co-operative federalism is to tell the premiers what
to do and how to do it. The premiers have not agreed with the
federal government's position on Kyoto, fiscal dividend, youth
unemployment and transfer payments.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to listen to the premiers for
once and not dictate federal policies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had a meeting on child poverty a year and a half ago
where we agreed to move on that together. They agreed that we
were to put in $850 million and they said that the money they
might save was to stay in the same field. There was no
difficulty there.
On Kyoto, we had discussions with them. We invited the
provincial ministers to come to Kyoto with our ministers. We are
in discussions at this moment. We have had discussions. We had an
agreement with some flexibility because they know that Canada
cannot—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
second question with some regret is for the Minister of National
Defence.
The Minister of National Defence earlier in this House suggested
that the Reform Party was playing politics with the helicopter
acquisition. Well, the government has been playing politics
since 1993. For the last 81 days, the minister has been saying
“soon” to the purchase of the helicopters.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell us, are those
helicopters, the EH-101s, to be purchased and when will they be
purchased by this government?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative Party had not
botched up the last arrangement, we might have been able to make
a decision sooner.
Let me make it clear that there is no relationship between the
question of purchasing helicopters and the tragic event that
occurred in Manitoba. Helicopters were not used, private or any
other kind of helicopters, with respect to that rescue mission
because of the weather conditions that existed. What were used
were fixed wing aircraft. Our Hercules aircraft in fact has
carried out a magnificent rescue.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister just talked about flexibility. His government
is so flexible that it changed its mind now and it has abandoned
its negotiating position on the whole Kyoto deal.
Now the government says it is going to sign any deal whatever it
is, and it is going to further drastically cut emissions.
Workers in the steel, the oil and gas and the coal industries
want to know from this Prime Minister, why is he signing a deal
that could lead to such terrible job losses for real people here
in Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Canada know that Canada is always
responsible. I would like to quote what Mr. George, the
president and CEO of Suncor, said: “As an energy producer, we
believe we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without
sacrificing the economy. We can lead in our own small way,
showing that positive action can take place and setting an
example for others to follow”.
1435
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we see here is a Prime Minister who is nervous. He will
resort to anything. What we have seen also about this Kyoto
deal, and yesterday in the House he said a real whopper, it will
cost exactly the same amount for every single country that signs
this deal. Some comfort that is to Canadian families and those
who work at Suncor in Fort McMurray.
Why is the finance minister letting his boss sign a deal that
could lead to so many job losses in these industries?
The Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I am too
nervous, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time in 35 years that I
have been so nervous. But I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that
we have a very reasonable position.
* * *
[Translation]
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Minister of Finance.
Let us talk about the GST. The Bloc Quebecois has submitted a
proposal whereby arbitration would be used to resolve the deadlock that
has arisen on the issue of the $2 billion in compensation for
harmonizing the GST in Quebec. Yesterday, Bernard Landry officially
reiterated that proposal to the Minister of Finance, but the minister
again rejected arbitration.
Since this arbitration proposal does not cost anything to the
federal government, and if the Minister of Finance is in fact right in
his claims, why is the minister not jumping on this unique opportunity
to prove that his federalism is fair?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite
simply because Quebec did not lose any money. Compensation cannot be
offered if there was no loss of money, as shown by data not only from
Statistics Canada but also from the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister's
attempt to avoid the issue is not fooling anyone. Why is he refusing a
solution that would solve the matter once and for all without any cost
to him? If it is true, who is right? What exactly is he afraid of? What
does the Minister of Finance have to lose?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member asked “who is right?”. I think it is Statistics Canada and the
person who provided the data from Quebec. Quebec did not lose any money.
Moreover, Quebec did not harmonize in the same way and did not
accept the same constraints as the other provinces.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this year I received a letter from Alice Straeleff of
Abbotsford, B.C. Alice makes a little over $16,000 a year.
Despite taking out a small RRSP, she had to mortgage her mobile
home to pay her $800 income tax bill to the finance minister.
The minister likes to talk a lot about balance. I want to know
where is the balance in forcing someone like Alice Straeleff to
mortgage her mobile home to pay the taxman?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has already made very clear its desire
not only to reduce taxes but the fact that it has already begun
to do so.
The position of the Reform Party has been, and I would ask the
hon. member if he is prepared to confirm it, that it did not want
to reduce taxes until such time as the deficit has been
eliminated. The deficit has not been eliminated. Therefore I
suggest that the member himself might want to answer that
question.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister knows full well the Reform Party would reduce
taxes by $2,000 for the average family of four. That is the
Reform Party platform. We do not know what the government wants
to do.
Low income people in Canada are taxed at a higher rate than in
any other country in the G-7. Low income people. That is the
government's version of compassion.
I want to know again, and this is for Alice Straeleff who is
watching today, where is the balance in forcing someone like
Alice to pay $800 and mortgage her mobile home to pay his taxman?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if Alice is indeed watching this, then what she is
entitled to know is why the Reform Party opposed the tax
reductions this government brought in in the last budget. Why has
the Reform Party as part of its program said it would not reduce
taxes until the deficit was eliminated.
1440
I also do not think that Alice or any other Canadian who watched
the Reform Party during the first mandate try to eviscerate every
social program in this country in the guise of deficit reduction
believes the Reform Party cares a whit about low income
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, through his reform, the Minister of
Human Resources Development has made access to employment insurance
more difficult and cut the number of weeks of benefits as well as
the amount of benefits paid.
Will the minister admit that his reform has greatly increased
poverty?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no. I absolutely do not believe
that our reform has increased poverty. On the contrary, I believe
that our reform is contributing at present to the dynamism of the
Canadian economy which is good news to everyone.
What I can say is that we are fully aware that this was a very
important reform. That is why, within the employment insurance
reform itself, we have included a follow-up process in order to
gauge its impact and to ensure that, after one year of
implementation, we will have a report we can discuss to see whether
the reform meets the needs of Canadians.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister think he could sell
that technocratic speech to the people lined up at the food bank
because they have been denied unemployment insurance?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year those same members of
the Bloc Quebecois were telling us that employment insurance reform
was going to add to the welfare rolls in Quebec to an incredible
extent.
Mrs. Monique Guay: That is true.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: On the contrary, welfare in Quebec
has been dropping for some time now.
Perhaps we need to see how Quebec is looking after these
people through welfare, since many of the people in those bread
lines need to be looked after by welfare. Everything is blamed on
this reform, while we know very well where mistakes may have been
made elsewhere and where other cuts have been made.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bernice Lee runs a dry cleaning and mending shop in Edmonton
while her husband Philip works on the side to help raise their
four children.
Despite working from six in the morning until well into the
night six days a week, she tells me that she is barely able to
hang on. She told me that if it were not for the huge taxes that
she has to pay, she could hire some extra help to take the
pressure off her family.
Could the finance minister look Bernice Lee in the eyes and tell
her why he believes that Ottawa knows better how to spend her
money than she does?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party continues to come back to the same
point despite the fact that it is in flagrant contradiction with
its own party program.
The simple fact is that no matter how many examples the Reform
Party wants to cite, we have already begun to reduce personal
income taxes. The Reform Party opposed it when we did it for
students and for poor families. The Reform Party's program is
that it will not reduce taxes until such time as the deficit is
eliminated. Why does it now stand up and pretend otherwise?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
had we been in power, the budget would have been balanced two
years ago and tax relief would have been delivered by now.
Government revenue has gone up by $26 billion. The minister may
call that a tax cut but I call it a tax hike. People like
Bernice Lee are struggling today and still have not seen any tax
relief. They are struggling to get by. That kind of political
answer is not offering help.
When is this minister going to get off his moral high horse and
tell people like Bernice Lee what real compassion is? Give her a
break. Give her tax relief and give it to her today.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us understand what the Reform Party would have done
if it had cut taxes two years ago.
Ask any one of those Canadians who are writing in if they wanted
to see their health care cut by the $3.5 billion the Reform Party
said it would do. Ask Canadians who are over the age 65 if they
are prepared to accept a $3 billion cut in their old age
pensions, because that is what the Reform Party would do. If
these people live in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, ask them if they
are prepared to see their basic services cut because the Reform
Party would cut $3 billion. That is how it would cut taxes.
* * *
[Translation]
SABLE ISLAND GAS PIPELINE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The National Energy Board has just approved a proposal for a
pipeline that will go directly from Sable Island to the United
States. However, in June 1996, the prime minister wanted, and I
quote “natural gas to first serve the needs of the people of New
Brunswick and Quebec, before it goes to the United States”.
1445
Since cabinet must decide on the pipeline route, is the prime
minister prepared to set the decision aside, as long as the second
proposed pipeline, which passes by Quebec and New Brunswick, has
not been—
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best
advice I could give the hon. member on this matter comes from the
premier of Quebec in a letter he wrote to Premier Klein of
Alberta in which he said we had agreed that the issues
surrounding the transmission of natural gas are best left to the
market and to the regulatory agencies to decide. The National
Energy Board has provided advice. This government is reviewing
the advice, but no decision has been made.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN NATIONAL
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have just learned that the CN will soon announce the closure of
the Victoria Bridge on December 19 to buses for safety reasons.
This closure will directly affect my riding in Montérégie.
What measures has the Minister of Transport taken or will he
take to resolve the dispute with CN in a manner that is
satisfactory to everyone in my region?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have learned that the CN intends to close the Victoria
Bridge to buses for safety reasons.
Under an agreement with the CN, the Government of Canada has
been paying a portion of maintenance costs for 35 years. However,
because of the dispute with the CN over financial responsibility
for repairs, we are prepared to go to commercial arbitration. In
the meantime, we have offered over $6 million and asked CN to begin
work immediately.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1990
the prime minister promised to fix the Senate. He said “I want
to work for a Senate that is elected”.
In 1993 he said “as prime minister I can take steps to make it
happen”.
On Monday we asked the government what it was going to do about
the Senate. The Deputy Prime Minister told us that it was not
the Liberals' problem.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister right? Is reforming the Senate
just another GST promise by this big talking, do nothing prime
minister?
The Speaker: I do not know that the question deals with
administrative responsibility, but the way it is framed I will
permit it.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has misstated what I said in the House.
I did not say Senate reform is not the Liberals' problem. I said
that dealing with Senator Andrew Thompson's pay and benefits was
the problem of the internal management of the Senate, and that is
a fact.
We are still interested in Senate reform, unlike the Reform
Party which voted against it when it had a chance to do something
about it.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): So much for Liberal
election promises, Mr. Speaker.
The Senate is less accountable than ever. Andrew Thompson is
tanning his dog down in Mexico and Trevor Eyton is not paying his
$120 no-show penalty even though he is a no-show.
My question is very specific, so listen carefully. If Alberta
holds a Senate election during the province-wide municipal
elections of October 1998, will the prime minister listen to
Albertans and place their democratically chosen candidate in the
Senate when the next Alberta vacancy comes up?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of dogs, that term applies to the hon. member's
question. That dog don't hunt.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1450
MILITARY SITES
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
Last night Canadians had the opportunity to see on television
the toxic mess left behind when Americans closed military sites
in Canada. The CBC documentary clearly showed this government is
letting the Americans walk away, leaving their toxic trash and a
$1 billion clean-up bill behind. Moreover, our Canadian
ambassador in Washington defends this bad deal.
Why will the prime minister not fire the ambassador and put
someone there to protect Canadians from this toxic nightmare?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every effort is being made to carry out
clean-up of these sites as quickly as possible. Given the
American usage of many of these sites we have an agreement with
them, an agreement which involves some hundred million dollars in
U.S. funds.
We have had a bit of a hold-up in Congress on this matter, but
the commitment from the United States administration is there. I
believe we will get it to deliver on this. We will get these
sites cleaned up.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the
abandoned sites is in Stephenville, Newfoundland where people are
afraid to drink the water because they believe it is
contaminated.
Stephenville is one of dozens of Canadian communities affected
by this truly terrible deal with the Americans.
Why will the government not put Canadian health and safety as
well as our economic health ahead of American interests and
negotiate a deal whereby the polluters pay?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter of Stephenville and U.S.
involvement goes back a long time. There have been many uses of
that site since then.
The matter is still being examined to determine what kind of
clean-up operation is needed. We are committed to carrying out
clean-up on all our former military properties.
* * *
NAV CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week I asked the Minister of Transport about a reported
shortage of air traffic controllers in NavCan's operation. Since
then we all know of two tragic accidents.
One was in Mascouche, Quebec where only 24 months ago NavCan
closed a temporary air traffic control tower, giving as the
reason a shortage of staff.
Considering this very dangerous and critical situation, will the
minister move today to instruct NavCan to restore that air
traffic control tower at Mascouche, Quebec.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we all regret these occurrences when they happen.
Obviously an investigation is required to determine the facts.
I think it is misleading the Canadian public when we give the
impression that all air strips Canada have or should have air
traffic controllers and air traffic control facilities. Many
airports are under visual flight rules. Obviously that means in
certain types of weather accidents sometimes occur. All these—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, we understand that NavCan said it justifies an air
traffic control tower but it did not have the staff.
Regarding the crash last night at Little Grand Rapids, we
understand the pilot depended on private weather observers.
Obviously the crash last night was weather related.
Could the minister tell us what these private weather observers
have for qualifications and standards and did they meet those
standards at Little Grand Rapids?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this very tragic accident occurred only last night.
Transportation Safety Board officials are yet to be on the
scene. They will be conducting a thorough review and Transport
Canada will be participating and helping them along with others.
Once we get the facts on this case I am sure we can address some
of the hon. member's questions.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has been a staunch defender of women's rights as
an integral part of human rights and has committed to do a gender
analysis of all federal programs.
Since the budget is the principle policy document of any
government, and as a good team player, what coaching is the
Secretary of State for the Status of Women giving to the Minister
of Finance on how do a gender analysis of this year's federal
budget?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very appropriate
question considering that today we recognize the 50th anniversary
of human rights in the world.
Human rights are about women's rights, and human rights are the
same as said in Beijing, and women's rights are not special
interest rights.
The hon. finance minister has been doing a great deal of work to
do some gender analysis. We have been assisting him. We will
continue with gender based analysis to assist the Minister of
Finance and all ministers in every department to ensure that
women take their place economically, socially and politically in
this country.
* * *
1455
CANADIAN LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
report of the auditor general has prompted the Minister of Labour
to initiate dismissal action against the chairman of the Canadian
Labour Relations Board.
Given that members are routinely given severance packages at the
end of their terms, will this minister tell Canadians how much
the golden handshake to Ted Weatherill is expected to cost?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated in the House previously, there are a
number of legal steps required in this process and I will have no
further comment.
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the budgets
allocated to the advancement of women by the Government of Canada have
been drastically reduced and do not allow the kind of effective action
required to make any significant progress.
Could the Secretary of State responsible for the Status of Women
give us a real answer for the sake of all women? Will she accede to the
request made to her by women's groups in Quebec and Canada, which are
asking for increased funding?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very important
question. The finance minister has looked at the issue because
we are doing gender based analysis across the board on finance
issues and on social issues.
We recognize that as we move forward assistance for women does
not come only from the program of the secretary of state but
from every single department within the federal government.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last month UNICEF reported that nearly one million Iraqi
children are suffering from chronic malnutrition and thousands
have died of hunger and shortage of medical supplies as a result
of the impact of UN sanctions.
What action is our government taking to respond to this
humanitarian crisis? Will the minister on this international
human rights day urge the UN security council to lift sanctions
and stop punishing innocent Iraqi children for the deeds of their
leaders?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the security council has
once again confirmed the activity of resolution 986 which allows
the Iraqi government to trade oil for foodstuffs and other
humanitarian services for women and children.
Frankly, the problem in Iraq is Saddam Hussein, who refuses to
deal properly, who does not want to deal under that program of
exchange. If he wanted to get money to women and children, he
could do so rather than expanding on biological weapons or his
military base.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
In its report on children released yesterday, the Canadian Council
on Social Development sends a serious warning to the government and
clearly shows that cuts in provincial transfers have a detrimental
effect on our children. This impact can be felt not only among poor
children but also among middle-class children. I should remind him that
one child out of every five lives in poverty.
Does this government intend to change the way provincial transfers
for health and social services are made so that our children can have a
chance to achieve their full potential?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Shefford for her
question.
I must tell her that we have already raised by $1.5 billion the
cash floor of the provincial transfers. This means that, instead of
going down to $11 billion, cash transfers will remain at $12.5 billion.
We also made a commitment to help low income families with children
by spending an initial $850 million starting July 1, 1998, and an
additional $850 million during that mandate.
In last year's budget, my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance,
allocated $100 million to the Minister of Health for the Community
Action Plan for Children, which we are implementing in partnership with
the provinces. I would say we are off to a good start—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Recently a funding agreement for the improvement of the
Trans-Canada highway was announced between the federal government
and its counterpart in New Brunswick.
Can the minister tell this House what progress is being made with
the province of Ontario for the national Trans-Canada Highway
agreement?
1500
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has been federal assistance for highways going
back to 1919. In fact, we have about $2.3 billion in programs
now entrained which will last until 2003. In the case of Ontario,
I believe about $213 million is in the current program, which
will expire next year.
The availability of funds is always a key question and obviously
the hon. member knows that we have been trying to balance the
financial books of the government. When the finances are in
order, I hope that the government will be able to spend once
again on highway construction beyond the present agreements.
The Speaker: My colleagues, that would bring to a close
our question period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Charles
Furey, Minister of Mines and Energy for the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have notice of a question
of privilege from the hon. member for Thunder Bay.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the rights and
privileges that are imposed on me as co-chair of an
interparliamentary group and involves a change in the structure
of that committee made by one of your officials.
Neither the co-chair nor I were informed or consulted until
after the fact. In fact, the change came during the 38th annual
meeting on which I subsequently reported to the House.
The executive committee met in October and unanimously agreed
that the co-chairs should meet with you to discuss this issue.
We proceeded to meet with you, Mr. Speaker, and we thought we had
arrived at an arrangement which was satisfactory to the executive
committee and satisfactory to you, Mr. Speaker, and your
officials.
Unfortunately, the arrangements arrived at have not been
implemented to this date. It only makes sense that committee
chairs have the right to be consulted on these matters. It
affects the performance of the duties and obligations of members
of Parliament as they report through you, Mr. Speaker, to the
House.
A similar situation arose in another committee and that
situation was satisfactorily resolved between you and your
officials. You know that we have proposed a satisfactory
resolution to this situation.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, as you say in your
preamble, we have had discussions about this particular matter. I
am trying to find how this is attached to privilege of the House.
I view this as an administrative matter.
I was under the impression that this had been resolved.
1505
I invite my hon. colleague to have further discussions with me.
I do not think this is a question of privilege but it is an
administrative matter. I will do everything I can to accommodate
the committee in question and the hon. member.
From the member's point of view, could he identify precisely
which privilege is being infringed upon?
Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to that
point. As early as this morning in an attempt to bring this
matter to a satisfactory conclusion, we were advised by your
official that it is not required to discuss these issues with the
member of Parliament or the committee's co-chairs.
Mr. Speaker, you must agree with me that if a member of
Parliament is to fulfil his duties to his electorate and to this
House, there must be a smooth transition, there must be
co-operation between the member and the Speaker. We feel those
privileges have been denied and as a result—
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his consent to
further discussion on this. I will be happy to see you at any
time you would like to see me. For the time being this would not
be a question of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
this opportunity, since the chairman of the Canada—United States
committee has spoken and since I am the deputy chairman of that
committee—
The Speaker: Dear colleague, as I said to the member sitting on the
other side, this is an administrative issue. I will look into it and I
hope we can discuss it, but it is not a question of privilege.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the Technology
Partnerships Canada annual report for 1996-97 entitled
“Investing in Jobs and Growth”.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 17th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the associate membership of the liaison committee.
[Translation]
With leave of the House, I intend to move later this day that the
17th report be concurred in.
[English]
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three reports to present. The first report which
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, is the
third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 18,
1997, your committee has considered Bill C-18, an act to amend
the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, and your committee has
agreed to report it without amendment.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October
30, 1997, your committee has considered the draft regulations on
firearms and your committee has agreed to report it with
recommendations.
1510
Finally, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday,
November 3, 1997, your committee has considered Bill C-12, an act
to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and
your committee has agreed to report it without amendment.
I would like to say that the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights has worked very hard this term and I want to thank
all members of the committee for their co-operation and their
assistance in what was a very difficult workload.
* * *
[Translation]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension
Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the
Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the
Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the
Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act
and certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
CREDIT CARD INTEREST LIMITATION ACT
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-301, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates in
relation to credit cards issued by financial institutions, companies
engaged in retail trade and petroleum companies.
—Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that about a year ago, during
the 35th Parliament, many members in this House had called upon the
banks and large department stores to be reasonable with the interest
rates they charge to people holding their credit cards.
We all know that this initiative by private members yielded results
and that credit cards with reduced rates were made available.
However, over 90% of credit card holders are still burden with excessive
interest rates.
As members, we must continue our initiatives, and I invite all
members in this House—the Bloc Quebecois members are already behind me
on this—to take action in order to bring the banks to be reasonable
with consumers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
FISHERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-302, an act to establish the rights of fishers
including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries
stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas,
fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the
right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as
a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other
rights are abrogated unfairly.
1515
He said: Mr. Speaker it is a pleasure to introduce this bill. It
will be seconded by the member for West Nova.
This is an act which will be commonly referred to as a
fishermen's bill of rights or to be more politically correct, a
fisher's bill of rights. It is an act to establish the rights of
fishers including the right to be involved in the process of
fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing
quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and
establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions
affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to
compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
with the House's consent, I move that the 17th Report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled earlier this day in the
House, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried, on division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour and a pleasure to stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present a petition on behalf of the residents of Vavenby,
Clearwater, Birch Island, Avola, Blue River, Barriere, Little
Fort, Heffley Creek and Louis Creek in the great province of
British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that the majority of Canadians are
law-abiding citizens. They say that the majority of Canadians
respect the sanctity of human life. They say that the majority
of Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working
to save lives and not to end them.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make
no change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): This is another
petition, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners reside throughout British
Columbia. There is a very long preamble but they basically
suggest that the tax system is messed up and urge the Government
of Canada through Parliament to undertake a fair tax review to
ensure that the tax system is both fair and equitable.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to table these petitions before me signed by over 40,000
Canadians, including many from my riding of Essex and the city of
Windsor.
These petitioners are concerned that due to the Ontario court of
appeal ruling, incidents of topless women are occurring in our
public parks, schools and streets. They ask that the Criminal
Code of Canada be reviewed and amended to correct and clarify the
sections pertaining to public nudity so as to restrict or abolish
the exposure of female breasts in public.
The Coalition Against Toplessness is a national organization
based in Windsor. It has co-ordinated over 800 groups from coast
to coast and individuals from across Canada in an effort to
reverse the decision which allows toplessness in public places.
The petitioners would like this decision reversed as quickly as
possible.
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a
petition, which concerns the train stations in Lévis and Charny and
which has been signed by 551 people.
1520
This petition reads as follows “We would like VIA Rail to continue
to use the Lévis intermodal train station and also the Montmagny
subdivision trunk line between Harlaka and Saint-Romuald for the
operation of the Chaleur and Ocean trains”.
[English]
JAPAN
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure today to present a petition signed by 1,106 people from
Toronto and surrounding area.
The individuals who are Korean Canadians do not want the
Canadian government to support Japan in its effort to gain a seat
on the UN Security Council and feel that it should be morally
disqualified for such a position.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Japan should make an
official apology about the grave violation of international human
rights and pay official government compensation to the victims
who were sent to the war zone as sex slaves.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition from British Columbians. They ask that
Parliament support the immediate initiation and a conclusion by
the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. This
petition has been signed by over 47 citizens.
TAXATION
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to
present a petition on behalf of my constituents as well as
residents living in Prince Albert, Spruce Home and the
communities of Old Perlican, Sibleys Cove and Red Head Cove.
The petitioners are concerned about the trend of corporate taxes
declining and individual taxes increasing in respect of the
federal share. They are also very concerned about the harmonized
sales tax proposals of the Liberal government.
They are asking Parliament not to proceed with the Liberal HST
scheme or any other plan to further reduce the remaining
corporate taxes at the expense of the middle class working
individuals and families. They are also asking the government to
undertake a fairer tax reform so that personal consumers do not
suffer even more financial insecurity and unfair costs at this
time.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, we will
be answering Question No. 30.
.[Text]
Mr. René Laurin:
What was the amount of federal spending on procurement of goods
and services for each of the years from fiscal year 1980-81 to
fiscal 1996-97, and what was the amount and the proportion of
such expenditures in each of those years on single source or
non-competitive contracts?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
Treasury Board, Lib.): In March 1990, the Treasury Board
approved a decision to institute a reporting requirement for
contracts issued by department and agencies. The Treasury Board
has no data prior to that year. In 1995 the Treasury Board
approved a change in reporting from a fiscal year basis to a
calendar year. The latest report available is the 1995
contracting report. The following is a breakdown of the value of
the federal government's commitments to contracts for goods,
services and construction:
FY 1991-92—$8.9 billion
FY 1992-93—$9.8 billion
FY 1993-94—$9.1 billion
FY 1994-95—$8.6 billion
CY 1995—$9.4 billion
The amount and proportion of such expenditures in each of these
years on non-competitve contracts was:
FY 1991-92—$3.5 billion or 39% non-competitive
FY 1992-93—$4.6 billion or 46% non-competitive
FY 1993-94—$3.3 billion or 36% non-competitive
FY 1994-95—$3 billion or 34% non-competitive
CY 1995—$2.5 billion or 35% non-competitive
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all the other
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in this House because it has been a number of weeks since
I placed two questions concerning helicopters on the Order Paper.
I would like to know when the government intends to answer them.
I know the House will adjourn tomorrow. If I do not get an answer
by tomorrow will the questions be brought back to Parliament
after the Christmas break?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take
that under advisement and review it with the House leadership and
then respond to the hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: I can advise the hon. member that his
questions will remain on the Order Paper unless there is a
prorogation of the House between now and when we next sit again.
Shall the questions stand, as suggested by the parliamentary
secretary?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
in relation to a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers.
The notice was given on September 23.
I just want to remind the government of documentation relating
to the recent provincial ministers of health meetings, the health
care transition fund and the Council of Deputy Ministers of
Health and Ministers of Health. Specifically it is documentation
pertaining to discussions on the national blood agency,
discussions on a new national pharmacare program and discussions
on the proposed new national home care program. I am extremely
interested in having those papers produced.
1525
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, similarly, I would be
happy to take it under advisement and review it with the
leadership of the House and respond to the hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all Notices of Motions for the
Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FINANCE
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That this House take note of the second report of the Standing
Committee on Finance presented on Monday, December 1, 1997.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this very important
debate, a debate which speaks to the issues of Canadian values
and priorities for today and for the future.
Canadians have spoken. Their message was quite clear. Canadians
want balance, balance between the security offered through debt
reduction and tax relief and the benefits of investing in people
and indeed our future. They quite frankly told us that health
care, education and pensions are not only line items on a budget
sheet, but rather they represent our core values as a people.
Indeed they are an expression of our values.
This fall as part of its annual prebudget consultation, the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance travelled from
coast to coast to coast engaging Canadians in a national dialogue
about building a strong economy and a strong society. We asked
our fellow citizens about their values, about their priorities
and how the federal budget should reflect them.
I am pleased to announce that this year's consultation was the
most extensive ever. In addition to regional consultations and
round table discussions in which members of the committee
participated, we called upon members of Parliament to hold town
hall meetings to ensure that the people in their ridings were
involved in the policy process. That is very important.
It is important because as the Standing Committee on Finance
travelled to the major cities of this country, members of
Parliament were reaching to the rural areas of this country, to
the small towns. Many of the discussions took place not
necessarily in hotel ballrooms but around the kitchen table,
where many important decisions in this country take place.
People everywhere throughout this great nation accepted our
challenge with a great deal of enthusiasm and a determination to
make a difference. It was quite clear to me that they approached
this consultation with an understanding that economic growth and
fiscal success are not ends in themselves, but rather they are
means to improving the quality of life of all Canadians.
In total, including round table discussions, witnesses, town
hall participants, letters and e-mails, our committees received
over 4,900 submissions.
This national conversation was both rewarding and enlightening.
Not only did we as members of Parliament come away with a sense
of what individual Canadians want in the next budget, but we
learned a great deal about the new outlook that is shared by many
Canadians.
1530
It is one that is filled with a great deal of optimism and hope.
People told us that change is not something they feared. Change
is something that we embrace.
Throughout our meetings it became quite clear that the
challenges we faced as a nation in the 1980s and 1990s have made
us a more confident people. This in large part is possible
because of our Canadian character which allows us to adapt to
change and triumph in the face of adversity.
Adversity is the right word to describe the situation our
country faced in the early 1990s. We were confronted with a
vicious circle of high deficits, high interest rates, slow
economic growth and high unemployment. This vicious circle
wreaked havoc on our standard of living, on our position on the
world stage and on our future.
Thanks to the hard work, the foresight and much sacrifice,
Canada is about to enter a new era, one in which the government's
bottom line will be written in black ink rather than red and one
in which the Government of Canada will be able to tackle the
challenges facing our nation more effectively than it could in
the past.
We are moving forward, replacing the excesses of the past with
the successes of today. Interest rates are at their lowest
levels in three decades. Inflation remains firmly under control.
Consumer and business confidence are up and continue to rise. The
virtuous circle of lower deficit, lower interest rates, stronger
economic growth and job creation is perpetuating a culture of
success.
On October 15, 1997 the finance minister unveiled the results of
four long years of sacrifice by the Canadian public. Clearly
that sacrifice has paid off. The deficit four years ago stood at
$42 billion. We all remember that when the Liberal government
took office after the Conservative government the deficit was at
$42 billion. Now it is at $8.9 billion. Every target has been
bettered. The $8.9 billion is almost $15.5 billion below the
original target for this year and almost $20 billion below the
deficit of the previous year.
The minister went further, promising a balanced budget no later
than the year 1998-99. Today Canadians face a brighter future.
Let us for a second take a minute or so to look at some of the
headlines that appeared in newspapers.
In the Globe and Mail, October 1, 1993, “Economic outlook
dim”. In the Globe and Mail, July 1, 1997, “Economy
Rockets Ahead”. In the Financial Post, September 18,
1993, “Falling jobs, sales, exports turn 1993 into a
disappointment”. In the Financial Post, November 12,
1997, “Economy gets upbeat appraisal”.
1535
The next headline speaks to another very important issue about
Canada's position on the world stage. How sad it was back in the
early 1990s when editorials, newspaper articles and opinions
around the globe were stating that Canada was a basket case in
economic and financial terms.
In the Wall Street Journal, March 24, “Canadian
government disappointed with down grade”. In the Wall Street
Journal, February 20, 1997, “Canada's budget wins applause
because of its restraint”. In the Ottawa Citizen, July
23, 1993, “Recovery sputters through spring”. In the Toronto
Star, December 2, 1997, “Economy grows at 4.2%”.
This must mean something. It means that through the hard work
and sacrifice of Canadians, through the entrepreneurial spirit of
the private sector in Canada and through the responsible
management of the Canadian economy by the federal government,
Canadians are now looking to the future with a great deal of
optimism.
There is a great deal of pride in me and I am sure in Canadians
from coast to coast to coast when we see that economic conditions
have bettered to the point where now Canada is not being laughed
at by other countries. Because of what we have been able to do
in the House of Commons and throughout the country, Canada is
referred to as the Canadian miracle.
Gone is the burden of the $42 billion deficit. Gone are the
crippling interest rates and rising inflation. Gone is double
digit unemployment. Over one million jobs have been created
since the government took office. Unemployment has been below
10% for 12 consecutive months.
I understand the pain the member for Markham is going through.
He remembers as clearly as I do when the former prime minister
stated that the unemployment rate could never fall below 10%
until the next millennium. I understand and I feel his pain.
This enhanced confidence in our prospects and abilities will
prove to be truly a valuable asset as we face new challenges in
the future. Not only do we as Canadians believe that tomorrow
will be better than today. We also have the capacity to make it
so.
Canadians feel empowered in today's society. They have seen the
impact they have on government policy. They are determined now
more than ever to continue to steer our country in the right
direction.
1540
Throughout our consultations Canadians spoke clearly and
decisively on many issues. They expressed serious concern about
the national debt. Canadians want us to finish the fight with
the deficit and to turn our attention to the debt.
At 73.1% our debt to GDP ratio continues to curb our economic
potential. This is why the committee called for the government
to establish an interim debt to GDP ratio range between 50% to
60%, and we went further. We also said that it should be done
within the life of this mandate.
There is no question about the fact that Canadians want to leave
future generations a legacy of expanding opportunities rather
than one of high taxes and escalating debt. Let me leave no
doubt in the minds of my hon. friends across the way. Canadians
recognize that across the board tax cuts are not affordable at
this time. To implement them would be irresponsible and short
sighted. I also want my friends in the House to know Canadians
want targeted tax relief.
That is the reason the committee felt it was important to
address a number of issues including raising the basic personal
non-refundable tax credit amount, reviewing the impact
deindexation has had on our tax system, addressing the issue when
the fiscal situation permits, and reducing or eliminating surtax
on personal income. These are all issues we heard about. As a
responsible committee we brought them to the attention of the
House of Commons and the Minister of Finance.
A message that was very clear from the people of Canada was that
once tax cuts are feasible, the focus should be on the personal
income tax. The committee continued to call for immediate
measures that would help those in greatest need.
There has been a lot of talk about spending and investment, call
it what we may. The reality is that Canadians are against old
fashioned spending sprees. They want continued fiscal
responsibility. They want continued prudent budgeting and
prudent assumptions. They want the $3 billion contingency fund
to be used toward the debt, a very important point to be made.
They do not want to see the economic stability of the country
undermined by an oppressive deficit ever again. They want to
ensure that those who need it most receive support from our
social safety net. They want to build an economy that is
prepared for the challenges that lay ahead in the next century.
They want responsible government. They want wise investments.
They want results.
The spending patterns of previous governments demonstrated a
lack of respect for Canadian taxpayers. As elected
representatives we owe it to the families we represent to invest
their resources wisely. New resources, whether invested through
new programs or significant changes to existing programs, should
be allocated within a framework of accountability like that
introduced in the government's program review.
1545
That means determining whether the program addresses an evident
problem, whether it could be resolved more efficiently by the
federal government, other levels of government or the private
sector, whether the proposed program is the most effective way to
approach the problem, whether the program is being delivered
efficiently and whether we can afford it.
It makes sense to put checks and balances in place to ensure
Canadian taxpayers are getting the best value for their tax
dollars. Let me quite blunt. Having the money to spend is no
justification for spending the money. Respect is a theme that
runs throughout our report: respect for Canadians, taxpayers,
those in need, innovators, respect for their right to a
responsible government and a better tomorrow.
RRSPs are one of the three pillars of our retirement income
system. The committee in its wisdom recommends that the schedule
for contribution limits set out in the 1996 budget should be
revised so as to allow contributions to increase before 2002. The
committee also recommends that the 20% foreign property rule be
increased in 2% increments to 30% over a five-year period. This
diversification will allow Canadians to achieve higher returns on
their retirement and reduce their exposure to risk, which will
benefit all Canadians when they retire.
Canadians also told us that small and medium size businesses
create roughly 85% of all new jobs and account for 45% of
Canada's GDP. Their importance in our economy cannot be
overstated. It is in everyone's interest to ensure our economic
environment is one in which they can thrive. It is for this
reason that the committee supported the government's move to
lower EI premium rates. This measure, the latest measure taken
by the government, will result in a $1.4 billion saving for both
employers and employees.
However, we went further than that. We also said when the
fiscal situation permits, EI premiums should be further reduced.
We call on the government to ensure that EI premiums not be
increased during an economic downturn.
The committee also recommended that the government take steps to
address imbalances in the way different sectors of our economy
are treated by the tax system and to examine the appropriateness
of the $200,000 threshold of the small business deduction.
As we build a strong economy, the government should do its part
as a partner and facilitator to modernize the economy and to do
its part. That is the reason we supported programs such as
Technology Partnership Canada, the industrial research assistance
program, because it goes a long way in helping Canadian
businesses compete in a global economy.
Our report also respects Canadian priorities when it comes to
the social safety net. Both on the road and throughout the
public hearings in Ottawa, Canadians told us that they are ready
to reinvest in the social and economic needs of our society. That
means improvements to Canada's health care system, which includes
an increase in the CHST cash floor to $12.4 billion, a
recommendation that was acted upon earlier this week.
1550
It also means continuing support for the youth employment
strategy. If I can speak on this particular issue for a few
minutes, Mr. Speaker. I had the privilege to chair the
Ministerial Task Force on Youth. From that Ministerial Task
Force on Youth the government responded with the Youth Employment
Strategy. Today, as a result of those measures, hundreds of
thousands of young Canadians have benefited.
Youth Internship Canada, Youth Service Canada, the Summer Job
Action Plan, these speak to a very important issue providing
opportunities for young people to give them that very important
first chance at a job, to get that very important first line on
their resumé.
As a member who has dedicated the greater part of his political
life to addressing the issue of youth unemployment and concerns
related to young people, I can say that the most important
barrier they face is the experience paradox: no job, no
experience; no experience, no job. That is why the government as
a partner in the development of the Canadian economy should play
its role in making sure that that very first important chance is
given to young people.
We live in changing times, more challenging times for our young
people. Many of the new economy's jobs require a higher level of
education which means that one of the roles of the government
should be to provide opportunity and accessibility to
post-secondary education so that young people, students, can be
given the opportunity to acquire the educational level required
to get those new economy jobs.
Investment in these areas are means to making the new—
The Deputy Speaker: Order please. I hesitate to
interrupt the hon member but I have some messages to communicate
to the House.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
December 10, 1997
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Antonio
Lamer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
Chamber today, the 10th day of December, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. for
the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing the
House that the Senate has passed the following bills, without
amendments: Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay-St.
Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential amendment to
another Act; Bill C-10, an act to implement a convention between
Canada and Sweden, a convention between Canada and the Republic
of Lithuania, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Kazakhstan, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Iceland and a convention between Canada and the Kingdom of
Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and the amend
the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act, 1986 and the
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks I spoke about the issue
of post-secondary education and also that the committee
recognizes the initiatives of the federal government to date and
recommends that additional resources be dedicated toward helping
children living in poverty as the fiscal dividend grows.
Investments in these areas are means to making the new economy
work for Canadians. By taking such steps we can ensure security
and opportunity now and in the future.
1555
On behalf of all committee members, I want to thank Canadians
from coast to coast to coast for participating in our pre-budget
consultation. It has instilled a profound respect for our
country, its citizens and their ideas in all members of the
committee.
“In Keeping the Balance”, which is the title of the report, we
have tried to respond with the substance our fellow citizens
demand, as well as a budget plan they deserve. I am proud of
what we have accomplished together.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to participate with enthusiasm in this pre-budget
take note debate mainly because it deals with matters that touch
on the lives and the livelihood of all Canadians.
Because it is the Christmas season, I thought I might begin by
reading from the New Testament what is reputed to be the Minister
of Finance's favourite part of the Christmas story, from Luke's
gospel: “And it came to pass in those days that there went out
a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
All went to be taxed, everyone into his own city”, the classic
case of a rich and powerful government imposing onerous taxes on
the poor, a theme to which I would like to return in a moment.
The real issue before us is this. What should be the financial
priorities of the federal government once the budget is balanced?
In response to that question, we have two fundamentally
different views in this House. We have the government's position
that once the budget is balanced, 50% of any surplus will be
directed toward new spending. The remaining 50% is to be divided
between debt reduction and tax relief. In other words, the
highest priority of the government once the budget is balanced is
increased spending.
In the government's Speech from the Throne, we saw this 50-50
promise. In the pages that followed there was not a single
concrete proposal for debt reduction or tax relief, but there
were 29 proposals for additional spending. In the Minister of
Finance's economic statement made in Vancouver earlier this year,
we saw the same thing, a repeat of the 50-50 promise, followed by
10 pages of spending proposals.
We see virtually the same pattern repeated in the report of the
Standing Committee on Finance, entitled “In Keeping the
Balance”. On page 32 we have a simplistic restatement of the
50-50 promise without any intellectual justification at all. This
is then followed by 22 pages containing at least 17 specific
proposals for increased spending, as well as the defence of a
dozen more spending increases already provided for in the 1997-98
budget.
We then have another 30 pages of the report, and what do they
contain or fail to contain? Not one word on how to achieve debt
reduction targets, and we did not hear a single word on this from
the chairman of the committee today. Not one word on either
short-term or long-term debt management strategy. A
recommendation opposing broad-based tax relief. A recommendation
that certain payroll taxes not be increased. Now, there is a
public relations device. Half a dozen big unqualified
recommendations that certain tax relief measures be examined or
studied or considered, but only when circumstances allow or when
the fiscal situation permits. Half a dozen very specific
measures which amount to little more than administrative
tinkering on such high priority items as a tax treatment of
earthquake reserves. In fact, the only tax relief measures of
any substance are the recommendations on pages 59 to 60 for
increasing personal and spousal income tax exemptions and
developing a schedule for removing the 3% and 5% surtaxes.
Lo and behold, these proposals are lifted virtually word for
word from Reform's fresh start platform in the 1997 federal
election.
We appreciate the inclusion of three of our tax reform measures
in the committee's report, imitation being the sincerest form of
flattery, but we find it ironic that when we proposed these
measures during the election they were denounced by the Liberals
as tax cuts for the rich. Now that they have been resuscitated
by the Liberals, they are described in this report as measures
essential to building a fair tax system.
1600
The bottom line of all this is that when it comes to spending
propositions, the government's plans and the committee's
recommendations are specific and urgent, but when it comes to
debt reduction and tax relief, the government's proposals are
non-existent, stolen, vague or distant. This is what happens when
you make increased spending your number one priority, which is
this government's position.
The position of the official opposition is that debt reduction
and tax relief should be the highest priority of the government.
I had expected that the federal debt situation would be spelled
out in detail in this report. However, since the government does
not appear to take the debt seriously, the official opposition
must fill the vacuum.
The net federal debt stood at $583 billion at the end of the
1996-97 fiscal year. This amounts to $19,400 per person or
$77,600 per family of four. If that debt were converted to $5
bills and laid end to end, it would circle the earth 1,448 times.
I do not mind saying that this debt has even changed the way
doctors deliver babies. I have this on good advice from the
member for Macleod as well as the member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, both of whom are physicians. In the old days when they
delivered a baby they would hold the baby up and give it a pat on
the bottom to get it to cry and fill its lungs. Today all they
do is hold the baby up and whisper in its ear “you owe us
$19,400” and the baby starts to cry right away.
The federal debt currently stands at over 60% of the gross
domestic product. The total public debt in Canada is almost 100%
of GDP. In other words, if the total value of all the goods and
services produced in the entire year by every economic enterprise
and government in the entire country were converted into cash
that would hardly be enough to retire our public debt.
Canadians ask once we raise this subject to whom do we owe this
money. About $120 billion of this debt, or 25% of the
government's market debt, is owed to non-residents, so that the
interest payments flow out of the country. About one-third of
the foreign held debt rests with U.S. investors, with the
remainder divided mainly between European and Japanese
investors.
The domestically held debt was held in roughly these
proportions: by the Bank of Canada, 7%; by non-financial
corporations, 4%; by all levels of government, 7%; by public and
other financial institutions, 17%; by quasi-banks, 3%; by the
chartered banks, 23%; by life insurance and pension funds, 26%;
and by persons and unincorporated businesses, 14%.
The government also owes $3.7 billion to the Canada pension plan
and $114 billion to public sector pension plans. Of total debt
owed to outside parties 7% is in the form of Canada savings
bonds, 28.4% is in the form of treasury bills, and 64.1% is in
the form of marketable Canadian government bonds.
The annual interest payments on this massive pile of federal
debt amounts to $45 billion a year or $3,210 a year for every
working Canadian.
Need I say more or provide any more information as to why the
official opposition wants to make debt reduction, not spending, a
higher priority?
Let me turn to the tax situation. The Liberal government has
increased taxes 37 times since 1993. Net personal income tax
revenues were $51 billion in 1993-94. They are now on track to
increase to $70 billion in 1998-99. Since 1961 the tax bill of
the average Canadian family has increased by over 1,168%. After
adjusting for inflation, the tax bill of the average family has
still jumped by 125%.
The average Canadian family now spends more on taxes than on
food, shelter and clothing combined. The personal income tax
levels, both as a percentage of our gross domestic product and as
a percentage of total taxation, are higher now than those of all
our G-7 trading partners.
1605
Canadian taxpayers have a heavier personal income tax burden
than our taxpaying brethren in the U.S., in the United Kingdom,
in Japan, in Germany, in France and in Italy.
The average Canadian family has therefore suffered a $3,000 per
year drop in real inflation adjusted income since 1993, the year
the Liberals took office.
Need I say more or provide any more information?
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to His
Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend
him immediately in the Senate chamber.
Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1615
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House did attend the Right Hon.
the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate
chamber, the Right Hon. the Deputy to His Excellency was pleased
to give in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following
bills:
Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine
Park and to make a consequential amendment to another
act—Chapter No. 37.
Bill C-10, an act to implement a convention between Canada and
Sweden, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Lithuania, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Kazakhstan, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Iceland and a convention between Canada and the Kingdon of
Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend
the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act, 1986 and the
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984—Chapter No. 38.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to conclude on the issue of taxation, the average
Canadian family has suffered a $3,000 drop in real income since
1993, the year the Liberals took office. I do not think I have
to say anything more or provide any more information on why the
official opposition wants to make tax relief a higher priority
than increased government spending. Canadians are taxed to
death.
The position of the official opposition is that governments in
Canada in aggregate should not consume more than 30% of the GDP.
Governments today consume about 43%. Our position is that
Canada's intermediate debt reduction target should be to reduce
the debt to GDP to 50% by the year 2004, and that our long range
target should be to reduce debt to GDP to 20% of GDP by the year
2015.
With respect to fiscal priorities our position is to limit
federal spending to a fixed percentage of gross national product
and allocate any surplus roughly 50:50 between debt reduction and
tax relief. While we acknowledge a need for greater investment
in some areas, such as health, research, post-secondary education
and research and development, it is our belief that these needs
should be met through a reallocation of budgets within the
existing envelopes rather than through increased spending.
With respect to tax relief, our tax relief proposals include a
$3 billion reduction in EI premiums paid by Canada's employers,
and a $12 billion reduction in personal income taxes through
raising personal exemptions, adjusting the child care expense
deduction and a 50% reduction in capital gains tax. The net
effect of these tax relief measures is to remove about 1.3
million lower and middle income Canadians from the federal income
tax rolls altogether, including about 300,000 seniors.
On any issue Reformers always want to look at what the people
themselves think. In challenging the government's desire to make
increased spending its number one priority and in advocating that
the highest priority be given to debt reduction and tax relief,
Reform is supported by larger and larger numbers of Canadians, as
indicated by the recent Compas poll commissioned by the Ottawa
Citizen.
The Compas poll found that 89% of Canadians want the largest
proportion of the surplus to be used for debt reduction. On
average Canadians want the government to put at least 40% of the
surplus toward the debt; 72% want the government to hold more
discussion before it spends any surplus. Almost half of all
Canadians feel the government's status quo pace of debt reduction
is too slow. Only 38% of Canadians believe the government has
explained its position on debt and taxes well, while almost 60%
believe Reform has done a good job.
Eighty-two per cent of Canadians say that taxes are just too
high, with 52% of Canadians holding this position intensely.
Fifty-nine per cent of Quebeckers agree a lot that taxes are too
high compared with 53% nationally. Perhaps the best thing the
government could do to persuade Quebeckers to remain in Canada is
to simply stop taxing them to death. Eighty per cent of Canadians
believe that the basic personal exemption should be raised and
82% of Canadians agree that tax cuts will create jobs.
When Reform advocates that debt retirement and tax relief be
made the highest fiscal priorities of this government, we are not
arguing some peripheral right wing extreme position.
We are advancing a proposition that has massive and growing
support from people of all persuasions and types across the
entire country.
1620
I have referred to the principal deficiencies of the finance
committee report, namely its inadequate attention to debt
reduction and higher taxes. But there is one other serious flaw
to which I would like to draw the attention of the House.
The cover of the finance committee report, as well as the
structure of its table of contents, reflects what logicians refer
to as a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy arises when one sets
up categories for organizing data that lead to false or
misleading conclusions, for example, when one treats as opposites
things that are not opposites, or when one treats as
complementary things that are not complementary.
The cover of the finance committee report shows a balance scale.
On the balance scale pictured on the cover of that report, all
the fiscal factors, debt and taxes, are shown on one side of the
scale and all the social factors, like social security,
education, health and the well-being of youth are shown on the
other side, as if a greater increase in fiscal responsibility
would result in a decrease in social security or vice versa.
Apparently this government thinks that helping people and
cutting debt and taxes are opposites, when in fact the two
measures are complementary. They ought to be on the same side of
the scale, not on opposite sides of the scale. In a moment I
hope to demonstrate this beyond any reasonable doubt to members
of the House.
In the remainder of this take note debate, the official
opposition will make the case for debt retirement and tax relief
more strongly than it has ever been made in this House. My
colleagues, such as the official opposition finance critic, the
member for Medicine Hat, the official opposition critic for
revenue, the member for Calgary Southeast, and other members will
present as strongly as possible the facts, the arguments and the
reasons for debt reduction and tax relief.
We will argue that high taxes hurt our trade competitiveness,
that they kill jobs and reduce disposable income. We will argue
that high debt is costly and renders us extremely vulnerable to
interest rate and exchange rate fluctuations.
But members of the House will know that arguments based on
fiscal rationality do not move this government. If they did, the
government would have committed itself to balancing the budget
through genuine spending reduction rather than tax increases and
it would already be committed to debt reduction and tax relief.
I am going to take another tack. This government never ceases to
tell us that it has a great and enlightened social conscience,
that its real priority is helping people and caring for the
disadvantaged. Therefore for the purposes of this debate at
least, I am going to take that profession at face value. I will
therefore present the argument for debt retirement and tax relief
from an entirely social perspective.
I want to present the House with the argument that high debt and
high taxes are socially irresponsible, that they hurt millions of
people, that they carry a heavy social cost. I want to argue
that debt relief and tax relief are not only fiscally beneficial
but they are socially beneficial, that they help millions of
people, including the most vulnerable members of society. Then
let the Canadian people see if the government is really as
committed to social responsibility as it claims to be. Let us see
if it can be moved by social arguments to give the highest
priority to debt reduction and tax relief.
Let me start with the negative social impacts of pyramiding debt
and interest payments. The pyramiding of the debt of the federal
government to $583 billion has led as I said to annual interest
payments of $45 billion or $3,200 per year per person, for every
working Canadian.
This annual debt service bill is enough to run the governments
of Newfoundland, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta for an entire year with enough left over
to pay the entire public debts of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and
P.E.I. This annual debt service bill is enough to pay the tuition
for four million Canadian young people to finish a four year
university course. Just the annual debt service bill is enough to
pay for federal transfers to the provinces for health, education,
welfare, equalization and old age security for a year.
It is enough to pay for all Canadian hospitals, physicians and
drug costs for an entire year. It is enough to provide every
poor child in Canada with a $30,000 a year endowment.
1625
It is the interest on the federal debt that is eating the heart
out of the social transfers. It is no accident that since 1993
debt service charges have increased by $7.5 billion a year and
that since 1994 government has reduced health and social
transfers to the provinces by $7 billion.
The excessive federal debt, like private debt, limits freedom.
It limits the freedom of governments to pursue social as well as
economic goals. The federal government would have at least the
option of committing more resources to health, education, and
pensions if this huge percentage of its annual budget was not
consumed by interest payments.
If the federal debt were reduced and stabilized, funding for
essential services would be stabilized and assured. The
government and people of Canada would have more social and
economic freedom and we would stop mortgaging the future of young
Canadians.
Lower debt is the key to social security for both the current
and future generations of Canadians. I would suggest to those
members of this House who profess to have enlightened social
consciences, who profess to be moved by social arguments, that if
they care for the poor, the sick, the old and the young, then
they should be the most committed members in this House to the
reduction of the federal debt.
Let me look at the negative social impacts of excessive
taxation. We have made arguments in this House before that
excessive taxes reduce disposable incomes of business and are the
greatest factor in killing jobs. There is a connection between
the fact that we have higher taxation levels than our principal
trading partners and the fact that we have 1.4 million people
unemployed, two to three million underemployed and one of the
highest youth unemployment rates in the world. If a good job
with a good income is the best guarantee of economic and social
security, then it is excessive taxation in this country which is
undermining the economic and social security for millions of
Canadians.
I want to discuss a further dimension of excessive taxation. It
has a particularly onerous and insidious impact on the most
vulnerable among us, the young, the old and the poor. Under this
federal government's tax policies a single mother with one child
and an income of $15,000 pays $1,364 in income tax. I ask, what
is the government doing taking one paycheque out of 12 from a
single mother with one child making $15,000 a year?
The federal government starts taxing people at lower income
levels, $6,500 a year, than either Britain where it starts at
$9,000 a year, or the United States where it starts at $9,500 a
year. Canada has one of the lowest first bite levels, the level
at which personal income tax kicks in, in the industrial world.
It is far lower than those in Hong Kong, Sweden, France,
Switzerland, Japan, the U.S., Germany, Belgium, Italy and Spain.
In fact taxpayers in most countries are permitted to earn upward
of $15,000 before they begin paying taxes. Not in Canada and we
ask, why not?
This government rips $1.8 billion out of the pockets of people
making less than $15,000 a year. The government takes $11.2
billion out of the pockets of almost eight million taxpayers
making less than $30,000 a year.
The government, and we have heard this from the ministers,
accepts Statistics Canada's low income cutoff figures as measures
of the number of Canadians living in poverty. But here is the
amount of revenue the federal government collects from these very
people whom it claims to recognize as living in poverty or near
poverty.
According to Statistics Canada, the low income cutoff for a
single individual was around $17,000 a year. Taxation statistics
show us that in 1995, which is the year for the latest data,
there were almost 3.4 million taxpayers earning less than $17,000
a year, or that were in this low income position. What did the
federal government do for them? It taxed them to the tune of
$2.3 billion. These are people the government itself says are
living in poverty.
The low income cutoff for a family of four in the same city was
about $32,000. There were over 8.2 million taxpayers earning less
than $32,000.
What did the federal government do? It taxed those people to the
tune of $12.5 billion. It took $12.5 billion in taxes from
people its own statistics define as living in poverty or near
poverty.
1630
My point is that the tax policies and practices of the federal
government hurt lower income people as well as middle and higher
income people. The greatest single thing this government can do
to help the poor is not to develop another program for poverty
and not to develop another program on child poverty but simply to
get its hands out of the pockets of lower income people and leave
them more money.
Enough statistics. To illustrate this point more effectively, I
want to read to the House a letter I received from a New
Brunswick mother of four in February 1997. Her name is Kim
Hicks. She lives near Sackville, New Brunswick and she and her
family are with us today in the gallery.
I receive some 2,000 letters a month on average, but her letter
was one of the best I have ever received. I want to share
it with the House. It is dated February 27, 1997:
Dear Mr. Manning:
Hello, first of all my name is Kim Hicks. I am married and we
have four children aged 2-8 years. My husband is the breadwinner
in our family and our income is $29,000 to $30,000 a year
approximately. Last year, 1996, our income was a little over
$33,000 because we withdrew our RRSPs, my husband worked a lot of
overtime and took his vacation pay without a vacation, which
means that we now owe $900 in income tax, and lose money on our
GST and child tax benefit which we depend on to get by.
My concern is this. We feel as though we are drowning with no
sign of relief in sight. I have talked to other families in the
same situation and they feel the same way. It seems as though
people like us are forgotten. We are not considered working
poor, but we sure don't feel middle class.
I know you are probably thinking that I am a whining lazy stay
at home mom, who was irresponsible in having four children, but
we love them dearly and we want to do what we feel is best for
them and that is why I stay at home. Truthfully sometimes we do
feel that we were irresponsible but my husband works hard. Also
we live in an area outside Sackville, New Brunswick and it would
not be easy to get child care or transportation. I have no
special skills and cannot afford to upgrade my working skills and
quite frankly I feel that at this point in time my kids need me
at home, not that by any means I look down on working women. I
don't, I sometimes envy them. I'm sorry there is so much that I
want to say but don't quite know how.
We feel resentment toward the politicians and afraid to be
Canadians.
My husband says maybe we should go on welfare, at least then we
would have health care and dental benefits. We do manage to buy
some health care, but for how long we don't know. It seems as
though only people with incomes under $26,000 a year and those on
welfare need help, and that is not true. There are other
families who need help. We want our kids to grow up feeling
proud of their country and to feel secure, but it's not going to
happen. For us who fall just above the $26,000 mark less seems
better, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry that because we make
$29,000 or $30,000 we might lost our child tax benefit.
We need that benefit or else we would lose our home. Our kids
won't be going to the dentist this year, but the child down the
road, whose mom is on welfare, will. We have refinanced and
refinanced and we just can't do it any more. We live on credit
because we do not have enough clear money to use money. Pay the
needed payment and then borrow it over. We are sick of it.
People with four kids who make $30,000 a year are poor too, but
our kids don't count. By the time we pay our taxes our $29,000
to $30,000 is a joke. We are afraid that we are going down and
there is nothing we can do.
Promises and empty talk—we are sick of it. We are trying to be
a family in a time when family means squat. Also now with this
new HST we will pay more for our kids' clothing, heat, power,
telephone. We don't buy big ticket items. We pray our washer
will wash one more load, and that it will be nice out so that we
can put our clothes on the line to save on electricity and so
that the squeaky drier will be there when we need it. We, again,
are going to lose and so will our kids.
I'm sorry for this long letter. I really don't know what I
expect. I wrote to Mr. Axworthy when he was human resources
minister. I got an I'm sorry and an I understand and a lot of
statistics that I don't care about. It won't help us feed or
clothe our kids.
Please don't send me one of those short form letters saying
that you're sorry. Also please don't tell me to contact my MLA or
premier—they don't care.
Thank you for your time. Sincerely,
Kim Hicks
Are members moved by that letter?
What do we say to Kim Hicks and others like her? What does the
government have to say? What does the finance minister have to
say? What does the finance committee report have to say? Would
this create a great impression in that home if it were sent in a
paper envelope to that family? Here is the answer to your
problems. We know what kind of reaction it would get.
1635
When I first read this I was at a loss for words. That is quite
an admission from a politician. Let me tell the House what I
finally did.
I wrote Kim back, thanking her, assuring her she was not alone.
I wondered whether anything I could say would help. My letter
was almost apologetic.
I then shared with her, briefly, the tax relief section of our
fresh start election platform. We were working on it at that
time. I pointed out that under those tax relief measures she and
her husband would receive $2,500 to $3,000 in tax relief. In
effect, a family like this would have been removed from the
federal income tax rolls altogether.
I did not hear back from Kim, but I carried her letter around
with me through the 1997 federal election campaign. I read it to
public audiences in a number of places.
After it was over I wrote her again and I told Kim that we were
not the government but we were now the official opposition. I
asked her if she and her family would do a little research
project for us. I would send her a research contract and a
cheque from party funds for $3,000 plus. What I asked her to do
was to pretend that the cheque came from Revenue Canada as a tax
refund. I asked her to pretend it was a $3,000 tax refund from
Revenue Canada, as if our tax relief measures had been
implemented and applied to the 1996 tax year.
Incidentally, we had to send her $3,000 plus. Why? To cover
the income tax she would have to pay on the $3,000 so that her
net refund would be $3,000.
Then I asked Kim to do two things. I asked her to write two
more letters, one telling us how she and her husband Wayne spent
the $3,000. What would she do with it if she got it from Revenue
Canada? I also asked her to tell me frankly what impact, if any,
this had on her feelings of entrapment and despair.
I now want to read into the record the first of those two
letters received from Kim. Before I do, let me give members a
little quiz. If they have a pad in front of them they might just
jot down a few notes.
How do they think a mother of four would spend that refund of
$3,000? Do they believe she would spend it all? Do they think
she would save a portion? What do they think she would spend it
on? What would be the allocation? Do they think she would spend
it wisely or foolishly? Do they think she would spend it more
wisely than the federal government could spend it on her behalf?
We will let the members be the judge.
This is her first letter, dated July 23, 1997:
Dear Mr. Manning:
The following letter describes how my family spent the $3,000 in
tax relief that we received “from Revenue Canada”.
She was willing to play the game.
My husband and I carefully looked at how to best use the money
and we decided that the best plan for us was to divide the money
into a spend category and a savings category. We divided the
money $2,000 and $1,000.
The $2,000 we spent as follows:
1. The first thing this money enabled us to do was to pay our
two older boys' dentist bill and gave us the amount needed for
our two younger sons' trip to the dentist.
2. The next thing we did was to set aside $200 for one of our
son's visits to the optometrist in October, and to have a new
pair of glasses which are badly needed.
3. We bought the extra wood that we will need for the winter.
4. We paid off one of our credit card balances thereby easing
our monthly payment load, which in turn gives us a bit more money
to use toward other bills.
5. The boys and I went shopping for back to school clothing and
I set aside money for their school books.
6. I took a trip to the grocery store and bought the items that
we needed but could not afford to buy with our weekly grocery
money.
7. I paid my mother back the money that she has loaned us over
the past few months when we have found ourselves in a bind owing
over $800 in income taxes.
8. Lastly we decided to take $200 of the money and to spend it
any way we wished. We bought Kentucky Fried Chicken and we went
to see the movie “George of the Jungle”. My husband, along with
his regular hours, has had to start working Saturday mornings and
also two to three evenings a week to help make ends meet. He
only takes one week of his vacation and we use the other week's
vacation pay to buy wood. What this means is that we have never
taken a vacation trip with our children, but this year we are
taking the $125 left from the $2000 and we are driving to Pictou,
taking the ferry to P.E.I. and driving back across the bridge to
N.B. It feels great.
With the other $1,000 that we have left, we for now have put it
into a savings account to use in the case of an emergency or to
hopefully buy an RRSP, which would give us a start at some future
savings.
That in a nutshell is how we spent the $3,000 sent to us by
Revenue Canada. I am looking forward to writing my next letter.
Sincerely,
Kim Hicks.
1640
I can look at that letter as a husband and parent or I can look
at it as a former management consultant and economist, but notice
that her savings rate is over 33%. If I asked some economist
friends of mine what they thought the savings rate would be of a
family in the $30,000 a year category, they would never guess
that it would be 33%.
Notice that her highest priority expenditure is meeting the
medical and educational needs of her children. Notice the
commitment to debt reduction. There is more commitment to debt
reduction in this letter than there is from a government that
receives $150 billion a year. She pays down her loans and her
credit card balances.
Note the spending on essentials, wood and groceries for the
family. Note the desire to have an RRSP. There is a lot of
criticism when we talk about expanding the RRSP about people at
the lower and income level not wanting it or understanding it.
Here is a family earning $30,000 willing to save to put into an
RRSP. Notice the $200, 7%, for a little fun.
Is there any member in this House, any bureaucrat at human
resources development or finance, who has the nerve to stand up
and say they could have spent that money more wisely or more
socially responsibly?
Some of the social engineers on the other side of the House or
among the Bloc or the NDP might argue that some government could
design a program complete with legislation, forms and armies of
bureaucrats and social workers which would deliver $1,000 to that
family for debt relief, $1,000 through another program for child,
dental and optometrist care, and $500 to $1,000 through some
other program for essentials. However, there would be one
problem with that. It would probably cost us $30,000 per family
to administer.
In this case, we got exactly the same results, not with another
program but simply by leaving—and this is so pathetically
simple—$3,000 of this family's own money in their own pockets
instead of collecting it in taxes.
This reminds me of that famous quote from Adam Smith in his
Wealth of Nations, which I think is applicable to social
capital as well as industrial capital:
The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in
what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only
load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an
authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single
person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would
nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly
and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
How did this tax relief make this family feel? Frankly, I
confess that when I wrote this letter to Kim and made this
proposition I was pretty sceptical, given the feelings she
expressed in that first letter, that the $3,000 would make much
of a difference. I thought it would just be a drop in the bucket
and not enough to do anything. However, I want members to be the
judge. This is her last letter in response to my request:
Dear Mr. Manning,
I would be happy to explain to you how receiving $3,000 in tax
relief “from Revenue Canada” has made my family feel both now
and for the future.
I say to the officials of Revenue Canada if they did more of
this they would get letters like this.
The first feeling my husband and I experienced was a sense of
relief. It was as if a weight had been lifted from our shoulders
and we could finally catch our breath.
It meant that we could have the money for those things that kept
having to be overlooked such as trips to the dentist, borrowed
money that couldn't be paid back, or a simple family trip.
It meant for the first time in a very long while that we could
have some guilt-free fun. By this I mean we actually took our
children to the movies and out for supper without sitting there
worrying about “how are we going to get the money to replace
what we just spent, when we didn't have it to spend in the first
place?”.
But most importantly, after the initial feeling of relief, we
felt less pressure and worry.
As a family struggling to get by there is a lot of guilt and
insecurity associated with the pressure of just trying to make
ends meet when there is a lack of money.
My husband feels guilty because, even though he works hard, he
still feels that as a provider he lets his family down, not only
financially but time wise also. I feel guilty because as a stay
at home mom I sometimes feel I am robbing my family of income we
could have if I held a job.
All this guilt affects our family life—the way we feel, the
tension and stress. We do manage to keep our emotions and worry
in check, most times, in hopes that we will not cause our
children to feel as we do, although I know there are times when
they feel as we do—receiving this money made my husband and me
feel a lot less guilty. I actually saw a happier, more relaxed
man, which in turn made our family more carefree and closer than
we have been in a while. I'm not saying that money in itself
solves problems, but it helps to relieve the pressures caused by
a lack of it and that in turn helps to give us a brighter outlook
and a happier family.
Mr. Manning, as I write this letter I feel really great because I
know that we have provided some of the things that our children
needed, which prior to receiving our tax relief cheque we simply
could not do. I have gone to sleep at night with a feeling of
being more secure because I know that our kids have been better
taken care of and that if a problem should arise we do have money
set aside in a savings account. It feels great to know that we
have fewer bills and that because we do not have to borrow money
or take from other needs, we will be able to hold on, and that
the money won't be so tight, and in time we will be ahead. And
that means, to us, a brighter future.
It makes my husband and me feel a sense of encouragement knowing
that we have someone in government who understands our needs and
our struggles as a family, and who realizes the heavy tax burden
that a family like mine carries, and is trying to help, and that
gives us a sense of hope for our future and our children's
future. Our children can grow up knowing that Canada is
wonderful and that they have a government who cares, not one that
will squeeze every last cent out of their paycheques.
We feel that we have to have this tax relief. We really carry
too much tax burden. Recently my husband asked his boss for a
raise and, to us, he received a substantial raise of $44/week,
that is until he received his paycheque and realized he had lost
$27 of the $44. Mr. Manning, $24.18 went to Federal Taxes alone!
Do you understand why I cannot say enough about why a $3,000 tax
relief is needed? Families like my own do not want the $3,000
for frivolous spending; we need it to maintain a half-decent
standard of life for our families, and $3,000 is a substantial
amount of money.
In closing, I just want to stress again that this $3,000 meant
relief and security and a bit more freedom for us. If my family
and families like mine could look forward to this $3,000 tax
relief each year, it would, I am sure, restore some faith in our
government and it would relieve a lot of guilt, pressure, and
worry from our lives. We could provide more of the things our
families need, both necessities and even leisure.
Extra income in our pocket would give us a sense of security. We
could actually see some light at the end of the tunnel, so to
speak. I know in my case it has helped to take away some of the
desperation I feel. It has definitely made our lives easier and
has made us feel happier and even encouraged. There is great
pleasure in feeling that you have provided for your family a
little bit better.
I am going to close now. I hope—that I have answered your
question sufficiently. Thank you once again for the privilege of
allowing my family to participate in this research project.
1645
Note the references to feelings of relief, security and freedom:
relief from worry, relief from guilt, security, better able to
sleep at night, hope for the future and freedom. I wonder how
many letters Revenue Canada gets like that. Is it not about time
we started generating some letters like that for Revenue Canada?
On behalf of members of Parliament I thank Kim Hicks; her
husband, Wayne; and her children, Matthew, Brandon, Nathan and
Luke for sharing their hearts and their lives with us. It is not
easy to do and we thank you for putting it down on paper.
There are hundreds of thousands of families in Canada like Kim's
earning $30,000 a year or less from whom the federal government
is collecting $11.2 billion a year. Is there any member of the
House who still believes that tax relief, especially for lower
and middle income families, is not a socially responsible thing
to do?
I began my remarks with a reference to the Christmas story as
told in the New Testament. The heart of my remarks has really
been the Kim Hicks story which ought to move us to tears as well
as to action.
1650
I want to end this address with one more story that will perhaps
reduce the Minister of Finance to tears or induce him to action.
It is a modern adaptation of Dickens Christmas Carol with
particular reference to the issue before the House.
Once upon a time there was a finance minister named Scrooge. To
borrow a few adjectives from Dickens, he was a squeezing,
wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old finance
minister. His one great passion in life was taxes, and as the
year drew to an end he would spend the last part of it,
particularly the Christmas season, laying plans for new taxes he
wanted to impose in the new year.
Scrooge had a humble clerk named Bob Hatchet. Hatchet assisted
the minister in cutting spending but desperately wanted to apply
his tools to cutting taxes. This particular year Hatchet came to
Scrooge with the revelation that he, Scrooge, was collecting $1.8
billion a year from the poorest families in the land. “Would it
not” said Hatchet “be a great act of social and fiscal
responsibility to cut taxes for these people and to announce it
at Christmas, effective for the new year?”
What was the response of finance minister Scrooge to this
proposal? He replied as he always did to requests for tax relief
by saying “Bah, humbug” and by saying further “every idiot
who goes about with tax relief on his lips, especially at
Christmastime, should be boiled in his own pudding and buried
with a stake of holly through his heart”.
To add force to his words, he told Hatchet and his other
officials that not only would there be no tax relief this
Christmas, but starting January 1 he would commence collecting
the first instalment of a 76% hike in payroll taxes. “Tax
relief, bah, humbug” said finance minister Scrooge, and with
that he went home for Christmas.
Then it was Christmas Eve. Picture this. Scrooge had retired
early. To induce sleep some people count sheep but not Scrooge.
He counted the tax increases that he had been responsible for:
the tax on life insurance premiums extended, the increased
clawback on OAS, the excise tax on gasoline, et cetera, et
cetera. He had just got up to tax increase number 37 when he
fell into a fitful slumber.
Scrooge knew not how long he had slumbered but suddenly he was
awakened by a strange clanking sound. To his horror, the door of
his room flew open and there stood a ghostly apparition. The
thing was dragging a huge chain behind it to which were bound
immense volumes of the Canadian Income Tax Act and its
regulations.
“Who are you” cried finance minister Scrooge, to which the
apparition replied in a ghoulish voice “I am the ghost of taxes
past. My name is Sir William Thomas White. I too was once
finance minister of Canada. When I was alive I introduced the
Income War Tax Act in 1917. It was only 12 pages long. It was
temporary. It was a tiny tax. But I added to it and my
successors added to it, until it became a monster. Now I am
condemned to haunt the halls of parliament, forever dragging
great volumes of the Income Tax Act and its regulations behind
me”.
Scrooge was alarmed, for he too had forged many links in the
chain of taxation. “Is this my fate too” he cried. “Not
necessarily” said the spirit. “All will depend on what you
learn from the visits of my fellow spirits, the ghost of taxes
present and the ghost of taxes future”. With that, the
apparition disappeared.
Finance minister Scrooge tried to pull himself together. Surely
this was a bad dream, he told himself, a Reformish nightmare of
some sort; perhaps the product of indigestion; perhaps a bad
pickle at the parliamentary restaurant. He settled down to sleep
but in a few moments he was jolted awake again by the loud
honking of a horn.
At first he thought it was the sound of a Panamanian freighter
and he smiled serenely, but suddenly the door to his bedroom flew
open and there stood another ghostly figure. “I am here to take
you for a ride” said the ghost of taxes present. “But I don't
want to go for a ride” said finance minister Scrooge. “That's
what they all say” said the apparition who hurried him down the
stairs, out of the house and into a waiting cab, a taxicab.
As soon as they were in, the doors locked shut. The meter began
to run. It ran wild as the ghost of taxes present directed the
driver to their destination. The ghost of taxes present took
finance minister Scrooge to visit businesses small and large
where payroll taxes were cursed out loud day after day by both
employers and employees. They visited shops where the hated GST
was funnelling millions of dollars out of the pockets of
shopkeepers.
The ghost of taxes present took finance minister Scrooge to home
after home, homes where there were sick people, homes where there
were poor people, homes where there were old people, homes of the
middle class, all homes where Scrooge's taxes were squeezing the
life out of men, women, children and families.
Scrooge tried to get out of the cab but the doors were locked.
The meter kept spinning wildly, the taxi meter: $50 billion, $75
billion, $100 billion, $125 billion.
1655
The taxi stopped once more outside a house which Scrooge
recognized as the humble abode of his assistant Bob Hatchet.
Inside he saw poor Bob talking earnestly to his son, Tiny Tim. He
was trying to explain how the working income supplement component
of Scrooge's child tax benefit, when applied to Scrooge's
harmonized goods and services tax, would actually reduce the
effective tax rate on crutches and candy canes to less than 10%.
But Tiny Tim would have none of it. Holding his head in his
hands the little fellow ran round the room crying “God save us,
everyone, from finance minister Scrooge”.
“Dread Spirit” cried finance minister Scrooge “where will all
this end? What is the fate of these poor overtaxed businesses,
these poor overtaxed families like Tiny Tim's? What will happen
to their lives and their dreams?” “You will soon see” said
the ghost of taxes present.
Scrooge found himself once again in the taxicab, hurtling this
time down a lonely country road. The night was dark and dreary,
black clouds blotted out the moon and stars. The taxi slowly
came to a halt. The door was slowly opened by yet another
ghostly figure. Finance minister Scrooge shuddered, the ghost of
taxes future. This apparition was faceless, dressed all in
black. He said not a word but motioned toward the gate of what
Scrooge perceived to be a vast cemetery.
Scrooge shivered as the faceless spirit led him past a long line
of tombstones, announcing in a sepulchral voice “Here lie the
businesses killed by taxation. Here lie the jobs killed by high
taxes. Here lie the charities killed by high taxes, which
shrivelled the spirit of charity”. “Oh, spare me” cried
Scrooge, but the spirit led him on “In this vast plot lie all
the dreams: the dreams of entrepreneurs, the dreams of
homemakers, the dreams of business people, the dreams of youth,
the dreams of Tiny Tim, all killed by the clammy hand of
overtaxation”.
“Oh, show me no more ” cried finance minister Scrooge. “I
see the light. I will re-examine my policies but tell me, dread
spirit, how is it that even dreams can be killed by taxation?”
“Even the loftiest of dreams can be killed by taxation” said
the ghost of taxes future. “Look” and with this he pointed bony
finger toward a huge marble monument, a tomb of some sort on
which was inscribed a long list of names.
Scrooge strained to read the names: Sir William Thomas White,
James Lorimer Ilsley, Douglas Charles Abbott, Donald Methuen
Fleming, Walter Lockhart Gordon, Edgar John Benson, John C.
Crosbie, Michael Holcombe Wilson. The list went on and on.
Scrooge gasped as he recognized the names, all former finance
ministers of Canada. “But why, dread sprit, are their names
inscribed on this tomb in this cemetery of dreams?” “Because”
said the ghost of taxes future “their great dream was to become
prime minister and their dream was killed by their high tax
policies”.
Let us leave finance minister Scrooge standing before that great
monument to broken dreams and let the government determine
whether this story has a happy or a mournful ending.
Will finance minister Scrooge dismiss the warnings of the ghosts
of taxes past, present and future and continue his high taxing
ways? Or, will he listen to the voices of social and fiscal
responsibility, the voices of Reform, the voices of mothers like
Kim Hicks, the voices of millions of Canadians, and make debt and
tax relief his new priorities?
It is the objective of the official opposition to persuade him
to take the latter course.
1700
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. We heard a speech from the leader of
this nation's opposition that should serve as a guideline to
government for decades to come, and it should—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, is
this a point of order?
Mr. Randy White: It is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Will you get to it
immediately.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Beauchesne's
sixth edition, citations 280 and 281, and the Constitution Act,
section 48. While this nation was listening to the leader of the
official opposition we at best had two Liberal MPs in the House
of Commons.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This would be a
stretch to be a point of order. As the hon. member knows, it is
not customary to refer to the presence or absence of members in
the Chamber.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bras d'Or, Devco;
the hon. member for Red Deer, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member
for St. Albert, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for
Charlotte, Summa Strategies; the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, Dairy Industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
On October 15 in Vancouver, the Minister of Finance presented
his government's economic policies to the Canadian public. The
finance committee held fifty or so meetings with socioeconomic
stakeholders and members of the public in order to find out what
they thought, but the democratic process ends there.
Having being rushed along on a tight timetable and having seen
large extracts of the finance committee's report in the Toronto
media, we realized that all that was missing from the committee's
document was the cover page from the Liberals' last election
campaign red book.
Once again the Liberals have shown that they have no respect
for democracy and could not care less about the opposition parties,
including the Bloc Quebecois.
The Liberals used the pre-budget consultations to try to show
that the public was in favour of their economic policies. This
Liberal report is just another step in the maple leaf marketing
plan announced with great fanfare in the Speech from the Throne.
The Bloc Quebecois is familiar with the Liberals' partisan
tactics and made sure to table a dissenting report so that our
party's opinion would be known and not drowned out in this vast
federal operation.
As we all know, we are here solely to defend Quebec's
interests. We in the Bloc Quebecois again call on the Minister of
Finance to pay the provinces, particularly Quebec, what he owes
them. Before going ahead with other measures involving national
standards that would interfere with provincial areas of
jurisdiction, this government must treat its provincial partners
fairly and return to them the amounts it has relieved them of since
1993, significant amounts despite what the Minister of Finance
says.
For Quebec, this means that, if the Minister of Finance wanted
to be generous, he would write out a nice cheque for $5 billion.
Dream on. We no longer believe in Santa Claus or in the federal
government's little helpers. We know that, even though this
government comes dressed in the traditional red of the jolly
gentleman himself, it is a Santa without a heart.
Over the last few months, this scrooge in Santa's clothing has
deprived dozens of Quebec parents of their fundamental rights by
slashing EI benefits. Even as the holiday season approaches, the
Minister of Finance and his side-kick in human resources
development are all in favour of these decisions, which I still
describe as inhumane. They still refuse to budge and admit that
their wonderful employment insurance scheme is a failure and that
they should start calling it poverty insurance.
Instead of having compassion for the least well off in our
society, this government continues to listen to Toronto's Bay
Street magnates. The Minister of Finance keeps saying that his
government is doing a good job and that, next year, it will have a
surplus. What he does not say is that this accounting operation
has been accomplished on the backs of the provinces and the most
disadvantaged.
1705
The federal government ought to stimulate job creation and to
lead an all-out attack against poverty. The Bloc Quebecois and the
numerous stakeholders in Quebec are demanding an in-depth reform of
personal and corporate income tax.
The last major review of corporate tax dates back to the
1960s. I hardly need tell you that the tax measures are out of
date and unsuited to the present economic context. The Minister of
Finance, however, is content with it. The same goes for personal
income tax. The minister is operating with measures that no longer
meet the needs of individuals.
The Bloc Quebecois proposals, in a spirit of re-establishing
social justice, would allow the majority of taxpayers to benefit
from a tax reduction. For example, the creation of a reimbursable
credit for child care expenses would allow a single parent with one
child and an income of $20,000 to save an additional $600 plus.
That is a concrete social measure.
The Reform Party is talking of decreasing income and other
taxes. First of all, it shouldo do as the Bloc Quebecois has done,
and demand a major reform of a federal tax system that is very ill
suited to the current economic context.
Every time the auditor general tables a report, he points out
to the federal government the shortcomings of its taxation system.
We need only think about the scandal of the family trusts and the
use of subsidiaries in tax havens, which the Minister of Finance in
fact uses to reduce his taxes.
The prebudget consultations clearly show, once again, that
there are two irreconcilable visions. The federal government wants
to centralize everything, establish national standards and continue
to infringe on the exclusive rights of the provinces. Quebec wants
to fight for its independence and speaks out increasingly in an
effort to force the Liberal government to respect provincial
jurisdictions.
The current situation is as follows, and I will recall it for
you: Canada comprises two peoples, the Canadian people and the
Quebec people. However, the people of Quebec are making themselves
heard increasingly, and Quebeckers are living in hope.
They know that very soon they will no longer be part of this
completely outmoded federal system, a Trudeauist government whose
grand master never hid his disdain for the provinces. Trudeauism
is personified in this House by the minister of provincial
interference.
In conclusion, this government takes every opportunity to
twist its own Constitution and meddle in fields under Quebec
jurisdiction. It is obsessed with making its presence felt. In
Quebec, however, the fleur de lys is engraved on the hearts of
Quebeckers and with this symbol of pride they will fend off the
underhanded attacks of the federal government saying with one
voice: “Yes to a sovereign Quebec; yes to all economic powers
serving Quebec”.
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I know I speak next, but I am most anxious to ask a
question of my colleague, the member for Lotbinière.
My colleague has, as it were, travelled across Canada with the
Standing Committee on Finance, even though he himself sits on the
public accounts committee. He has therefore heard some horror
stories this fall, particularly in the maritimes and eastern
Quebec.
I am sure that, when he was there, my colleague heard the
stories of fishermen and the problems they are having with EI.
I will tell one of his stories.
1710
People on TAGS have been saddled with a new two-tier system.
When they reach an income level of $26,000, they must pay back all
the EI they have received.
This government wants to encourage people to get out and work.
Imagine that you are a fisherman, that you have been on the program
all year, but that, this fall, you have a chance to go back to
catching herring, say, or to get involved in an experimental sea
urchin fishery.
All the money you make from the catch must go back to the
government. This is no kind of incentive.
I am sure my colleague has heard other horror stories and I
would like him to tell us—it must have been something when they
wrote their report—about the mechanism for setting the provision.
They say in the report that they will set a provision for expenses
but, if the forecasts are not right, they will not be able to
transfer amounts to programs. Does he know anything about how this
mechanism? Can he tell us the Liberals' untold horror stories? I
would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, when I visited the maritime
provinces, especially Newfoundland, despair and frustration were
everywhere.
When we consider that there is only one official, we can see how
serious the federal government is. There was only one official to plan
this program, which is a real fiasco, a real nightmare for the people.
The people were not consulted and were forced to undergo training for
which they had no skills or abilities.
This is how the federal government is trying to tell Newfoundland
that it wants to help. The premier of Newfoundland, who used to sit in
this House, has difficulty promoting the cause of the federal
government. His star is fading, like all the other federal stars across
Canada.
As for that famous report, as I said, all that is missing is the
cover of the Liberal red book. Everything else is the same.
Everything that could help the communities, everything that could help
the underprivileged was removed. The only thing on their mind is Bay
Street in Toronto and the rich; they have forgotten their social
conscience.
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this subject today, but I am
sad to see the lack of empathy from the Liberal government over
there.
Allow me to explain. When I was young, I was told that the
Liberal Party was the party that had created social programs, the
party that thought about the most disadvantaged.
An hon. member: The NDP is the one.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: But we were not too familiar with the NDP
in my neck of the woods. Now I have come to appreciate my NDP
colleagues in this House. We were also told that the Conservatives
were a bit more to the right.
But what it seems to me from reading the report from the
finance committee is that the Liberals were voted in on the left
but are governing on the right.
I will not use any more semantics at their expense, but that is my
impression.
What I would like to say today is about the real world of the
Liberals. A few Liberal MPs are okay. I will tell the House of my
experience in recent days. In the last ten days, over the end of
November and the beginning of December, the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, of which I am a member, travelled the lower
North Shore, the Magdalen Islands, New Brunswick, the Miramichi,
Nova Scotia, and all around Newfoundland, including Labrador. My
goodness, a public servant or a minister is a rare sight for the
people of Labrador, yet they often find their resources being
drained away by them.
What I want to say is that there were five parties in on this
tour, and I hope we will be able to table a unanimous report.
1715
The purpose of our trip was to hear what people had to say
about the Atlantic groundfish strategy. We wanted to find out what
they had liked about it, what they did not, and what they would
like to see follow it. If the hon. members here in the House do
not already all know this, we were told last year before the
elections that TAGS was to end in May 1998.
I told the committee members that we needed to hurry up, that
we needed to go and see the people where they lived, and to get
back to the House before Christmas. We did so, but tabling our
report is taking a bit of time.
That is why I am pleased to intervene today and to share the
impressions I gathered, but in a rather unpremeditated way, as I
have no written report.
People are afraid that TAGS will not be renewed. People are
afraid that the government will not keep its word. This is a
program that was designed to end in 1999. People are afraid it
will end in 1998, because the situation has not changed. The cod,
the cod moratorium, the fisheries have not revived.
At the beginning of this program, there were close to 40,000
or 45,000 people enrolled in the program. People have lost their
eligibility along the way, but there must still be a good 22,000 or
25,000 today. What are we to tell those 22,000 people who will no
longer have a cheque in May 1998, but no job either?
I think the government must give them some directives. It must
inform them as soon as possible. It would seem that the machinery
of government grinds very slowly.
People who are on TAGS did not ask to be there. People on
TAGS are anxious to get back to work, anxious to be able to do
something. They were put on a program, and to make it worse, when
the auditor general brought in his report this fall, they got the
impression that they were the ones at fault, because the government
had transformed TAGS into a passive program. It told them “Sit
there and wait for your cheque, and don't say a word, not a
word”.
The people are really upset. Worse yet, not only do they not
know what the government is going to do about renewing or
maintaining the TAGS income security program, but we discover
thanks to our NDP colleagues that the Minister of Human Resources
Development has provided funding in the amount of $350,000 to train
Human Resources Development officials how to act in case of
trouble, should fisheries workers ever get angry. Does that make
any sense? What sort of a country is this? What sort of a
government is this?
I will summarize in three lines what I heard. I know the
members opposite. More than three lines and they are lost.
The first line is what people told us when we toured with the
fisheries committee. We heard a lot of people.
We travelled for ten days and visited three cities a day, with an
average of 300 to 400 people in the room, so close to 10,000 people
came to deliver a message.
The people wanted three things: first, more income security.
There was no other option. Take the example of the people of the
Magdalen Islands. There used to be a redfish processing plant
called Madelipêche. At one time it employed 600 people. However,
when you live on an island and cannot fish any more and there are
no trees to cut and no chance of a job in tourism, what do you do?
There is nothing else to do. They said they needed income support.
That is the first point.
1720
Second, they told us “You MPs should tell the government to
renegotiate in 1998 the distribution of resources. Negotiate with
the provinces, which you did not include the first time. Negotiate
with the plants. But we have to know who will continue to fish, if
the stocks ever recover, because everyone agrees that there may not
be enough fish for everyone. We want to know who will be redundant
so that we who work in the processing plants can reorient
ourselves. But no one is saying anything. They are saying “Now
you have your little cheque, but pretty soon you will not have one
any more”. And they won't take that.
So the first thing is the bread and butter, maintaining the
TAGS income support program.
The second point is for all ministers of fisheries, both federal
and provincial, to have a look at resource distribution in 1998.
The third point demonstrates the pride of the people of the
maritimes, be they from the Quebec coast, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. They say: “Give us the tools to work.
We need funds. If you want us to diversify, give us money, not
peanuts. It is impossible to start up new industries without
money”.
I could go on at length. As members are paying attention,
perhaps we could check whether there would be unanimous consent to
allow me to continue for a few more minutes. I would like to make
another point and I note the members seem willing to give their
consent.
I would like to say something about what Human Resources
Development officials demand from the people participating in the
TAGS program and trying to get out of it. The limit is $26,000,
while the income ceiling for EI recipients is $30,000 before they
have to start paying the government back, but only at the rate of
30% of what they earned over $39,000. Fishers or processing plant
workers with families and machinery to maintain lose their benefits
as soon as they earn $26,000.
During this trip, I met people who were trying to catch new
species of fish. They had earned a supplementary income. What
happened? They had to give it back to Human Resources Development
Canada.
I met a man who has not had a cent coming in since September. He
is not entitled to welfare because he owns a home, poor soul, and
a pickup to get to work. So he gets not one red cent.
Do you know what he told me, and I do not know how it will
come across in English, but the cry from the heart was “Dear
members of Parliament, I have had no money since September. I am
not an animal, I cannot just graze in a field”.
I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development to
come to my region and travel around to see the people, see what the
real world is like. He will see that he will change his tune.
In conclusion, I am asking this today: if cabinet is not
prepared to make a policy decision on maintaining TAGS, let the
Minister of Finance establish in his provisions enough money so
that, if a policy decision is reached in May, there will be enough
money in his reserves to last all year.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With consent, we
will take questions and comments right through to Private
Members' Business so that the hon. member for Halifax will not be
interrupted. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments, the hon. member for Thornhill. We will keep them short
and sweet and the responses short and sweet. Then we will go to
the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did
listen very carefully to the member opposite as he described the
important work that the fisheries committee did.
I have spoken with members from my own caucus who were a
significant number on that committee. They too were seriously
moved by the stories that they heard from the people who made
presentations before the committee.
1725
I think we all know there is a serious problem. The question
that faces the government is how to respond in a way that will
not only be helpful to those people who want to work, although
the member talked about income support which is certainly an
important part. We know the people of the Atlantic region want
their jobs and the ability to work in the fishery. We also know
there are problems with the fishery.
In making my comment to the member, I would ask him if he has
heard any suggestions from the people who made presentations to
the committee that would help to resolve the issue of how people
will be able to find work in order to sustain themselves rather
than looking to income support as a long term situation for the
Atlantic region. We all know what the real problem is.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in order to get as many
questions in as possible, since I know that there are people to my
left who also want to ask some, and in order not to show disrespect
for the hon. member, I shall be brief.
The situation fisher communities are in cannot be fixed by the
hon. member with a snap of her fingers. My colleague for
Lotbinière pointed out a minute ago the old TAGS program was
created by just one public servant. It took less than four months
and has led to four years of horror stories.
What people are asking us is to give them a slice of bread and
butter, because that is precisely all the government's income
support represents to them, to continue it for at least a year, and
to use that year to create a real program which, this time, will
reflect the reality of coastal communities. That is the answer I
can give the hon. member for the moment.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my colleague a question, but first, I have a few
comments to make.
When we look at what happened with TAGS, does it not resemble
what happened with employment insurance? The governments changed
direction and paid out a lot of money to companies for
technological change. Once the technological changes were made,
people were laid off. People got laid off, and then there was the
fisheries problem.
What happened to the employment insurance of people who were
laid off? They were told the government did not want to pay
employment insurance benefits any more, that no one was working,
that their assistance was being cut and that the problem was that
they did not want to work and were lazy.
That is what the Liberal government said.
Now there are not enough fish, perhaps as a result of
overfishing. Today the government is changing direction and doing
the same thing again. Now it says it has no money, that this is
not the way to do things, that it will cut off families and
children and that they will no longer be entitled to eat. It is
rather irresponsible on the part of the federal government, as my
colleague was saying earlier, for it to sit for four years, rather
than give the money immediately, and do nothing. At the end of the
four years it then says it will be cutting off aid and has nothing
for them. Is the government not being irresponsible? Is my
colleague prepared to support me on this?
The hon. member said earlier, and I agree with him, that we
have to keep giving money so these people can put food on the
table, that we then have to find a solution to the problem instead
of abandoning them. That is one of my questions.
I have another quick question. I would like him to be brief
too in order to answer my two questions. He came to New Brunswick.
What happened to the committee, which did not invite people—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am very sorry, but time
has run out. The hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that we are
coming to the end of the period set aside for debate. I think
that, if we had the unanimous consent of the House, my NDP friend
and I could debate this issue all evening.
To answer his question clearly and briefly, yes, he is right.
No only did the Liberal government throw it together quickly, but
it did an amateur job of it.
1730
They thought about 20,000 to 25,000 people would be interested
in this program when it was first created, but over 40,000 applied.
That is why TAGS was turned into a passive program.
I think the NDP member is 100% right about this. I think the
Bloc and the NDP will have to get together to shake some sense into
the Liberals because, unless we do, there will never be any more
Liberals in Quebec and in the maritimes.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am requesting unanimous consent to be
able to speak as the mover for private member's Bill C-215. It
is the bill of the member for Wild Rose, but he is caught in
traffic.
He is trying to get to the House but cannot do so. The member
for Wild Rose does not want this period of time to go to the
bottom of the order, so I need the unanimous consent of the House
to be able to speak on the bill as if it were my own.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the request of the member for New
Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Forseth (for Mr. Myron Thompson) moved that Bill
C-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (section 227), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing and perhaps even sad that
Bill C-215 is necessary. There remains a badly flawed section of
the Criminal Code which is section 227. In response to that, the
private member's bill drafted by the member for Wild Rose in
specific content says this: “The enactment provides that a
person commits culpable homicide or the offence of causing the
death of another person by criminal negligence or by means of the
commission of offence under subsection 249(4) or 255(3) of the
Criminal Code, regardless of the time within which death occurs
at the time of the occurrence of the last event by means of which
the person caused or contributed to the cause of death.”
That sounds like a convoluted phraseology but I will try to
explain it.
The law says that an individual commits criminal negligence
causing death, and if the individual then commits an assault, the
person is in the hospital and dies after a period of time, the
perpetrator is not culpable. The perpetrator cannot be charged
because their victim took too long to die.
The ironic fact is that on September 4 the justice minister
announced that she planned to introduce the exact same
legislation as this bill. Why the Liberals would not support
this proposed legislation is nothing short of political
manoeuvring. Waiting for the government to draft new legislation
has resulted in more time being wasted. It could have allowed
another perpetrator to go free.
Bill C-215 called for the scrapping of section 227 of the
Criminal Code because section 227 now states that no person can
be convicted of a homicide if the death occurs more than a year
and a day from the time of the offence. The private member's
bill would have changed this in order to allow charges to be laid
if the assault resulted in death, no matter how long the victim
was able to hang on to life.
The reason for this bill stems from the death of Marvin Ward
from Manitoba. This gentleman never regained consciousness
following a savage baseball attack in May 1995. It took Mr. Ward
14 months to pass away and the suspects then could not be
charged.
It is apparent from the cases such as this that section 227 of
the Criminal Code does not recognize modern medicine's ability to
keep people alive for an extended period of time. The private
member's bill would allow for those to face charges if the
assault resulted in death, no matter how long the victim is
alive. There would be no time limits.
If the bill were passed, it would ultimately have meant that Mr.
Ward's death would not have been in vain. It would have proved
that we as legislators can effectively change a badly flawed
section of the Criminal Code.
1735
The member for Wild Rose has followed this issue since last
October and had this private member's bill drafted in March of
this year. It was fortunate that it was picked in the draw for
Private Members' Business but this is where the good fortune
ended because the committee that looks at private members' bills
did not deem it to be votable.
On September 4 the justice minister announced that she too was
scrapping section 227 of the Criminal Code as early as this fall,
fulfilling a promise made by the former justice minister in
March. On this premise alone the private member's bill should
have been made votable but perhaps we can let the media decide or
those who follow these issues can have a conversation about that.
So we present the private member's bill in different manners.
First of all I would like to present it in a way that is based on
the criteria that the standing committee for Private Members'
Business sets for the selection of votable items. Perhaps we can
let the people who are listening today be the judge to see if
this bill meets the guidelines and should have been made votable
today.
There are 11 criteria that must be met in the selection of
votable items. The first criteria is the private member's bill
must be of national, regional or local significance. It cannot
be highly contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant.
Certainly this bill would be considered to have national
significance since it affects the Criminal Code of Canada and in
no way is this bill contentious, controversial, trivial or
insignificant. It involves the death of individuals and the
consequences thereof. It is essential then to change the section
of the Criminal Code and not allow perpetrators to go free.
Criteria number two, the bill must not appear to discriminate or
favour for or against a certain area or region of the country. In
no way does this bill discriminate in favour of a certain region
or area of the country. This bill would be applicable right
across the country. This is federal legislation.
Criteria number three, the bill cannot be with regard to
electoral boundaries or constituency names. Obviously that
category does not apply here.
Criteria number four, the bill should not require obvious
amendment because it is substantially redundant with the law or
is fundamentally ineffective to implement its own intent or is
unclear in its meaning or is otherwise defective in its drafting.
Bill C-215 is not redundant with the laws that already exist, nor
is it ineffective in its intent and meaning. It is very clear.
It is a very short bill. It has a simple concept and is not
defective in its drafting.
Criteria number five, the subject of the bill should be
different from specific matters already declared by the
government to be on its legislative agenda. This bill does not
affect the government's legislative agenda at all. That is the
problem. This bill is here because the government is failing to
act. It was drafted long before the government even talked about
looking into the matter.
Criteria number six, depending on the context of political
issues and events, the number of times a topic has appeared in
the House may be of significance. This topic, as far as I know,
has never appeared in the House of Commons before. However, it
does not mean that it is not an issue of interest to Canadians
and many of the victims' associations across the country.
Criteria number seven, all other factors being equal, lower
priority should be given to motions which deal with matters which
the House can address in some way other than through another
procedure. All in all this bill should receive a high priority
since this cannot be dealt with through another procedure. It is
my opinion that it is essential that this bill be dealt with now
as it already has let four killers go free and potentially more
still exist because of the flaw in the Criminal Code.
Criteria number eight, motions couched in partisan terms should
not be selected. There is really nothing partisan about this
bill whatsoever.
Criteria number nine, bills will be set aside in this selection
process if they are clearly unconstitutional in that they
infringe upon provincial legislative authority, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other entrenched constitutional
rules or if they impede or are contrary to normal federal,
provincial or international relations. This is not the case
either.
Criteria number ten, bills relating to a question that is
substantially the same as a question already voted on by the
House in the session should not be selected as votable items.
This issue does not relate to any question that has been voted on
by this House.
Criteria number eleven, items relating to a question that is
substantially the same as a question contained in an item already
selected as a votable item in the session should not be selected.
Once again, no bills were selected as votable that appear the
same as this one.
1740
I hope that all can see how important this would have been in
restoring the word justice to our justice system. Some say that
we have merely a legal system in Canada rather than a justice
system. We as legislators have the ability to change this flawed
piece of legislation and Mr. Ward deserves to rest in peace
knowing that the killers were paying their dues and not walking
free due to a legislative loophole.
In researching this issue, we found that we were not the only
ones who recognized the need for this legislation. Upon hearing
of the subject of the private member's bill, we received a number
of letters of support and I will highlight just two of these.
The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is an
organization dedicated to victims rights and public safety. They
were pleased to support this bill and gave another example of how
the Criminal Code has produced more victims.
Steve Sullivan, Executive Director, wrote:
I met a woman during the 1994 CAVEAT Safetynet conference whose
brother was beaten so badly that he ended up in a coma. Almost
two years later Rick Gall's family made the heartbreaking
decision to remove his life support.
Kevin Fougere, the individual who beat Mr. Gall, could not be
charged with the murder and was sentenced to 18 months for an
assault related charge. Fougere was clearly responsible for Mr.
Gall's death.
At that time, the justice minister said that he was not
considering amending section 227. Earlier this year he made
comments suggesting that he would amend it and those sentiments
were recently repeated by the current justice minister.
They go on to say in writing:
Your bill would bring the law up to date with modern medical
technology. It amends the section 227 so as to remove the
requirement that the victim must die within one year and a day
for homicide charges to be laid. It is simply a recognition that
people must be held responsible for their actions and the
consequences of them.
Please accept this letter of support for Bill 215. I hope that
this bill is deemed votable and the government supports your
initiative.
Victims of Violence also wrote to me, stating:
Please be advised that we strongly support your initiative with
Bill C-215. For too long we have had to explain to families of
homicide victims the stupidity of the law that allows killers to
escape proper charges and sentencing even if the death of the
victim occurs as a direct result of the criminal's act.
As you are no doubt aware, the Criminal Code has simply not kept
up with modern medicine. Severely injured people are being kept
alive for extended periods of time today with possible hopes of
recovery. The families of these victims are sometimes faced with
the dilemma of allowing life support to be continued at a cost of
having the murderer walk free if their loved one lives beyond one
year and a day but still dies as a direct result of the injury.
Bill C-215 is just a common sense bill to bring the Criminal
Code in tune with the reality of modern medicine today. It will
undoubtedly save the families of some murder victims additional
grief and suffering. We commend you for this effort.
I think those are very clear sentiments. In view of the 11
criteria that I have laid out, I would like to move a motion to
receive unanimous consent of the House that this bill be made
votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby has asked the House for
unanimous consent that this bill be made votable. Is there
unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
three minutes remaining. However, if he has completed we will
then go to debate.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset I would like to congratulate the hon. member from
Wild Rose for bringing in Bill C-215, to abolish the year and a
day rule from the Criminal Code, and forward for discussion to
the House.
I fully agree with him that it is opportune for this rule to be
the subject of law reform. This issue has been of great interest
to the Minister of Justice in Manitoba, his immediate predecessor
and Canadians such as Mark Ward, whose brother Marvin was the
unfortunate victim of a vicious assault in 1995 which put him in
a coma and ultimately resulted in his death, but outside the year
and a day time limit. They too have been arguing for reform.
Section 227 of the Criminal Code provides that no person commits
culpable homicide or the offence of causing the death of a person
by criminal negligence or by means of the commission of an
offence under subsection 249(4) or subsection 255(3) unless the
death occurs within one year and one day from the time of the
occurrence of the last event by means of which the person caused
or contributed to the cause of death.
1745
Bill C-215 seeks to remove the time limit from section 227. In
seeking to do so, it proposes to put in place a new section 227
in the Criminal Code.
[Translation]
The historic origins of the year and a day rule go all the way
back to the Middle Ages in England. In those days, two distinct
prosecutions could be brought with respect to a homicide: a private
prosecution and a public one.
For the purpose of simplifying private prosecutions, the
Statute of Gloucester, passed in 1278, provided clearly that
prosecution for a serious act causing death could stand, if members
of the family began proceedings at the latest a year and a day
after the act suspected of having caused the death.
This simple statement of fact was subsequently interpreted,
however, as limiting the right to prosecute.
Over time, prosecution for death was repealed and the year and
a day rule became an irrefutable requirement in cases of homicide;
if the Crown could not prove that death had taken place during this
period, there could not be culpable homicide.
This ancient rule, an accident of history, survived the years,
and was codified in Canada's first Criminal Code in 1892.
[English]
Over the years three arguments have been offered in support of
the rule. One, a person should not remain almost indefinitely at
risk of prosecution for murder or for another fatal offence. Two,
if a person lives for a long time after the injury was sustained
then it is more difficult to say that the injury caused the
death. Three, even when the rule applies, the accused can
usually be convicted of a serious offence.
There appears to be little current support for the continued
existence of the year and a day rule, however. The following
criticisms can and have been made. There is no statute of
limitations for homicide in Canada and therefore a person can
be subject to prosecution years after a killing has taken place.
Second, this is an arbitrary rule which prevents justice from
being done in certain cases. Death may occur just outside the
time limit and a causal link may be proven, yet in such a case
there would be no culpable homicide.
Third, it can also prevent justice from being done in cases
involving long term causes of death. Another argument is that
with modern life supporting technology, persons can be kept alive
longer, yet this ancient rule continues to operate. Modern
science can also assist in the determination of the cause of
death, even after the passage of a number of years, so the
causation argument is not strong.
Experiences in jurisdictions which do not have this rule seem to
indicate that criminal justice systems can operate fairly and
effectively without the rule. Last but not least, juries can and
do have to consider complex evidence as to the cause of death,
and if the crown does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused caused the victim's death then the prosecution will
fail.
[Translation]
In June 1987, in a document entitled Recodifying Criminal Law,
the Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended that a new rule of
causation be added to the Criminal Code to replace the specific
provisions on causal link with respect to homicide, including the
year and a day rule. In its working paper on homicide, the LRC
took the following position:
Section 210—now section 227—which provides that no
person commits culpable homicide unless the death occurs
within a period of a year and a day seems highly
anachronistic.
The purpose of this rule was undoubtedly to spare a jury from
having to rule on cases where the link between the
reprehensible act and the victim's death was difficult to
establish.
Nowadays, however, its usefulness is highly
disputable, in so far as this matter can be satisfactorily
resolved through existing medical and scientific knowledge.
[English]
In June 1991 the federal-provincial working group on homicide
recommended a rule of causation to replace sections 224 and 227
of the Criminal Code to read:
Everyone causes death, when their conduct significantly
contributes to death, notwithstanding that there may be other
significant contributing factors and that such conduct may not
alone have caused death.
As well, the Department of Justice consulted on a possible
general rule of causation for the Criminal Code as part of the
consultations on the general part in 1994 and 1995, but to date a
reform effort to codify a general rule of causation has not
proceeded.
In other jurisdictions change has already taken place.
1750
[Translation]
In July 1994, the law commission of England published a
consultation paper on the year and a day rule with respect to
murder and other related offences.
The paper outlines six options: one, maintain the rule; two,
make it a rebuttable presumption; three, amend the rule and extend
the limitation; four, abolish the rule with respect to certain
offences, but keep it for others; five, abolish the rule and
replace it with a limitation regarding the prosecution of homicide
offences; and six, abolish the rule.
The Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act passed by the U.K. in
1996 abolishes the year and a day rule, except in cases of acts or
omissions that had taken place before the legislation took effect.
The act provides that it is necessary to obtain the consent of the
attorney general before instituting proceedings in respect of an
offence when it is alleged that the injuries that caused death were
sustained more than three years before death, or in cases where the
accused has already been found guilty of an offence related to the
death.
[English]
In June 1997 the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong issued its
report on the year and a day rule in homicide. The commission
concluded that the rule is no longer necessary or appropriate,
having regard to the present state of modern medical knowledge
and the availability of life support machines.
The commission recommended that the rule ought to be abolished
in relation to all offences involving death and suicide. It
considered whether there ought to be safeguards to protect
against unfair or late prosecutions but ultimately decided that
it was unnecessary.
In summary, while there can be little doubt that change ought to
occur, it may be premature to support this bill at this time. I
think we should look to see if there is any need for safeguards
to be put in place, as has been done in England, for example.
Bill C-215 provides an excellent legislative prototype for what
it is we ought to achieve and will be extremely useful for the
government in its examination of this important issue.
The Minister of Justice is committed to bringing reform to this
area of the law and the work of the hon. member for Wild Rose and
other members of this House who will be supporting Bill C-215 has
been important in achieving this objective.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I too, as a representative of the Bloc Quebecois, would like to
congratulate the Reform Party member on this bill.
It reflects a concern in his riding and throughout Canada as
well, even in Quebec. However, I think that examining section 227
from this angle is not perhaps the best approach.
I will not give the historical context, as those who spoke
before me have done, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Justice, but it should be pointed out that section
227, as it stands, makes it easier for the crown to establish the
link of causality.
I do not want to go into great detail and give a lecture on law,
but there are three things the crown must establish beyond a
reasonable doubt when faced with an offence of this type or in any
other legal case.
There is mens rea, actus reus and causal link. In the first
two instances, I think that the crown, through witnesses, through
various means, through factual elements, can establish proof. But
without section 227, the crown would sometimes have trouble
establishing the causal link.
Section 227 is, therefore, not necessarily there to protect
the accused at all times, as the Reform side has said so often.
Sometimes, in Canada's legal history, since section 227 has been in
existence, it has helped the Crown to demonstrate a causal link,
when death did not occur at the precise moment the offence was
committed, but days, weeks or months later.
The amendment presented by the Reform Party would remove this
prescriptive period that prevents the Crown from using this causal
link to prove its case.
The bill is very clear, it removes all time limits. It states:
1755
With today's medical technology and everything else the health
system has to offer, a person can last two, three, four or five
years, hooked up to machines and all manner of other things.
If the Reform member's bill were passed, we would be left in
a kind of legal vacuum with respect to the offence, because the
individual can be charged with culpable homicide but also with
other very serious offences under the Criminal Code.
This year and a half limit makes it possible for the Crown to
take position and get its act together.
If the person cannot be charged with culpable homicide, he will be
charged with something else, as I said before, with very serious
offences. But with this bill, we would be left hanging until the
victim died or his condition stabilized, before we could institute
legal proceedings. I do not think that is what the legal system
wants.
I am not saying that there are not some very specific cases
like those listed earlier, the revolting nature of which casts
doubt on the entire system, but if one is going to question the
system, the approach must be comprehensive. We must examine the
system with experts and look at legal precedents. The approach
must be one of comparative law, rather like what the parliamentary
secretary has done.
We have a British tradition. What happens in Great Britain,
for instance, with its far longer history in this connection? What
about certain of the Commonwealth countries?
What is happening in Europe? What is happening with the Americans,
who are very much at the forefront in technological terms, perhaps
more so than Canada? How do they operate?
Perhaps we will conclude that a longer period of time will
have to be set. I would be surprised if we were to conclude that
no time period need be set. We might even conclude that section
227 no longer serves a purpose. I do not know, but it is surely
following an in-depth study that we could make our mark as
legislators in this House.
In short, my conclusion is that we consider the rule provided in
section 227 of the Criminal Code to serve a purpose at this time.
In fact, establishing a time period enables us to determine
whether there is indeed a causal link between the act of the
accused and the death of the victim. This is why we oppose Bill
C-215 as written, since it removes any time frame.
On the other hand, we must still take into account the social,
economic and scientific realities in which the provisions of the
Criminal Code must apply. It may be relevant, in the short or
medium term, to look at the length of time currently provided, that
is the period of one year and one day. Perhaps, in the not too
distant future, we will consider new provisions to try to ensure
greater fairness, and I am sure everyone is working toward the
objective of making our system fair and just.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the debate before the House today on
private member's Bill C-215.
There was one occasion here today where unanimous consent was
sought. I think it is important for the people who may be
watching the House to see some co-operation and how well
sometimes that can work.
There was unanimous consent to allow a different member to move
the bill because of the importance of the bill. I think all
members who have spoken today recognize that.
There was not unanimous consent to allow the bill to become
votable and I am a little puzzled by that. I will just comment a
little on the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
What we have heard from the government is that this is an
important piece of legislation, that this legislation has to be
modified in some way to be brought up to modern realities.
We have also heard that there is a law reform commission study
making recommendations and recommending changes to what was
section 210 and what is now section 227 of the Criminal Code.
1800
We have to ask with some real concern why the government has not
brought forward changes, which Canadians appear to want and which
I think form the subject of the hon. member's bill and why he has
crafted it as a private members' bill. That being said, I do
appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments regarding the
amount of study that has to go into this kind of a change.
My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois talked a little about some
of the things I wanted to mention. When a crime is committed,
the law requires first of all that there is a presumption of
innocence, that the individual who is charged with the crime is
innocent until proven guilty.
In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the crown must
establish two things. First is actus reus, which is the physical
commission of the offence, the actual physical driving of the car
in the case of negligence or impaired driving. The crown must
also prove mens rea, which is the Latin phrase for the mental
element for the commission of the crime.
As is indicated by the parliamentary secretary, one of the
reasons we have a rule that derives from the English tradition
that says one cannot be charged a year and a day later is
precisely to ensure some security to the accused. How can the
crown determine mens rea? How can an accused be expected to
offer a defence after a prolonged period of time?
I am not saying that with today's technology that remains the
only defence for this type of section, but it is worthy of study
and it is something we have to look at.
The mover of the bill and I think all members here today talked
about the desire on the part of Canadians to see some change. The
mover of the bill talked about victims and the fact that he had
received correspondence from victims saying that they wanted this
change to ensure that the perpetrators of the crime were brought
to justice. I think the quote the hon. member used was that the
killers pay their dues instead of not doing so.
I am not sure if we do not amend this section of the code today
that we deny justice. We have to examine what we mean when we
talk about justice, what we mean when we talk about punishment
and what we mean when we talk about closure for victims.
Whether or not extending the time period for prosecution to
allow for a charge of homicide to be laid is the only way to
bring closure for victims and to bring justice to society has to
be questioned. Given the limitations that this section now
provides, we can look to some alternate and perhaps more creative
ways to determine what is justice for a family and indeed in this
situation for a victim who may remain alive on a life support
system.
If we look at the restorative justice models which call for a
different type of punishment, a type of punishment that makes the
perpetrator of the crime accountable to the victim and to the
victim's family, we may find that even if we do not amend this
section of the code, there are still ways to ensure that the
perpetrator of the crime has to pay some penalty.
In the absence of legislation coming from the government, where
I think it has recognized and admitted the need for change, and
in the absence of this bill being a votable item, perhaps we can
indicate to the crown attorneys across the country that there may
be creative ways for them to look at laying charges even though
those charges may be lesser charges than homicide.
That being said, I too congratulate the member for bringing
forward this piece of legislation. It has encouraged some debate.
I hope the government will take some direction from this House
and from the hon. member that the legislation has to be changed.
The government is taking some direction in that regard but
perhaps not as quickly as we would like.
I compliment and commend the hon. member for bringing forward
the legislation. It is worthy of debate and serious study as to
the consequences in terms of the justice system, as to the
consequences for both the crown and the accused, the conduct of a
trial, the gathering of evidence, the maintaining of evidence and
those types of things.
1805
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on Bill
C-215, an act to amend section 227 of the Criminal Code. This
bill has the objective of replacing section 227 in order to deal
with a person who commits a culpable homicide or the offence of
causing the death of another person regardless of the time at
which the death occurs. Right now the code says that for a person
to be found guilty, the death must have occurred within a year.
People in Quebec would remember the case of a taxi driver who
was beaten to death by police officers. The taxi driver was in a
vegetative coma for many months and finally died more than a year
after the incident took place. The police officers could not be
charged with the culpable homicide because of the time that had
elapsed between the time of the commission of the crime and the
resulting death.
We all understand that the amendment proposed by my colleague
would cover such very sad cases, but does this House want to
completely open section 227 of the Criminal Code? Do we really
want to not have any time limit imposed? This House should not
say yes to these questions before it reflects on the consequences
of such an amendment.
By having no time limit it would become much more difficult to
establish the link between the cause and the effect of the death.
If a crime occurs today but the death of the victim occurs five
years later, how can our police and prosecutors really establish
that it was the last event that caused the death and not
something else? It could become a technical battle in court, a
battle between lawyers needless to say. Furthermore it is
impossible in Canadian law to prosecute the same person twice for
the same act. It would be impossible to charge someone with
aggravated assault only to later change the charge to culpable
homicide.
With section 227 written as proposed in Bill C-215, how long
would a crown prosecutor be forced to wait before pressing
charges? If there is no time limit, the jobs of the crown and
the police are made much more difficult.
There is a further example of consequences to this amendment to
section 227. What about cases where victims are comatose and the
family decides to pull the plug on the life support machine?
Would that be considered death following the last event? These
are all only small but important examples of the consequences to
our criminal justice system of the amendments proposed by my
colleague.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the Criminal
Code should be revised, but we also believe that it should not be
changed piece by piece. It has been many years since there was a
complete revision of the Criminal Code as a whole, and maybe it
is time to start thinking of doing it. Maybe this House through
its standing committee on justice could begin such a revision.
It is our belief that Bill C-215 has touched on a good point and
that the principle behind the amendment is a good one. But it is
also our belief that while section 227 should be broadened, it
should not be left wide open. We believe there should be a
revision of the time limit between the moment an act has been
committed and the time a death has occurred. We also believe
there should be a reasonable cut off time in that limit.
For those reasons and the ones previously mentioned we cannot
support Bill C-215.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate. The
Chair will recognize the member for Wild Rose but this will
terminate the debate.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill. I
should apologize to you and the House for not being able to be
here at 5.30 p.m. to present it myself. However, I am living
proof that a country boy should not dare rent a car in a big city
because he will get lost, and he did.
I was a little late getting here and I do apologize for that.
1810
I thank my colleague from British Columbia for presenting this
bill on my behalf. I do appreciate the interest that was shown
in what we are attempting to do.
However I am a little dismayed. Once again we see a bill
presented that completely meets the criteria to be votable. I am
really wondering why we have in our procedure a committee whose
purpose is to make certain that a bill meets the criteria before
it can be declared votable. Once again, even though it met the
criteria, a handful of MPs decided on behalf of all Canadians
that this bill was not worth being voted on. Whether the bill is
good or bad is beside the point. The point is that it should be
debated fully and everyone should have an opportunity to vote on
it.
I am disappointed that the governing body, the Liberals, would
not allow this bill to be votable because the justice minister
herself has been quoted a number of times from her speeches about
the extreme need to take care of this section of the Criminal
Code. I was surprised to even have the opportunity to bring this
bill forward because according to all the news reports, this was
something that was going to be accomplished by the justice
minister in the fall. It should not surprise me. Surprise is
the wrong word. It is no surprise when the Liberals decide to
promise that something will be done and it does not happen. That
is old stuff.
I have heard a lot of people say that we need to make certain we
do not put legislation in place that would cause the justice
system to crumble here or there. I would like to remind the
House that we have to start listening to Canadians. We have to
make changes to this legislation that reflect Canadians'
description of a good justice system. That description today
does not fit in the minds of a big majority of Canadians. They
are an unhappy lot with the justice system. That is quite
obvious and any members who would doubt that, I would challenge
them to go to any street corner in their ridings and find out for
themselves.
The system Canadians are looking for is one that would put a
strong emphasis on meeting the needs of the victims and the
victims' survivors. It is high time we had a system that said
that the needs and rights of victims of crime are a little more
important than the rights of the criminal and the perpetrators of
the crime. That is what Canadians want to see. That is what I
was attempting to do by introducing this bill. I want to see
that the Canadian people, the ones who pay the bill for this
justice system, get what they desire.
Even the governing body would have to admit that there is an
unhappiness among Canadians. Otherwise we would not have CAVEAT,
CRY and FACT and thousands of Canadians who belong to victims
groups fighting for their rights to be recognized in a stronger
way. That is what must begin to happen. Sooner or later it will
have to start happening.
To deny this bill to be fully debated and voted on is wrong. To
deny any bill that meets the criteria and tries to address the
needs of victims is wrong.
The unfortunate part of this whole thing is that there are the
Ward family and other families whose loved ones come under this
section of the Criminal Code and therefore justice was never
served.
If there is one thing that victims deserve and survivors of
victims deserve, it is the peace of mind that after the horrible
tragedies that they have gone through that at least justice has
been served. This government for many years now has failed to
address that. It is time that we start doing it. It is long
overdue.
1815
Once again, I thank those who supported the idea that this
should be discussed fully and debated. I for one will never ever
forget the fact that there are two parties to every crime, the
criminal and the victim. As for me, my support and my efforts
will be to the benefit of the victim at every opportunity.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As hon. members
know, we have the late show tonight that starts in another 15
minutes. We have 15 minutes to wait until the participants
arrived. We have a choice. We can suspend to the call of the
Chair, or may we have a motion to see the clock as 6.30?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): I so move.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
November 5 I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to table the
secret report by the auditor general of his examination of the
Cape Breton Development Corporation.
This report would shed light on recent disturbing facts
regarding Devco's management of billions of dollars of crown
assets.
It is unlikely this House will see the report. The minister
appears uninterested in making this agency under his
responsibility accountable to the public. In the weeks following
his decision to keep the murky dealings of the Devco board from
public scrutiny, the special Senate committee investigating Devco
found it nearly impossible to make heads or tails of the numbers
in Devco's five year plan and other fundamental documents of
record.
As a Cape Bretoner, it was embarrassing to see senior officers
of one of Cape Breton's most visible institutions being given an
accounting lesson by senators. Senators were shocked at how the
board signed a letter of intent to hand over Donkin Mine, a crown
asset worth billions, to a company with no assets. In what
surely will be one of the largest transfers of public assets in
years, board members seemingly had less than a day to learn of
the chairman's quicksilver negotiations to lock up the deal
before they rubber stamped the process as part of a routine
Wednesday afternoon meeting.
Senators felt that the handling of this matter with little
explanation and no accountability was highly inappropriate.
Senator MacDonald, and this is directly from the minutes of the
November 18 Senate hearing, said the board sealed this deal using
“indecent haste”.
Senator Murray said the letter of intent to dispose of the
Donkin billions was based on and I quote, “quite incomplete and
flimsy information”. Senator Murray said the board's actions
were incredible.
The chairman of Devco told senators he did not consult with
anyone about the deal. The minister then told senators that
Devco's board has no legal right to either develop the Donkin
Mine or to sell it as it belongs to the federal government. But
they went ahead and signed a deal to sell without even bothering
to pick up the phone and let the minister know he would soon be a
few billion dollars lighter.
It was the former Minister of Health who announced that $300,000
in federal funds were being released into DRL bank accounts
through a subsidiary of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Until this federal gift arrived, DRL was unable to meet its
responsibilities under the terms and conditions of the contract
with Devco, namely, to prepare its plans to develop a mine
through the study of data.
1820
I implore the minister to table the auditor general's report on
Devco to meet its mandate promoting accountability and best
practices in government.
What are Devco and the minister afraid of? Senator Murray is
afraid that Devco's letter of intent may have crippled the rights
of the federal government to reject the deal or even to set terms
and conditions. If so, the terms of this deal have been
illegally established because, according to the minister, Devco
has no such legal right to do so. I wonder if the deal would
even stand up in court at this point without federal government
approval.
Just this week, Nova Scotia Power announced it needs to import
coal from the U.S. because Devco could not meet its requirements.
Nova Scotians are appalled by this need to import coal given our
expertise and resources.
There is an absolute mess brewing under the minister's nose.
Before this all takes on a whiff of scandal or the stench of
government rot, I urge the minister to clear the air by tabling
in this House the auditor general's report on the Cape Breton
Development Corporation in the name of accountability and for the
sake of the integrity of his own department.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised the matter of a special examination by
the auditor general of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Let me begin by saying that I, and I believe all members, share
a concern for the Cape Breton region. All of us want to see
successes on the island. I believe that Devco can be a success
and I have confidence in the management and employees of the
corporation to achieve this.
To return to the audit, according to the Financial
Administration Act, all crown corporations must undergo a special
examination at least once every five years. The purpose of this
examination is to determine if the corporation's financial and
management controls, information systems and management practices
are acceptable.
These systems and practices should provide reasonable assurance
that the assets of the corporation are safeguarded and
controlled; the financial, human and physical resources of the
corporation are managed economically and efficiently; and the
operations of the corporation are carried out effectively.
The auditor general's examiner has indicated to Devco that he
expects to submit his report to Devco's board of directors soon.
As I understand the process, if the auditor general's office
believes the report contains information that should be brought
to the attention of Parliament, his office would prepare a report
for inclusion in the next annual report of the corporation. Mr.
Desautels, like every previous auditor general, will not be
reluctant to bring forward any concerns he might have.
To repeat, Devco has not yet received the report of the special
examination. Until this happens, I cannot speculate on next
steps by the auditor general's office or possible reaction by the
government.
Now I would like to mention some of the ways in which Devco has
established public accountability. Like all crown corporations,
Devco prepares an annual report that is tabled in Parliament. In
addition, Devco produces quarterly performance reports which are
made public. As well, Devco has established the practice of
consulting at least twice annually with its various stakeholders.
Finally—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary's time has expired.
The hon. member for Red Deer.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on November
18 I rose in the House to ask a question of the government about
the $1 billion deal which was being proposed with the Iraqi
government. This deal was proposed by Mr. Zed, who had gone to
Iraq and supposedly signed a deal at a time when we were at a
very critical point in dealing with Iraq. It was refusing people
access to various sites in the country. It was a time when the
United Nations was proposing other action.
The timing could not have been worse. In my estimation, it
greatly undermined Canadian foreign policy that this, in fact,
was being pushed under the carpet by this government.
1825
Basically this shows a real lack of foreign affairs initiative
and policy by this government. It makes you wonder who is in
charge of the foreign affairs department when a company, Summa
Strategies, directed by ex-Liberal MPs Doug Young and Paul Zed,
can in fact put forward a deal like this at such a critical time.
Shortly after the 1997 election these two gentlemen set up Summa
Strategies as an Ottawa lobbying group. Obviously they are now
taking great advantage of their contacts within the government.
Mr. Young is acting for Canadian National Railways, a crown
corporation he helped to privatize when he was minister of
transport. No wonder Canadians are so skeptical of government
and ex-ministers when they are involved in this sort of lobbying
activities.
We need to tighten up these arrangements dramatically. Just
imagine proposing to deal with a government like that of Saddam
Hussein. While all the time arguing that this was a humanitarian
deal for trucks and a number of items which were not listed, they
went further to invite the foreign affairs minister, Tariq Aziz,
to visit Canada, to visit the Prime Minister of New Brunswick,
for which he claimed he had an invitation.
We in this House get tired of the government standing up,
beating its chest and saying how wonderful it is. It talks about
standing up to Saddam Hussein, yet we let this billion dollar
deal to go ahead. Maybe the UN will scuttle it. We talk about
how great we are in saving the world with land mines, meanwhile
we are selling nuclear plants to India, Romania, China, Turkey
and Korea, to name a few.
We talk about how we have solved all the financial problems,
when in reality we have a $600 billion debt. We talk about a
Zaire mission which we championed because the Prime Minister saw
it on television. Then we found out that the day before the
President of the United States called and suggested that that is
what Canada should do.
We get tired of this sort of double standard and double talk. I
question who is in charge over there? Doug Young, Paul Zed and
Summa Strategies or the foreign affairs minister.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations
sanctions were imposed on Iraq to persuade the Iraqi government
to comply with all UN Security Council resolutions which flowed
from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The Government of Canada has repeatedly expressed its full
support to the UN Security Council resolutions and has called on
Iraq to comply fully with the relevant security council
resolutions.
Canada has also played an active role in the implementation of
these resolutions through its presence in the United Nations
special commission, UNSCOM, and the participation of its navy in
the Maritime Interdiction Forces in the Gulf. During the most
recent crisis Canada again demanded that the Government of Iraq
comply fully with all the obligations imposed on it by the
international community.
We hold the Government of Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein
fully responsible for the continued suffering of the Iraqi people
by their persistent refusal of full co-operation with the
international inspections. However, it was not the intention of
the UN Security Council to inflict suffering on the Iraqi people.
That is why the security council passed resolution 986 to permit
the sale of humanitarian goods to Iraq to help the Iraqi people
while sanctions are in place.
Canada and its principle partners, including the United States
and the United Kingdom, fully supported this resolution which was
opposed for a long time by the Iraqi government. Under this
resolution Canadian companies are free to pursue sales of
humanitarian goods subject to approval by the UN Sanctions
Committee and the Government of Canada.
It is a Canadian legal requirement that all Canadian companies
seeking to export goods to Iraq under this resolution, whether in
Canada or overseas, must submit their application to the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for
approval. The Department examines each application to ensure
that all conditions for such exports laid down in Canadian
regulations are met before a certificate permitting the export
will be issued or can be issued. One of these conditions is that
the UN Sanctions Committee approve the deal.
The Government of Canada is aware that a recent Canadian
business delegation to Iraq, led by a Kanata company, concluded
several deals with the Iraqi government—
1830
[Translation]
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
November 19 last, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a
question on the future of the dairy industry.
To give you the appropriate background, I would like to quote part
of that question. It said:
Does the minister intend to vigorously defend the dairy
producers of Quebec and Canada by taking a clear and firm
stand in the face of American claims?
Please note the answer.
Mr. Speaker, yes I will confirm that we will defend the
Canadian dairy industry vigorously.
Each time I ask that minister a question, he invariably says “I
defend very strongly, I defend vigorously.”
How can he explain that processors, and especially Unilever, are
importing butter oil, the mix containing 49% butter oil and 51% sugar,
at a very low tariff?
For a minister who keeps saying that he is vigorously defending the
dairy industry, this is really great. Dairy producers have lost this
fiscal year $50 million, which represents about 3% of their quota. And
since there are 25,000 dairy producers, this represents an average of
$2,000 that every dairy farm is losing today because of the import of
butter oil. “I defend vigorously”, he says. How can we believe a
minister who is so vigorously failing to act?
The problem is caused by the fact that the product is not under the
proper tariff item. From 1995 to 1997, there has been more than a
four-fold increase in imports. At the rate that these imports are going,
there is every reason to fear that dairy producers will find themselves
in a dire financial straits. Not only does the minister have to work
vigorously, he also has to work quickly, because this is urgent.
This butter oil mix was obviously invented to avoid tariff
regulations. Unfortunately, Revenue Canada is slow in reacting, and our
Minister of Agriculture is sleeping on the job. Meanwhile, it is the
agricultural community that is paying not for the lack of courage of
this government but for its failure to act, especially as far as the
Minister of Agriculture is concerned.
I hope there will be appropriate foresight on the part of officials
during the next WTO negotiations. Proper management means proper
foresight, and the Liberal government is showing neither when it comes
to agriculture.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to the
parliamentary secretary for a response, I want to say that the
interpreters did a wonderful job in that discourse. I know it is
difficult chore from time to time and I want to thank them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I just in preface
say, adding to my previous answer, that no application has been
received for an export permit to Iraq by the Department of
Foreign Affairs from the Kanata company's group.
Responding to the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, I do
apologize. I have just seen this text now and there is no French
version. I can try to translate it, but I think it would
probably speed up things if I give the version in a somewhat less
eloquent English than his French.
1835
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
I would like to encourage and forgive right now the member for
Vancouver Quadra, because at the Department of Agriculture, there is
little concern for the French language, and this is not surprising.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order and there are no points of order in adjournment
proceeding. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the right to
respond in either language and was being courteous.
[Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I accept the challenge.
Canada wants to vigorously defend the Canadian dairy industry
against American claims that we are subsidizing dairy exports, in
violation of our obligations under the World Trade Organization.
They also state that we did not respect our quota on milk. The
United States asked Canada for formal consultations on these issues
until October 8. These consultations were held at Geneva on November 19.
Consultations are the first formal step in a complaint made to the World
Trade Organization.
It will be up to the United States to request that a World Trade
Organization panel be set up 60 days after the request for
consultations, that is after December 7.
The special system for pricing in Canada and for quotas on dairy
tariffs meets Canada's obligations under the rules of the World Trade
Organization. We are ready to defend our system before a commission so
that this conflict can be resolved.
Canada will insist that any action taken by the United States on
this issue not be in compliance with the rules of the World Trade
Organization.
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to follow up on the question I raised
in the House approximately a week ago. I asked the minister of
Indian affairs about the problems of accountability on reserves
and the fact that unfortunately many of the people were extremely
destitute. Yet, according to the department's own statement,
although everything may not be nice and wonderful it is certainly
well under control. I would beg to differ.
Unfortunately our aboriginal people who live on the reserves
have living conditions that are absolutely intolerable and would
not be tolerated elsewhere in the country. I wonder why the
government would continue on that basis.
The minister held up the Alexander First Nation, which happens
to be in my riding, as an example of good management that we
should look at for other reserves.
In the St. Albert and Sturgeon Gazette on November 19,
1997 the chief executive officer of the band was quoted as
saying:
Let me be the first to publicly admit to our membership, the only
people we feel we have to answer to, that there are problems.
There is need for change and greater accountability.
That was in relationship to an investigation that was being
conducted by the St. Albert and Sturgeon Gazette into some
people on the reserve who were living in absolutely abominable
conditions.
In the St. Albert and Sturgeon Gazette of Wednesday,
September 24, 1997 there was an article entitled “Rich man, poor
man”. It talked about one member of the reserve, Mr. Ernie
Bruno, who was given $1,800 to help build a 289 square foot home.
Now a 289 square foot home is not a mansion.
1840
I was actually taking a look at the financial statements which
came my way too and I noticed that the auditor had qualified the
statement because he had problems with the audit. He stated:
The rest of the qualifications were contained in there. The
statements were of significant length. I was amazed by the
amount of money the first nations were paying out in salaries.
For example, under medical, transportation, alcohol and drug
abuse, community health representative and van transportation,
they paid out $231,000 in salaries against $473,000 in revenues.
More than half went on salaries.
How about the social services department? This is the
department they run to help people. It has revenues of $672,000
but its salary bill was $121,000. It goes on and on. Economic
development salaries were $65,000 against receipts of $240,000.
Land management salaries were $65,000 against receipts of
$212,000.
If I were given the opportunity I could go on at length in a 20
minute speech about the lack of accountability on this reserve
and others reserves across the country.
This is what we talked about in question period. We asked the
minister to substantiate that the report was factual and that
something needed to be done. I would still like to have a real
response by the department to this lack of accountability.
I could go on at great length, but in view of the time I would
like to hear the response from the department.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development I am pleased to respond to the question of the hon.
member for St. Albert regarding the Alexander First Nation.
The hon. member suggests that the Alexander First Nation is not
an example of good management. I disagree. The remarkable
turnaround this first nation has made in a few short years
deserves credit.
Three years ago the auditor of the Alexander First Nation gave a
denial of opinion on the 1994-95 financial statements. At that
time the first nation, in open consultation with its community,
took a number of steps toward rectifying the situation, including
holding open community meetings with the band auditor. Over the
past two years the first nation has made positive steps by
showing an operating surplus each year and plans to have no
deficit by March 1999.
Under the terms of its remedial management plan Alexander must
make arrangements for professional accounting assistance and
provide monthly financial statements to the department. Regional
officials meet regularly with band representatives to review
progress on the plan.
Aside from the department's reporting requirements, the chief
and council hold general band meetings each year to provide
information to community members on the band's financial picture,
to inform members of achievements and new initiatives, and to
seek clarification on any issue. Each year, members are provided
with a copy of the annual report which includes the financial
statements.
In addition, this community, under the direction of the chief
and council, has been able to reduce the number of community
members on social assistance from 100 to 12 persons as a result
of innovative economic development projects. These results
illustrate real progress within this first nation.
SUMMA STRATEGIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I asked a
question of the prime minister on December 4, just about a week
ago, in relation to Summa Strategies Inc., a lobbying company in
Ottawa.
My question was with regard to the activities of this company
because two former Liberal members of Parliament were acting on
behalf of an American company to take possession of a Canadian
port.
We had a vote in the House last night on the marine act, Bill
C-9, which would see the privatization of ports in Canada.
What disturbs me about these two members of Parliament is that
one of them is Doug Young, the former minister of transport who
was the architect of the marine privatization act or Bill C-9.
It is identical to the original bill that he introduced to the
House when he was the Minister of Transport in the previous
Parliament.
1845
There is something patently wrong when the government allows
that type of activity to happen, because here we have it. The
gentleman who knows the department intimately, the former
minister who wrote the act, now works on behalf of an American
company that wants to take ownership of a Canadian port.
It is bad enough that Mr. Paul Zed, a former member of
Parliament, is also involved in that consulting company. In
fact, he is one of the co-owners with Mr. Young of Summa
Strategies. It is bad enough that a member of Parliament would be
involved, but when you have a minister acting along with the
member of Parliament doing that, the former member of Parliament
and the former minister, there is something absolutely wrong.
When I raised that question in the House, I asked the Prime
Minister, does this meet his definition of ethical behaviour.
They just fudge on the answer. A lot of Canadians want to know
whether or not that would meet the Prime Minister's definition of
ethical behaviour. I think most people in this House on both
sides would say no, it does not meet what would be an acceptable
level of ethical behaviour.
What Mr. Young and Mr. Zed are doing in terms of the law, I am
not going to stand up here and say they are breaking the law,
because obviously they are both very smart men, they are
intelligent men. But we are talking about ethical behaviour, and
insider knowledge and information of departments, and the
architect of the very act which we debated in this House this
week which will be given royal assent very soon. There is
something wrong when that happens.
On the provincial side of this equation, we have a former
minister of economic development in the province of New Brunswick
by the name of Al Lacey who owns the company Al Lacey and
Associates. He is lobbying on behalf of the provincial
government.
We have the consummate insiders both federally and provincially.
There is something wrong when that is allowed to happen,
especially when we are looking at giving ownership of a Canadian
port to an American company.
It is absolutely bizarre that we would allow the Canadian
government and the province of New Brunswick to allow a port like
that to be sold and allow the highest paid lobbyists in the
country to represent these companies, every one of these
lobbyists being former members of the crown cabinet or members of
Parliament.
On that I rest my case. I look forward to the response from the
parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we cannot comment on
innuendoes or suggestions. We must deal with facts and we
operate under the rule of law in Canada.
I thank the hon. member for Charlotte for his question
concerning Summa Strategies and the divestiture of the port of
Bayside, New Brunswick.
I must emphasize that the divestiture initiative under the
national marine policy is going extremely well. In Atlantic
Canada alone, 38 ports have been transferred, negotiations are
concluded on a further six, and 10 additional letters of intent
have been signed with negotiations presently under way. These
ports are being transferred to provinces, community based groups
and private companies.
Transport Canada is implementing this initiative under a set of
guidelines and procedures developed by the department and
approved by Treasury Board.
With regard to Bayside, New Brunswick, the officials from
Transport Canada convened a public meeting on June 19, 1996 and
provided a briefing on the national marine policy and the
positive effect it could have for the stakeholders of a port like
Bayside. Subsequent to that meeting, a local group of
stakeholder representatives was formed and a letter of intent was
signed with the group on July 29, 1996.
Charlotte County Ports Ltd. represented by Summa Strategies also
came forward and expressed interest in the port. As with any
other interested party, the process was explained to them and
they were urged to make contact with the local negotiating
committee. Charlotte County Ports Ltd. followed this advice and
verbally withdrew their expression of interest in favour of
working positively with the local port divestiture committee.
Specifically, the hon. member has questioned the involvement of
Summa Strategies. Both of the individuals he has referred to are
now private citizens and are free to carry out their business
affairs as they see fit and in conformity to the rule of the law.
1850
There exists legislation that addresses the lobby business in
Canada. I am certain that both of these individuals are fully
aware of the requirements surrounding their private business
interests.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)