36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 76
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 18, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRISH BENEVOLENT SOCIETY
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE MOST REVEREND LOUIS LÉVESQUE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONIE IN ACADIA
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE AVILA LABELLE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LA SEMAINE NATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INMATES' COMMUNITY WORK
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAIX-CIBLE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN RED CROSS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1415
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM ASSISTANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSITIONAL JOB FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUCKINGHAM PALACE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR INDIA
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ways and Means
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1505
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highway System
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Nudity
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Trans-Canada Highway
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1510
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Nudity
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1515
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Civil and Political Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-381. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
1520
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Excise Tax Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Excise Tax Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kamloops Indian Band Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Budget Implementation Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1525
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-21. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1540
1545
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1600
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-21. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1605
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PARKS AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-29. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kamloops Indian Band Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
1800
(Division 110)
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Motion agreed to)
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Budget Implementation Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-21. Third reading
|
(Division 111)
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1805
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOBBY FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1810
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1825
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1840
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1845
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1900
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
1905
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Post-Secondary Education
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1910
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Poverty
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1915
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INARI
|
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1920
![V](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 76
![](/web/20061116182954im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 18, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now sing
O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Saint John.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Sunday, March 15 was the launch date for “La Dame, votre nouvelle carte
d'affaires”, a contest to revitalize rue Notre-Dame ouest, a shopping
street located in my beautiful riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri.
Congratulations to Andrée Alepins, Rhéal Lanthier, Pierre Trudel
and all those who supported them. I am sure they will reap the rewards
of their hard work.
I might add that the Government of Canada contributed to this
project by providing a $15,000 grant from Economic Development Canada
and a project coordinator, at the cost of $16,000, through Human
Resources Development Canada.
I wish them all the best of luck.
* * *
[English]
IRISH BENEVOLENT SOCIETY
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in my own city of London, Ontario, the Irish Benevolent
Society held its 121st annual St. Patrick's Day luncheon.
The members of this society are Canadians of Irish ancestry and
their friends. Although they come from a variety of different
backgrounds, they celebrate together and raise funds for
charitable work in our community.
Congratulations to them and to all similar groups that do so
much good work throughout Canada. May the peace we enjoy here in
Canada soon be a reality throughout all of Ireland, the ancestral
land of so many Canadians.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Gaelic and provided the
following translation:]
[Translation]
Good luck. May the blessing of St. Patrick be on you.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow Jack Edgar will have his day parole hearing. I quote
from a copy of a letter from Linda Ryan, a constituent of mine,
to the parole board and I appeal to this government to really
listen to her own words.
She says: “On August 18, 1985, Jack Edgar murdered my mother and
my aunt. That act began my life sentence of fear, grief and
betrayal. This man was my stepfather.
“I know I cannot predict what Jack will do, no one can, perhaps
not even Jack himself. I do know I cannot live my life and raise
my children with `what ifs'. I cannot imagine being able to stay
in my home near my family if Jack is released.
“I have not slept through an entire night since the call came to
tell me that he is applying for parole. I live each and every
day with what he did to them, their terror, their helplessness.
My fears are real and grounded and shared by many”.
Will this government do something, anything, to prevent this
despicable criminal from being released?
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
mid-September this member received her first parliamentary
posting to the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs.
Since then I have been deployed to northern, western and central
Canadian Armed Forces bases to investigate quality of life
issues. Our military men and women remain prepared to give not
only their personal freedom but also their lives if need be in
the performance of their duties.
Too often we, the parliamentarians of Canada, remain silent. We
neglect to reassure and demonstrate to our military that we
understand the need to reaffirm our commitment to honouring our
moral responsibility to them.
It has been said that the fastest way to lose one's sovereignty
is to lose one's defence capabilities.
Canada must never allow its sovereignty to be put in jeopardy.
We must ensure that our military has the tools, the manpower and
the support it needs to stand on guard for Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
THE MOST REVEREND LOUIS LÉVESQUE
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, eastern
Quebec, and particularly Saint-Léon-le-Grand in my riding, has just lost
one of its sons.
The Most Reverend Louis Lévesque passed away, and his funeral was
held on Monday. Ordained in 1932, Monsignor Lévesque studied in Rome,
Jerusalem and Paris. He was a teacher at the Séminaire de Rimouski for
several years before becoming Bishop of Hearst, Ontario.
Following the Vatican II council, Monsignor Lévesque, then
Archbishop of Rimouski, instigated the Diocesan Synod, a vast effort to
bring church authorities closer to the community.
He witnessed the great changes Quebec underwent in the 1960s.
During this period, both the church and society evolved considerably.
Throughout all these changes, he proved his mettle.
To this renowned Bible scholar, all of Quebec says thank you.
* * *
FRANCOPHONIE IN ACADIA
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is National Francophonie Week.
I am therefore inviting everyone on Parliament Hill to La
Francophonie en Acadie, an Acadian festival being held as part of
the week's celebrations.
Participants will have an opportunity to taste such typical
fare as poutine râpée, pets-de-soeur, fricot au poulet and poutine
à trou, and to hear two well-known Acadian musical groups, the
Quigley Ensemble and Les Méchants Maquereaux, perform.
This event will take place this evening, March 18, 1998, from
5 to 10 p.m. in room 237-C. I would like to thank all the
volunteers in Moncton and on the Hill, my staff, and the Minister
of Canadian Heritage.
[English]
I hope that everyone on Parliament Hill will join us to
experience our lively Acadian culture.
* * *
[Translation]
TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE AVILA LABELLE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Monday, Justice Avila Labelle, a veritable legal
institution in the Outaouais region, died after a long illness.
Justice Labelle was called to the Barreau du Québec in January
1936, and was appointed judge of the Cour de district on January 9,
1959, where he remained until 1981. In October 1983, he assumed
duties in the Tax Court of Canada.
Justice Labelle's legal knowledge was widely recognized. He
left his mark on the legal history of the entire Outaouais
district. Those who knew him appreciated his irrepressible humour
and his cheerfulness, which were always evident even in court.
1405
Everyone liked him, and called him by his first name. Even
during his illness, Justice Labelle insisted on taking part in a
Canadian Cancer Society fund-raising campaign.
We wish to pay our respects to the memory of Justice Labelle,
and we extend to his family and friends our most sincere
condolences.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
prairie farmers and producers will gather in Saskatoon on
Thursday to tell their MPs what is wrong with the government's
agricultural policies. At the Saskatchewan Forum on Agricultural
Issues, hundreds of farmers will present the minister responsible
for the wheat board with their grievances which include grain
transportation and amendments to the wheat board act.
The Reform Party, speaking on behalf of grain farmers, has
repeatedly protested the recent changes to the wheat board act,
only to have our farmer driven amendments overruled. Farmers
deserve a wheat board that is accountable through the Access to
Information Act and is audited by the auditor general. These and
other flaws in the Liberal agricultural strategy will be raised
by the farmers themselves.
We invite the minister to hear these concerns as he is the only
prairie based minister. We urge him to keep an open mind and to
evaluate what he hears based on merit. We ask that he respond
to this call for change to make the wheat board open, flexible
and accountable.
* * *
LA SEMAINE NATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is la Semaine nationale de la Francophonie. It gives me
great pleasure as a Canadian and as the member for Winnipeg South
to say le fait français is indeed alive and well in both my
riding and in North America.
In my riding the descendants of Louis Riel still communicate in
their mother tongue. Le Centre culturel de St-Norbert also
enriches the cultural tapestry of Winnipeg South.
In recent years thousands of Manitobans have gained an
appreciation for the French language and culture by attending
French immersion schools.
[Translation]
As we celebrate the French fact in Canada this week, I wish to
congratulate all the francophones in my riding, and in Canada, and
to extend my best wishes to them.
[English]
Initiatives like la Semaine nationale de la Francophonie help to
bridge the two solitudes.
[Translation]
Long live the French fact in Canada!
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
the justice minister dreams about changes to the Young Offenders
Act, violent acts among youth are escalating and reveal why the
Young Offenders Act should be scrapped.
Recently in my riding 20 to 30 youths converged on a south
Nanaimo home and attacked a 14-year old girl. While most of the
cowards involved rampaged throughout the home, some of the more
violent youth in the mob severely beat Cammy Hamilton.
Unlike Reena Virk, this young girl survived, but the beating was
severe enough that the girl was wakened every few hours by her
mother so she would not go into a coma.
This attack is another example of how some Canadian teenagers
are taking violence to a new level. It is also further proof
that 14 years of failed young offenders legislation is to blame.
Young people know they will receive nothing more than a slap on
the wrist when they commit such horrendous crimes.
Reformers call upon this justice minister to forget about
tinkering with the Young Offenders Act and to come up with
something that finally protects Canadians.
* * *
PUBLIC GALLERY
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
children from across Canada are in our House today. They are
visiting while on their March break. As members of Parliament we
are indeed lucky to welcome them today and to have among those
youngsters a special group, the Little Sisters and Little
Brothers of Ottawa-Carleton.
My congratulations and thanks to all those people in our
communities who work directly with these young Canadians, the
future of our nation. Big Brothers, Big Sisters provides
mentoring, friendship and a much needed break. As organizations
they welcome Canadians from coast to coast to coast to take up
the challenge and become a volunteer. Judging from the fine
group of little sisters and little brothers we met, the rewards
are infinite.
I thank the students who join us today. They remind us of our
tremendous opportunity as a nation and of our responsibility to
our youngsters. Have fun.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the recent federal
budget does very little to eliminate child poverty. There is nothing in
it to alleviate the problem, except for a measure that will only come
into effect in July 1999.
The $425 million earmarked for children through the child tax
benefit program are a measly contribution to help children out of
poverty, after this same government plunged their parents into it.
1410
The Liberal government is far from fulfilling the commitment made
in a motion adopted unanimously by this House on November 24, 1989, to
end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.
The Liberal government has made its choices. With its millennium
foundation, it opted for partisan visibility, instead of helping
children get a head start in life. It is a shame.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian waters are protected from potential
environmental disasters by the oil spill response program.
Canadians will be shocked to learn that the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans may ignore the report of a panel of inquiry
known as the Gold report and impose unfair oil spill response fee
structures which will benefit the big oil companies at the
expense of small independent competitors.
The investigation panel was highly critical of the proposed
system, saying that the fee schedule would be unfair to those
independents. DFO then squandered several hundred thousand
dollars of taxpayers' money to dispute the recommendations of the
panel.
The viability of the small independent competitors will be
further jeopardized by the possible imposition of the fees being
made retroactive to the fall of 1995.
If the minister allows retroactive payments to the major oil
companies this could cause the death of independent gas stations
across the country, thereby increasing gasoline prices for all
Canadian consumers.
To protect our waters and coastlines and to hold the line on
gasoline prices, Canadians and the NDP call on the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to implement the recommendations of the Gold
Report.
* * *
[Translation]
INMATES' COMMUNITY WORK
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to point out an example of community work and voluntary service
provided to the community by inmates in the Canadian prison system.
Some inmates at the Bowden detention centre helped prepare the
Canada Games, in Alberta, by shovelling snow on the ski trails in River
Bend. The trail network had not received any snow, even though
surrounding areas had got tons of the white stuff.
Under escort, six inmates worked seven days a week to prepare the
trails. This effort is but one example of the services provided by
inmates to the communities to which they will go back some day.
This is a positive step for their social rehabilitation, which is a key
objective of the Correctional Service of Canada.
* * *
PAIX-CIBLE
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
acknowledge the extraordinary work done by Paix-Cible. This organization
was set up in the Saint-Nom-de-Jésus parish, in the Rivière-du-Moulin
area of Chicoutimi.
Its involvement is focused on social education and community
action, and is aimed at people of all ages. Through concrete action,
Paix-Cible wants to create a peace and harmony movement that will expand
to the whole city, the whole region and, why not, the whole country.
The organization also created and inaugurated the Paix-Cible flag.
The flag symbolizes the peace that the whole world longs for. The
stylized dove covers the Earth from east to west, while its yellow beak
provides light to the peoples of the Earth, which are represented by the
five colours of the tail.
I am pleased to table this document, which confirms the creation
and development of the organization.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN RED CROSS
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March is
Red Cross month. For over 100 years the Canadian Red Cross has
served our country with dedication and selflessness. Examples
include work during the recent ice storm, the Red River and
Saguenay floods and indeed probably every natural disaster that
Canadians have endured.
Every day Red Cross volunteers and staff are in Canadian homes
caring for the elderly and infirm. Last year they trained one
million Canadians in water safety and 200,000 in first aid and
CPR.
Annually Red Cross staff and the 130,000 volunteers touch the
lives of two million Canadians, giving more than eight million
hours of service.
During March let us extend our thanks to the Canadian Red Cross
for its past and present service. The future of Canada is a
future of continued partnership with the Canadian Red Cross.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for a week now Canadians have been waiting for the Prime
Minister to fully disclose the nature of his relationship with
Ross Fitzpatrick, the latest patronage appointment to the Senate.
Last week the Prime Minister said that when Fitzpatrick gave him
a stock deal worth $45,000 it was not payment for any work that
the Prime Minister did. We accept that.
1415
Will someone in the government tell the House, if it was not
payment for work, what was the $45,000 stock deal payment for?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question has so little substance that it was not
necessary for me to hear most of it.
I can say to the hon. member that what happened was done between
two people in private life 10 years ago. There is no connection
whatsoever with the appointment of the individual in question to
the Senate. The hon. member knows it, and by keeping up these
insinuations and allegations he is demeaning himself and his own
party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government pretends not to see the problem that the
Prime Minister has created for himself by this latest patronage
appointment to the Senate.
The Prime Minister receives a $45,000 financial favour from a
B.C. businessman while out of office. Then, when he is back in
office, he confers a political and financial favour on that
businessman by appointing him to the Senate.
Is it not unethical for the Prime Minister to grant political
appointments to people from whom he has received a direct and
substantial financial benefit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I noted yesterday that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition, if I can call him honourable, was outside. He did
not dare to repeat the words he used in the House of Commons.
That is his type of politics.
I would like to quote something that he said some time ago that
applies to the situation right now. “Canadians are fed up”,
said the Leader of the Opposition on January 15, 1994, “with
politicians who behave like baboons and jackasses in debate”.
The Speaker: I would ask my colleagues on both sides of
the House to be very judicious in their choice of words. We
cannot use words from someone else that we cannot use here in the
House. I ask you to calm the rhetoric a little and let us see
what we can do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister challenged me to step in
front of the TV cameras and ask my questions about his latest
Senate appointment. So I did.
Now the Prime Minister should be willing to do the same thing if
he has nothing to hide. Will the Prime Minister step outside the
House and answer questions from the media about this $45,000
private stock deal from his latest Senate appointee?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everything is on public record. All the facts are
known. I would like to read to the hon. member what he asked his
members to sign and he is not respecting that very much.
“I shall respect the personal dignity of my opponent and avoid
partisan wrongdoing. With honest recognition that we both have
the public good at heart. I see no reason to personally belittle
and demean my opponent”. I think he should apply it in this
case.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
do not mean to demean anyone. We just want to ask hard questions
to get true answers.
1420
This is a story about friends. When the Prime Minister was down
on his luck, friend Fitzpatrick gave him a stock deal that made
him $45,000 profit. That is true. That is what Liberal friends
are for. Now the Prime Minister is taking care of his Liberal
friend by appointing him to the Senate.
The Prime Minister has said no more cronies and friends in the
Senate but friends are friends forever. Let me ask the Prime
Minister a question. Why does the Prime Minister not just admit
this?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said in the House, and I repeat it, that I am very
proud of the appointment of a person who since 1963 has worked as
a private citizen to help the people in his community to
participate in the public process.
Hundreds of people in British Columbia have been benefiting from
his advice. He has always been a very honest and competent
individual. I say again that I worked with him during the time
that I was not a member of Parliament. All the facts are known.
All of the facts are public. They are on the public record.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the problem is not what happened when he was in private life. The
problem is making a Senate appointment and the payback now that
he is in public life as the Prime Minister of the country.
He has been champing at the bit for years to put Ross
Fitzpatrick in the Senate, since 1993 when he came to office.
Even some Liberals thought that it was too soon and far too crass
to put him in back then in 1993. Now in 1998 he is in the
Senate. The appointment has been made.
Why does the Prime Minister think it is ethical now in 1998 but
it was not ethical for him to do it in 1993?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again she does not have the facts right. How could I
have contemplated naming someone to the Senate in 1993 when there
was no opening in the Senate from British Columbia.
They should know that. It is very easy. There is a person in
front of me who loves to stay in the dirt. She is very
comfortable there. It looks like that.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the Option Canada affair, it turns out that the minister did not
hand over a grant 12 days before an application was submitted.
What we do know is that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
authorized a grant of $2 million 12 days before the grant
application was submitted.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage find it normal to
authorize a grant 12 days before an application is submitted? Does
she often find herself authorizing grants before an application—
The Speaker: The Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member opposite rereads the documents I provided
him with two months ago, he will find that the comments he made
today are still false, as false as they were last week.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the grant was approved 12 days before the application was
submitted. What is odd is that, two and a half years later, we
still do not know where the money went.
I ask the minister if she is going to require Option Canada to
table all the documents concerning its activities, as well as to
reveal the names of all those who received money from Option
Canada.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, the member is misleading the House. When he
accuses me of personally authorizing grants, he should know that I
was not even minister at the time.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is bound by cabinet solidarity, and she knows that very
well.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: She is the one misleading the House.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: So, much of the mystery surrounding
Option Canada centres on a single person, Claude Dauphin, a former
Liberal MP, president of Option Canada in 1995 and now senior
adviser to the Minister of Finance responsible for Quebec affairs.
1425
In order to dispel all doubts about Option Canada, why is the
government not demanding a full and immediate report from Mr.
Dauphin on what he did with—
The Speaker: The Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member referred to cabinet solidarity. The leader of
the Bloc Quebecois was in Saskatchewan last week. He misled the
people of Saskatchewan. He made statements he knew and still knows
to be wrong, and he is continuing to make them.
I wish he would be honest enough in this House to recognize
that what he said in Saskatchewan was just as wrong as what he said
last week.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
someone is going to have to explain to her how to answer questions.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us what criteria he used in
hiring Mr. Dauphin as a senior political adviser, when he knows
very well that he was president of Option Canada during the time of
the referendum in 1995, he spent nearly $5 million of public funds
and he never provided a responsible explanation of how he spent it?
An hon. member: Where are the millions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of honesty, something I find rather odd on the
part of the Bloc Quebecois is that they do not want to hear
anything about the expenditures of Yves Duhaime of Option
souveraineté.
They do not want to hear anything about the millions spent on
the Le Hir report, which showed just how dysfunctional sovereignty
is, and now there is no sign of it. And the francophones outside
Quebec magically disappeared.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: If we are going to talk about honesty, we
cannot use Blocspeak.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for as
long as there has been a Canada men and women in our maritime
military services have answered our call: ready aye ready.
How do Liberals plan to reward that loyal service by
cannabilizing CFB Shearwater to create a free trade zone to
pamper and protect foreign multinationals? Who is behind the
scheme? It is loyal Liberal Doug Young.
The minister cancelled the Shearwater announcement with the
admiral and the premier scheduled for March 14. Did he do so
because he thought Nova Scotians could better handle this news
after—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been for some time some
discussions with the Government of Nova Scotia about the future
use of the Shearwater base. Not all of it is required for
military purposes any longer and we are pleased to be able to
make it available for community economic development purposes.
We are still in discussions on that with the province. When we
have come to a conclusion on those discussions I hope we will
have a very good announcement to make for the people of Nova
Scotia.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has already demonstrated his low regard for military and
civilian workers. Just ask those employees who lost their jobs
when Serco took over at Goose Bay.
He also demonstrated his high regard for that minority of
ex-military officers scheming with loyal Liberal business friends
to privatize and contract out vital support functions at military
bases.
Will the minister come clean today and confirm that the Liberal
government is about to launch a feasibility study on a so-called
free trade zone on the lower part of the Shearwater base? Will
he have the decency—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never known the NDP to be a friend
of the military but I appreciate its interest.
In terms of this government we want to make sure we can in fact
preserve jobs at Goose Bay. That was the reason we went to great
efforts to save that base and to provide for an alternate service
delivery program that not only saves taxpayers money but most
people will in fact have jobs there. Those who will not will
have the incentives offered by the Government of Canada and
assistance into other jobs.
In terms of Shearwater—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
1430
BILL C-68
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on July 21, 1997 the commissioner of the RCMP wrote
to the deputy minister of justice stating that grossly flawed and
misleading firearms data was used by the former Minister of
Justice and the Liberal government during the debate on Bill
C-68.
Does the current Minister of Justice agree with the commissioner
that the figures, upon which the government operated, justified
and garnered support for Bill C-68 prior to and during the
election campaign, were grossly flawed?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member missed
my answer to the same question yesterday from the Reform Party.
The deputy minister and the commissioner of the RCMP have agreed
that there was a methodological confusion on the part of the RCMP
in relation to how the statistics were collected. As I
understand it today there is no disagreement between the two.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very apparent that the government did
use false information prior to and during the election campaign
for its own political gains. The commissioner confirmed this in
his letter. Furthermore the RCMP have demanded that the record
be corrected and the minister has yet to comply.
Will the minister commit now to correcting the data and provide
Canadians an opportunity to accurately debate information that
might result in flawed legislation?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take very strong exception
to the allegation made by the hon. member in relation to the use
of false information by the Department of Justice or my
predecessor. In fact if the hon. member had been in the House
yesterday, he would know that I tabled a letter from the
commissioner of the RCMP in which the commissioner agreed that
there was methodological confusion and it has been cleared up.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is not answering our questions. On
March 9 he said “I never realized the options that were offered
to me for my services to Mr. Fitzpatrick's company and I received
no remuneration when I was there”. But then we have the insider
trading report stamped by the Ontario Securities Commission that
says the Prime Minister received $45,000 in one week from a
sweetheart stock deal.
If the Prime Minister will not explain to the House what this
payment is for, why will he not at least step outside and tell
the—
The Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that everything is public. The hon. member has
it and it has been public since that time. I bought shares and
sold them and I made a profit. That is something which is done
by everybody. I have bought shares in other companies and I have
lost money. I prefer to be in the House of Commons rather than
trading shares outside the House of Commons.
I would like to go back to yesterday when they asked him outside
the House did he buy the seat. The Leader of the Opposition said
“We do not know. No, we are not saying that he bought the
seat”, but it is what they said in the House before going in
front of the camera.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this deal was not available to everyone. It was only
available to someone with an inside connection to the president
of that company. This deal has all the appearances of the
exchange of a business favour for a political favour. If that is
not the case, why does the Prime Minister not go out there and
explain to the media and the public what that payment was for?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat here and I will say at any time that I bought
some shares. I worked with the company for many years. I said I
did not exercise my options and I did not receive any
remuneration. It is all on the record and this has nothing to do
with the job I have as Prime Minister of Canada.
I know that they said in the House that Senator Fitzpatrick
bought his seat and if they repeat it, we will see them in court.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
ICE STORM ASSISTANCE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state responsible for
the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency.
The federal program of assistance to victims of the ice storm,
hastily announced by two ministers on February 13, is not working.
We have learned that only 14 businesses out of 25,000 have received
any assistance, and that 80% of those that applied for assistance
have been turned down.
With such eloquent figures, will the minister admit that this
program is inconsistent with the actual situation faced by
businesses and that the criteria used must be completely reviewed
as quickly as possible?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the House will recall that, when we announced the ice storm
assistance program, it was in response to a request from the
business community.
The program was put together with the help of representatives
of chambers of commerce. If members visit the affected areas right
now, the business people will confirm that covering fixed costs
would meet the greater part of the business community's needs.
The important thing to realize is that there is a shortfall of
50% for this program, and that this 50% must come from the
Government of Quebec, which is still refusing to take part in a
program worked out with the business community.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister should have the courage to admit that a
complete review of his program is what is needed.
If he truly wants to help businesses, will the minister agree
to review his program's qualifying criteria in depth by Friday of
this week?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that Bloc Quebecois members should wake up and smell the
coffee.
I will be in the affected area on Friday. I will have an
opportunity to meet with my partners, those with whom we worked to
put this program together for the very reason that they asked us to
help, because the Government of Quebec wanted to politicize this
issue, which is critical to the business community.
So, on Friday, if there are any changes, it will be because my
partners have requested them, so that the program can be tailored
to the reality of the situation, and not at the behest of the Bloc
Quebecois, which unfortunately is once again trying to politicize
an issue.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you would think that after the embarrassment of Senator Andrew
Thompson the Prime Minister would have learned his lesson about
the Senate and would have stopped treating it as a Liberal
country club. As it now stands, the only people in Canada who
support the Senate are the Prime Minister and his friends Ross
Fitzpatrick and Andrew Thompson.
However to fix this problem and ensure accountability in the
Senate, Alberta will be holding Senate elections this fall. Will
the Prime Minister appoint the winner to the next Alberta vacancy
in the Senate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when there is reform of the Senate, it will be a
complete reform. If we were to name people who are elected in
one province at this time, and we were to do that in all the
provinces, what would happen is that the west, Alberta in
particular, would always have only six seats in the Senate, while
the maritimes would have 30. That would be a big disservice
vis-à-vis western Canada. We want a Senate that is reformed, that
is elected equal and effective and not a third rate Senate as
proposed by the Reform Party.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is rather ironic that whenever the Prime Minister is looking
for votes in the west, he promises an elected Senate. Now that
Albertans want to do that, he is saying no. Typical Liberal
double standard.
Why does the Prime Minister think that a scandalous patronage
appointment to the Senate is acceptable, but Alberta's democratic
election is not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I voted for an elected Senate. The Reform Party
campaigned against an elected Senate when we dealt with the
Charlottetown accord.
1440
I can see the hypocrisy of that party. When it had a chance to
have an effective, elected and equal Senate, it turned it down.
Now Reform members have a lot of crocodile tears.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSITIONAL JOB FUND
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources
Development has often stated that the transitional job fund
constitutes an excellent means of compensating for the disastrous
effects of his reform in the regions most affected by unemployment.
Now we learn that there is no money left in this program,
although it was slated to run until July 1999.
What is keeping the minister from complying with the request
from Minister Louise Harel that additional funds be injected into
this program, which was created to counteract the negative effects
of his reform?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon.
member telling me that Mrs. Harel is the one now calling for this.
I believe we are capable of making our own decisions about the TJF.
I have never said, as the hon. member states, that the TJF was
intended as compensation for a disastrous reform. In fact, I never
even used that term.
What I do know is that the transitional job fund has been an
extremely useful tool in regions of high unemployment, in order to
create the jobs unemployed people want above all else.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what he said is that money would be
available until July 1999, and there is none left in the fund.
How can the minister's words be so divorced from reality when
we know that unemployed people are experiencing abject poverty
because of his reform, while he is pocketing $135 million weekly
from the surplus in the EI fund?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, concerning the TJF, we have
invested up to $93 million, which has created close to 17,000 jobs
in certain regions of Quebec, including the very region of the hon.
member of the opposition who spends his time asking questions.>
What I can tell you is that this is an extremely useful tool
and one that is greatly appreciated. It is a program that has
lasted for three years, and we on this side of the House want to
keep it.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is building a $2.5 billion slush fund for the
next election while charging it to the public accounts this year.
The auditor general has said “no way” and the public accounting
profession has said “absolutely not”, while the minister tries
to bully the auditor general into seeing it his way.
Will the Minister of Finance back down and back off before the
taxpayers' watchdog fights back?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear that we intend to follow the
practice in the private sector which is far more open and far
more transparent. That is what we have done.
I would simply point out to the hon. member that we have done
this on the advice of the deputy comptroller general who is a
senior member of the accounting profession, a partner at Deloitte
& Touche on secondment to the government. We have followed his
advice and his advice is right.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister had a choice. He could have delivered responsible
government. He could have given tax relief to taxpayers or he
could have paid down the debt. Instead, he chose to create a
slush fund and bully the auditor general into buying his line.
Will the Minister of Finance back down and admit that the $2.5
billion of taxpayers' money belongs to them and not to his slush
fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is the hon. member saying that a $2.5 billion
scholarships program for 100,000 students at $3,000 a year is not
going to Canadians? Is the hon. member saying that giving money
to students to go into their pockets to pay off their debts is
not giving money to Canadians? Is the hon. member saying that
investing in education for the future of this country is not
giving money to Canadians? That demonstrates what the Reform
Party thinks of this country of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO LEGISLATION
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has taken so long to honour the commitment it made
during the election campaign to lighten its anti-smoking
legislation that the papers are carrying all sorts of rumours about
it.
Will the Prime Minister finally keep his word? How does he
plan to do so, and when will he?
1445
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member was referring to the Tobacco Act, we certainly do
intend to honour our commitment.
Speculation on how we plan to do so is useless. We will act
when we are ready.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are proud of the uniquely bilingual and
multicultural society we have created of this country. What
assurance can the Minister for International Trade give this
House that Canada's ability to protect that culture will be
preserved in the present negotiations over the multilateral
investment agreement?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to
inform my colleague that the minister has set out a series of
guidelines for the negotiators which they are standing absolutely
firm on. We will negotiate nothing that will jeopardize those
positions in any way whatsoever. My colleague can rest
comfortably that Canada will only sign an agreement that is good
for Canada.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
part of their threatening letter to the auditor general, the
finance minister's henchmen admitted what we have been saying all
along. The government is guilty of breaking public sector
accounting principles and it plays fast and loose with billions
of taxpayer dollars. Instead of fixing its shoddy accounting it
has decided to rig the rules to weasel out of it.
Can the finance minister explain to Canadians why it is okay to
change the rules in the middle of the game just because they were
caught cheating at the old rules?
The Speaker: Again, colleagues, we are coming very close
using words like cheating. I would ask you to be very judicious.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there has ever been any indication of the Reform
Party philosophy, stop the world I want to get off, let us
understand that the world evolves, things change and governments
must adapt. What we are dealing with here is a Reform Party that
is so rooted in the 16th century that it fails to understand what
the modern economy is all about and that modern accounting
principles ought to follow modern governance.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, or
maybe it is just a case of the finance minister fixing things to
suit his own political ends.
The facts are these. The government fudged the books by
billions of dollars. It was caught fudging. It admitted it was
fudging and now it is trying to change the rules to cover up the
fact that it fudged these things.
Why will the finance minister not admit that if had followed
these rules all along there would be hundreds of dollars per
taxpayer available for general tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is $7 billion worth of tax relief in this budget
over the next three years. Let us be very clear about one thing.
This government has made it evident right from the beginning that
the days of overspending are over. This means tight controls,
total openness and total transparency. That is the course we are
on and that is the course we will stay on.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said many
times that she wants to work in partnership with aboriginal
peoples. Two days ago I met with the chief of the Millbrook
First Nation in Nova Scotia. He has requested to meet with the
minister regarding a project that will create jobs and economic
development. The minister has indicated she is unable to attend.
Whereas $900,000 may cease to be available for this project
unless the federal government acts before the end of this fiscal
year, will the minister reconsider and in a spirit of true
partnership meet immediately with Chief Lawrence Paul?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been down to the
Atlantic provinces and I had opportunities to meet with a number
of chiefs in that region. If the chief has need of a meeting or
wants to convey information to me he is free to do so and I will
be there to receive it and to speak with him.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. The unemployed in the Beauséjour—Petitcodiac
riding are once again taking the hit when it comes to financial
help from the Liberal government. Forty per cent of the
identified gappers will not qualify for the programs announced by
the Liberals. This means they are going with no income for three
months because of EI zoning problems and cuts to the EI program.
1450
[Translation]
With a $20 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund,
is the minister prepared to admit that his reform is not working
and is he prepared to take steps to alleviate the suffering of the
unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the figures used by the
hon. member have no relation to the facts.
We talked about this earlier. We combined this reform with
very practical measures for workers in regions with high
unemployment, such as the transitional job fund. These are active
measures to help the unemployed return to the labour market. We
set up a reform that is very useful for Canadian workers.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-68
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, based on the commissioner's letter of July 21, 1997,
which I would like to table today, we now know that the Minister
of Justice, past and present, relied on and made use of flawed
public information as it pertained to Bill C-68.
The minister knows that there are four provinces and two
territories presently before the Alberta Court of Appeal debating
the constitutionality of Bill C-68.
According to the letter of the RCMP commissioner informing the
minister in February, 1997 that the firearms data were bogus or,
to use her words, methologically mistaken, did the minister
supply the Alberta—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that
which I said yesterday to the House.
The report to which the hon. member refers was not prepared by
the Department of Justice alone. As I said yesterday, the report
was the work of experts from the Canadian Association of Chiefs
of Police, the RCMP, the solicitor general and provincial
representatives from Quebec, B.C. and the OPP.
Again I refer to the fact that the letter I tabled yesterday
indicates that any disagreement or confusion between the
commissioner and my deputy minister has been clarified.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously did not hear my question. The
minister took an oath as a lawyer and as the Attorney General of
Canada that she would at all times supply the courts and the
pubic with accurate information.
I repeat my question. Did the minister knowingly supply flawed
information for the Alberta Court of Appeal? If she did so, will
she resign?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member
where he thinks the inaccuracy is. I would be happy to talk to
the hon. member about where he believes this inaccuracy is in the
data that we presented.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The sea lamprey marine parasite seriously jeopardizes the
recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries in the Great
Lakes.
Will the minister today commit to adequate funding of the sea
lamprey control program to ensure long term sustainability of our
Great Lakes fisheries?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Huron—Bruce
for his interest in this issue.
The government remains committed to protecting the inland
fishery resources, particularly of the Great Lakes, and the
continuation of the sea lamprey parasite program.
Negotiations are going on between governments. As members will
know, there is an international aspect to this. We also had
discussions with the Ontario government.
I trust I will be able to give the hon. member the answer he
would like before the end of the month.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
On January 5, 1998 the minister released the immigration
legislative review report, a $1.2 million exercise.
The minister has completed her cross-Canada tour to hear from
her hand picked groups.
The minister does not need legislative initiatives to deal with
issues like refugee determination and enforcement orders. Why is
she not acting now on these orders?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised. I have just
received the official opposition's report on immigration.
Their recommendations on refugees, specifically, include
abolishing the refugee board and setting up another structure,
resulting in legislative changes. I therefore have a hard time
understanding what the Reform member is proposing today.
* * *
1455
COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The minister cut 9% from the budget of the court challenges
program available to francophones outside Quebec to defend their
rights before the courts. There are a number of cases on
educational rights in preparation at the moment.
Could the minister commit today, on the occasion of the
Semaine nationale de la francophonie, to return this 9% and even
expand this program substantially to enable francophones to defend
their educational rights in—
The Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Done,
Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last month the minister indicated that he was counting on the
good will of the railroads to stop dismantling more rail lines
until Mr. Willard Estey has completed his review of grain
transportation.
Knowing how CN and CP have looked out for the interests of
western grain farmers over the past 100 years, there has no doubt
been great comfort and enormous relief among our farming
community.
Could the minister inform the House what assurances he has
received from the railroads that they will not dismantle any more
track until after Mr. Estey reports? Can he tell us what action
he—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago the railways gave notice on
which track they wished to abandon in Canada. They followed a
certain process.
What we have done in various discussions is remind them of the
obligations, remind them of adhering to the spirit of the
National Transportation Act amendments a couple of years ago
which gave them the freedom to operate in a businesslike fashion,
and also keep in mind the public interest.
If we find this is not being done, then certainly I will
communicate further with the railways and perhaps take further
action.
* * *
BUCKINGHAM PALACE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, for 40
years Canada has shared with Australia and New Zealand in
seconding a public servant to serve in Her Royal Majesty's press
office at Buckingham Palace.
It is once again Canada's turn. However, the Prime Minister has
unilaterally refused to send a representative. I was told today
by the London press that the PMO's press officer said they knew
nothing about the monarchy or any ties.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is he denouncing
Canada's ties with the monarchy? Will he reconsider his position
and second a public servant to continue this important
longstanding tradition?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not think the question was coming to me. If the
hon. member will repeat her question, I will reply. I am sorry.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, for 40
years Canada has shared with Australia and New Zealand in
seconding a public servant to serve in Her Royal Majesty's press
office at Buckingham Palace.
Is the Prime Minister today denouncing Canada's ties with the
monarchy? Will he reconsider his position and second a public
servant to continue this important longstanding commitment to the
Queen?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if we have refused to second someone to
work with the royal family. I think Canadians were there and I
do not know why we would not be there. Australia is there and we
should be there.
* * *
AIR INDIA
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. Thirteen
years ago the worst mass murder took place in Canadian history
when over 300 Canadians were murdered when an Air India flight
was blown out of the sky off the coast of Ireland.
To date, charges have not been laid. Inspector Gary Bass, who
heads the Air India investigation, confirmed last week that
charges would be forthcoming.
Will the solicitor general confirm that Inderjit Singh Reyat
and others will be charged in relation to the Air India mass
murder? If so, when?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member has been around here long enough
to know I am not going to speak to the issue of laying of charges
by the RCMP or by the Government of British Columbia. The hon.
member should know better.
* * *
BANKS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was recently reported that a Canadian went into a bank in order
to obtain a loan and as a condition of obtaining the loan was
required to transfer his mutual funds.
1500
My question is to the Minister of State for Financial
Institutions. What is he going to do about this action of tied,
coercive selling?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the member for Scarborough East for his very important question
and his leadership on this issue.
In response, last year we enacted that, subject to committee
review, we will be proclaiming in September a law prohibiting
coercive tied selling.
I understand the committee will begin its deliberations in
April, but meanwhile let me be very clear: Canadians must not be
subjected to coercive tied selling. If they are we want to hear
about it. We will not stand for it.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to complete an earlier answer for the hon.
member for Saint John, New Brunswick. I wanted to tell her that
if she wants that job I can give it to her.
WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among all parties in the House and I
believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That any recorded division demanded this afternoon on any Ways
and Means proceedings Nos. 3, 6, 10 or 11 be deferred to the
expiry of the time provided for the consideration of Government
Orders today.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure today to present a number of petitions, with
names gathered from all across Canada, from Canadians who are
concerned about the multilateral agreement on investment.
They are concerned that the MAI is the latest in a series of
regional and global agreements which, in the name of liberalizing
trade and investment, expand the powers of multinational
corporations at the expense of the powers of governments to
intervene in the marketplace on behalf of our social, cultural,
environmental and health care goals.
1505
They also submit that the MAI is fundamentally flawed in so far
as it seeks to protect the rights of investors without seeking
similar protection for workers through binding core labour
standards and that the MAI is anti-democratic in so far as it
would be binding for 20 years, thus tying the hands of several
parliaments and future governments.
They therefore call upon Parliament to reject the current
framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek
an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve
a rules-based global trading regime which protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
We have many petitions to present. Thousands of Canadians have
signed these petitions. They call upon Parliament to reject the
MAI.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of a
number of Canadians, including Canadians from my riding of
Waterloo—Wellington.
The petitioners request Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present
several petitions from my constituents in Nanaimo—Cowichan.
One petition deals with the multilateral agreement on
investment. The petitioners are concerned that the Government of
Canada has been involved in negotiating this deal behind closed
doors and that the people of Canada have not been consulted on
this deal.
The petitioners respectfully ask Parliament to impose a
moratorium on the ratification of the MAI until there are full
public hearings so that all Canadians have an opportunity to
express their opinions on it.
I concur with this petition.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have a petition from about 150 constituents, indicating that
the GST—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. member is going
to continue to present petitions, I invite him not to indicate
whether he disagrees or agrees with the petitions.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from doing
that.
I also have a petition, containing about 150 names, from
constituents who indicate to the House of Commons that the GST is
the first federal tax in Canadian history to apply to reading
materials.
The petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST from all
books, magazines and newspapers.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on
behalf of a number of Canadians from various Liberal and Reform
constituencies throughout Canada.
The petitioners point out that the Liberal Party, the
Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party all
support the MAI. They also point out that the European
Parliament has recently issued a report strongly condemning the
MAI.
They want to point out a whole number of points that the
previous speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg, has already
indicated.
Basically they are calling upon Parliament to reject the MAI.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present four
petitions signed by approximately 3,152 people, primarily
constituents of Scarborough Centre and surrounding areas.
These concerned individuals call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically section 173,
which deals with indecent acts, and section 174, which deals with
nudity, to make it clear that a woman appearing topless in a
public place is an indecent act.
I support this petition.
The Deputy Speaker: Once again, the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre knows it is contrary to the rules and
practices of the House to indicate support or opposition to a
petition. I invite him to comply with the rules in that regard.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present another petition on behalf of
concerned Canadians who are calling on Parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present, signed by a total of
1,243 of my constituents.
More than half of the petitioners are from the little community
of Gull Lake which lies at the east end of the infamous
Trans-Canada death strip where 39 lives have been lost since
1978.
1510
The petitioners state that notwithstanding the constitutional
division of powers, the federal government has a responsibility
to assist provinces with upgrading substandard sections of the
Trans-Canada Highway, and that the province of Saskatchewan, with
six times the national average length of roads and highways per
capita, cannot finance this necessary public work without a
federal contribution.
They therefore humbly pray and call on Parliament to instruct
its servants to immediately commence negotiations with the
Government of Saskatchewan to jointly fund the upgrading of this
vital national transportation link by constructing two additional
lanes.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present
three petitions with regard to the MAI which the Government of
Canada is currently negotiating. It is an international trade
agreement of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and
Development in Paris called the multilateral agreement on
investment.
The petitioners note that the MAI is the latest in a series of
regional and global agreements which, in the name of
liberalization, trade and investment, expands the powers of
multinational corporations at the expense of the powers of
government to intervene in the marketplace on behalf of our
social, cultural, environmental and health care goals; that the
MAI is fundamentally flawed in so far as it seeks to protect the
rights of investors without seeking similar protection for
workers through binding core labour standards; and that the MAI
is anti-democratic in so far as it would be binding for 20 years,
thus tying the hands of several parliaments and future
governments.
Therefore, we petition Parliament to reject the current
framework of the MAI negotiations and instruct the government to
seek—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It has become
apparent to the Chair that the hon. member is reading the
petition and I think he knows that is contrary to the rules.
When members present petitions they are to indicate the general
nature of the petition and give a brief summary of the petition.
I would invite the hon. member to comply with the rules. I think
he has more than made his point in respect of this petition.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including constituents from my riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police officers and firefighters place their lives at
risk on a daily basis as they execute their duties and that when
one of them loses their life in the line of duty their employment
benefits often to not provide adequately for the surviving
family.
The public also mourns the loss when one of them loses their
life and would like to provide, in a tangible way, some
assistance to the surviving families.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to enact a public
safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of the families
of police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of
duty.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to be able to present a
petition under Standing Order 36 on behalf of my constituents.
The petitioners are all residents of my constituency of Winnipeg
North Centre.
The petitioners express their deep concern about the
multilateral agreement on investment. They are concerned about
the process and the secrecy surrounding the development of this
agreement. They are also concerned with the substance of the
agreement and believe that it is fundamentally flawed in that it
seeks to protect the rights of investors without seeking similar
protection for workers through binding core labour standards.
I want to indicate that the petitioners call upon this
government to reject the multilateral agreement on investment and
to put in place responsible international policies.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of Deborah
McNamara of Aurora, Ontario and a number of other residents who
object to the decision of the supreme court to rule
unconstitutional the nudity provisions of the Criminal Code.
They call upon Parliament to amend the indecent acts and public
nudity provisions of the Criminal Code to clearly state that it
is an indecent act for a woman to expose her breasts in a public
place, with the exception of women who are breast feeding.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition that I would like to present to the
House concerns Manickavasagam Suresh, who is a Canadian refugee
and determined as such in 1991.
The petitioners state that if deported to Sri Lanka he will face
danger to his life and freedom at the hands of the Sinhalese
dominated security force.
The petitioners call upon the minister and Parliament to ensure
that Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh is not deported and request his
immediate release from incarceration.
1515
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present.
I present the first one on behalf of petitioners from across
Canada. They would like to draw attention to the actions of the
Canadian government in the arrest and treatment of citizens
protesting at Clayoquot Sound, Temogami, Ipperwash, Oka,
Gustafson Lake, Slocan Valley and APEC. They have violated the
civil and political rights of those arrested, which is in
violation of the international covenant of civil and political
rights to which Canada is a signatory.
They are raising this issue and request that the Canadian
government act on it.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is also from petitioners from across Canada.
It deals with the multilateral agreement on investment; sovereign
rights of Canada; and labour, social and environmental issues.
They call upon the government to take a second look at our
signing away these vested interests of Canadians.
CRTC
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition motivated by the CRTC decision on July 22, 1997 to
refuse to license more religious televisions broadcasters while
on the same day it licensed the pornographic Playboy channel for
television service.
Therefore the petitioners pray that parliament review the
mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new
policy which will encourage the licensing of religious
broadcasters.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
present seven petitions from Canadians throughout the country.
They ask for parliament to reject the current framework of the
multilateral agreement on investment. They ask the government to
look at an entirely different agreement, one that will protect
workers, the environment and the social interests of all
Canadians rather than just those of investors.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present four petitions on behalf of citizens from across
the country including my riding of Dartmouth. They are very
concerned about the effect of the multilateral agreement on
investment on labour, environment, arts and culture.
They would like to see parliament reject the current framework
of the MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an
entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a
rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present 11
petitions representing hundreds of Canadian citizens across the
country.
They are also objecting to the MAI. They are requesting the
government to reject the current framework and to establish an
appropriate rules based trading agreement which will protect the
environment, social welfare programs and so forth.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like the consent of the House to present a
private member's bill.
I realize that time has elapsed but like many other members we
were caught outside and I simply want to introduce one bill
today.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
revert to the presentation of bills.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ACT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-381, an act to amend the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, co-sponsored by my colleague
from Leeds—Grenville, amends the CRTC Commission Act to provide
for representation of consumers on the board of commissioners.
At the beginning of this month, Canadians again saw what little
voice they had when the CRTC made a ruling permitting the basic
television cable service to be left in its own jurisdiction.
The problem with cable increases has been raised in the public
domain.
1520
The bill would ensure that half the CRTC commissioners be
appointed from consumer organizations with expertise in
broadcasting and telecommunications. The commission would then
be a more forceful watchdog in the industry.
The bill also provides that commissioners detail how they vote
on CRTC decisions and that the commission be vested with the
responsibility to assure both the cost effectiveness and the
rights of Canadian consumers with respect to these decisions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Question
No. 73 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled
immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question
No. 73 be made an order for return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. Peter MacKay:
With respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Works
program: (a) what projects have been approved under this
program since June 2, 1997; (b) what was the location of each
approved project; and (c) what was the financial contribution
made by the Government of Canada for each approved project?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that
all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. There have been consultations among the
parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, in relation to its study of social and economic challenges
facing Members of the Canadian Forces, the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to
Trenton from March 29 to 31st, 1998, to Petawawa on April 20 and
21, 1998, to Borden and Meaford from April 26 to April 28, 1998,
to Gagetown, Goose Bay and Halifax from May 3 to May 8, 1998, to
Bosnia and Geilenkerchen, Germany, from May 17 to May 23, 1998,
and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
EXCISE TAX ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions)) moved that a ways and
means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the table on
Thursday, December 4, 1997, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
EXCISE TAX ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid
upon the table on Friday, February 13, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
KAMLOOPS INDIAN BAND TAX
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions)) moved that a ways and
means motion to implement a Kamloops Indian Band Tax on Alcohol,
Tobacco and Fuels, laid upon the table on Tuesday, March 17, be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in the favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with the order adopted
earlier this day, the division on this motion is deemed deferred
until 5.30 p.m.
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions)) moved that a ways and
means motion to amend the Budget Implementation Act, laid upon
the table on Tuesday, March 17, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in the favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1525
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with the order adopted
early this day, the division of the motion is deemed deferred
until 5.30 p.m.
* * *
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
Hon. Fred Mifflin (for the Minister of Industry) moved that
Bill C-21, an act to amend the the Small Business Loans Act, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an
opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-21. This is an
important piece of legislation because it extends the Small
Business Loans Act program and its funding for one year.
As members will know, a comprehensive review of the small
business loans program is being done. The legislation before us
today allows the program to continue while this review takes
place.
Let me begin by emphasizing for those who have failed to
understand that Bill C-21 is not a spending measure because the
small business loans program is not a spending program. It is a
loan guarantee program.
The legislation extends the funding for the SBLA program by
raising the aggregate lending ceiling under the SBLA by $1
billion, from $14 billion to $15 billion. The $15 billion figure
contained in Bill C-21 does not mean that the government will be
spending $15 billion. It means that the government will be
standing behind loans to the small business community that have a
total value of $15 billion.
Members across the way have objected to this increase in the
loans ceiling. I caution them that should we fail to pass Bill
C-21 we will place a severe handicap on the SBLA program, which
serves Canada's small and medium size businesses well and
provides much needed access to financing.
In considering the desirability of this increase in the lending
limit, we should recall the way the program authority works under
the SBLA. The act provides a total or aggregate authority for
all SBLA loans made by participating financial institutions
during a specified lending period. Repayments of loans have no
effect on the ceiling. Neither do the defaults nor claims paid.
The present lending period covers the years 1993 to 1998. The
total loans made to date now stand at more the $12.7 billion.
They are expected to reach $13 billion by March 31, 1998. However
current authority to register loans is capped at the $14 billion
mark for this lending period. If the House of Commons extends
the current lending period to March 31, 1999, as is proposed by
Bill C-21, we can expect further demands on loans.
Based on our experience during 1997 and 1998 we expect financial
institutions would make an additional $1.7 billion of loans under
the act in the coming year. This would increase total lending
under the SBLA to $14.7 billion and exceed the SBLA's present
authority of $14 billion. Therefore, for lending to continue
under the program during the entire extended lending period, an
increase in the aggregate lending ceiling is required.
Given that loans are registered on an average three months after
being made, at the time the $14 billion ceiling is reached
several hundred loans may already have been made to small
businesses that the SBLA would not be able to register without
the increased lending ceiling. This would certainly lead lenders
and borrowers to re-examine these loans.
Without the additional $1 billion of lending authority, a great
many small businesses would not be able to count on the SBLA to
support their loans. This may cause major disruptions to
entrepreneurs and businesses across Canada. That is why Bill
C-21 proposes to raise the lending ceiling to $15 billion.
1530
Assuming we see the same rate of lending as last year, this
would leave a modest cushion of $300 million between the
estimated need and the total cap. This excess is quite small
when we take the range of possible fluctuations into account.
I would like to address another key issue that has been debated
at length. That is the issue of incrementality.
The question has been raised as to whether these loans are well
targeted or would they have been made by the financial
institutions even without the SBLA program. There is no doubt
that some loans have been guaranteed which might have been made
otherwise.
The SBLA provides an insurance program against default, not a
spending program. Under it, private sector lending institutions
assess businesses and make loans. The federal government then
stands behind the defaulted loans by paying 85% of losses on SBLA
registered loans.
Like many other insurance programs, the SBLA pools risk across
thousands of users. This of course diminishes risk; however it
does not eliminate it for SBLA lenders. The applicants to which
the banks made loans under the SBLA are otherwise creditworthy
but tend to be start up companies or firms with low capitalized
assets.
As with insurance of any kind, there are likely to be some loans
that actually do not need insurance. For the most part these are
loans that are less likely to default and therefore they do not
cost the taxpayer. In fact a certain percentage of
non-incremental loans actually help make the program affordable
and sustainable.
It is extremely relevant to point out that since the government
took office we have taken steps to move the program toward cost
recovery. Since 1995, firms that benefit from the SBLA must pay
fees that are designed to recover the cost of loans claims.
Therefore any business that uses the program even if it does not
need the SBLA loss insurance is in effect sharing the risk of
lending to small businesses which need the program.
Industry Canada will be tracking this issue closely to measure
the effect of user fees on the incrementality of the program. In
the meantime our comprehensive review will certainly be examining
the matter in detail. The comments made by members opposite in
this House I am sure will be brought up in the Standing Committee
on Industry.
That brings me to a final point. This government has been
proactive in working to constantly update and improve the small
business loans program.
In addition to the move toward cost recovery, Industry Canada
has taken significant administrative steps to improve the
efficiency and productivity of the program, such as cutting
claims audit times by two-thirds and thereby mitigating costs to
taxpayers.
We intend to continue this work under the comprehensive review.
The valuable ideas and suggestions of all members of the Standing
Committee on Industry will be carefully considering the total
review.
In summary I remind hon. members that the statistics indicate
the program is working well. It is a good program with broad
support among the business community.
In 1995-96 more than 30,000 firms used the SBLA to improve their
businesses. They created an estimated 73,000 jobs according to
the loan applicants themselves, the people who should know best.
I would also reiterate that Bill C-21 does not make further
spending requests. The amended lending ceiling and the one year
extension are necessary to continue the valuable loan guarantee
program while the comprehensive review takes place.
As I have mentioned over and over, this comprehensive review
will be done in an orderly fashion. Hopefully we can get it to
the standing committee early this fall.
I do not believe that this House wants to leave our small
business community in the lurch by cutting off this very useful
and necessary means of access to financing.
For these reasons and for the benefit of Canada's small business
community, I would ask all members to support this bill so that
we can pass it in the House and forward it on to the Senate. Then
we can get on to the comprehensive review as we have discussed
over and over in this House.
1535
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to debate the conclusion of Bill
C-21 which is known as an act to amend the Small Business Loans
Act. We found out during the previous debate last month and on
review of the auditor general's report that the bill would be
better identified as the small business loans act with need of
substantial review and improvement.
The bill was labelled by many as a bill that lacked performance
indicators and a bill excessively responsive to lending
institutions rather than responsive to the lending needs of small
business. This legislation has always operated with a sunset
clause to ensure periodic review for improvement and assessment
on whether the bill is meeting the needs of small business, not
merely renewal.
On our assessment as well as the auditor general's, the bill is
in need of improvement and the return to its original focus. This
government has yet to make up its mind on what it wants to do
with the act in the first place. As a result of its indecision
it has requested that Parliament renew the act as is for another
calendar year while it continues to review the program.
It is with regret that we support this legislation only because
without it as of March 31, 1998 the current lending period would
cease and SMEs, small and medium enterprises, would not have
access to capital under the SBLA, the Small Business Loans Act.
However this government should not expect the support of my
caucus colleagues or for that matter the small business sector
unless this government begins to review, improve and update this
act to ensure that appropriate access to capital is afforded to
the real engine of job creation, that being the small business
sector of this country.
I would hate to sound cynical but I am really worried given this
government's reluctance to establish specific debt reduction
targets. As well as its reluctance to reduce taxation, broad
based tax reduction for both consumers and small business, the
government's plan to create more small business is to continue to
tax us to death so that more large and medium size businesses
become small companies.
The government has missed a real opportunity to show SMEs that
they are indeed serious about the concerns that SMEs face today.
In fact they are not alone as the auditor general has pointed out
in his recent report on this piece of legislation. In section
29.87 he states that new lending under the program will end as of
the 31st of March, 1998 unless the government decides to renew
it.
This presents an excellent opportunity to review the program's
contribution to filling current financing gaps and stimulating
economic growth and creating jobs. The auditor general goes on
to say the review would also enable Industry Canada to assess
whether the program meets the needs of the small business sector
in a rapidly changing economy.
We should not have wasted this opportunity to improve the act.
This government was criticized for the very fact that this red
book promise was broken by its own rank and file in the preamble
to a priority resolution at the October 1996 convention: “The
banks and other financial institutions have not yet taken any
concrete steps to alleviate the hardships faced by the small and
medium sized firms in obtaining investment capital”. Those are
the words of the Liberal Party of Canada, not ours.
In my previous statement at second reading, I outlined a number
of observations and recommendations within the Report of the
Auditor General. I was pleased to hear during the debate that
the industry minister agrees with the observations of the auditor
general's report. I would like to take this opportunity to
reiterate the minister's statements.
The minister stated “The auditor general's report would be a
very useful tool as we review the SBLA and design ways to make
the Small Business Loans Act even better in the future. A one
year extension of the act will provide the time needed to
complete the review of the program”.
Before we further discuss the necessary initiatives required to
improve this bill, it would be useful for us to remind ourselves,
in particular those on the opposite side of the floor, the impact
the small business sector has.
1540
More than 98% of all businesses in Canada are small businesses
with employees of less than 50 in number. Half of Canada's
workforce is employed by the small business sector. It is widely
recognized that the small business sector has had the greater
proportion of new job creation in recent years, as the auditor
general pointed out.
Small businesses play a very significant role in our economy.
They are the heart of economic activity and community
development. In addition they sometimes develop into large firms
of the future, as long as they are not taxed to death and there
is more disposable income in Canadians' pockets.
Small businesses contribute 43% of Canada's private sector
economic output. With this in mind it is imperative that as
legislators we ensure that small businesses have access to
reasonable financing to ensure the growth of this critical sector
of our economy.
As the minister stated, the original Small Business Loans Act
was introduced in 1961, as I said before, even before I was born.
However since then the objective and the focus of the bill has
been greatly distorted. The bill no longer serves as a loan
guarantee for small business; rather it serves as a loan
guarantee program for banks.
The intent of the act was simple: to provide small business
with access to capital for loan requirements that would not be
considered under normal lending circumstances. The federal
government would in turn guarantee these incremental loans. That
is the issue in play here, it is a loan guarantee for incremental
loans.
Over the years nearly 40% of the loans that fall under the SBLA
are loans that would be granted anyway by lending institutions.
Those are not my words, they are the words of the auditor
general.
The original intent of the legislation was to ensure that
incremental loans to small business were approved in exchange for
the business sector being willing to pay a higher rate of
interest and even a fee for the access to incremental financing.
As mentioned, the two amendments we voted on just the other day
relate to the continuation of the bill as well as to increase the
ceiling of the total amount of the loans from $14 billion to $15
billion. Four times the federal government has had to increase
the ceiling on the total amount of loans. One would think with
this kind of exponential increase that small business would
actually have access to financing and that small business
financing would no longer be a problem. I know the member for
Kings—Hants would actually put that logic into play.
However, I would like to state to my colleague that the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business stated that the rejection rate
of loan requests was actually 2% higher in 1997 than it was in
1987. Who was in government in 1987? It was the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada.
The CFIB also indicated that 29% of business owners surveyed in
1997 said that availability of credit is still the most serious
business concern they have. This is double the concern they
expressed in the late 1980s, according to the CFIB. These are
not just my words.
I challenge the government to return to the original intent of
the SBLA in providing incremental financing to small business
when they re-enter the bill as the Progressive Conservative Party
advocates, as do the CFIB and the auditor general.
The overall theme of the auditor general's report and my
principal concern is that Industry Canada does not have the
performance indicators and benchmarks to properly assess whether
the act is actually accomplishing its original objective, that of
providing incremental financing.
The program's raison d'être is to help fill existing financing
gaps for business. Without true financial support and adequate
financing for growth of our small business sector, growth will be
stunted within our economy and the future prosperity of Canada
can be threatened.
As I earlier indicated, the principal problem with the act is
that it lacks clear objectives and performance indicators and
benchmarks to measure the success and effectiveness of the
legislation. The government could benefit from the old adage,
what gets measured gets done.
As I stated earlier, the bill was first passed in 1961 yet the
type of business that would likely have been started back then
was either retail based or perhaps light manufacturing.
The Canadian economy has greatly changed over that period of
time. Now we have different sectors such as the service sector,
the knowledge and information sector which form a much greater
part of the economy today, with the latter sector having a high
net employment growth. It is imperative that when the act is
reviewed the government ensures there are innovative solutions
and commitments from lenders that address this need.
1545
The greatest concern that we have today is that the original
intend of the program was to provide incremental financing and
access to capital to start-up ventures or small firms that would
not otherwise have been granted a loan from today's lending
regulations. The relative size of the loans was intended to be
small so borrowers could handle a higher rate or a fee in
exchange for a loan that did not tie up their leverage of their
personal guarantee.
The result today is that given the expansion of the program it
is now beginning to displace traditional lending rather than
enhancing marginal loan volumes and filling gaps where small
venture loans are required. Given that 90% of the loan was to be
guaranteed, the lending institution would then consider engaging
in that loan.
Now we are getting to a situation, instead of having small size
loans, where some of the loans are actually teetering on over a
quarter of a million dollars. I am not advocating that we
necessarily hamstring the SBLA in terms of actually having a
smaller cap, but the emphasis has to be on more marginal
financing, incremental financing, as opposed to getting into
these larger type loans. At the end of the day these are the
kinds of loans the banking institutions would actually approve.
I will take this opportunity to discuss a lot of other things
which affect the small business sector and the SBLA. Unlike the
Reform Party yesterday, I am not necessarily interested in tying
up a entire day of speaking time on an issue. I would rather
talk about issues that Canadians are actually concerned about.
I want to talk about small business. One of the Reform Party's
founding principles is its members are here to represent their
constituents. If one asks the CFIB whether the small business
sector likes the SBLA, it will state it is a program it is very
much aware of. It believes it is key to financing within the
small business. It is very important. This is whether you are in
Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario or the west.
If the Reform Party is truly representing its constituents I
suggest it actually votes for the SBLA amendment tonight so we
can continue on with the process of this bill. Otherwise one of
its founding principles of representing its constituents has been
thrown to the wayside.
There are some other initiatives in terms of what this
government has to do in order to make the small business sector
more competitive. The Canadian economy is very overtaxed. After
the budget was tabled the Canadian Chamber of Commerce tabled a
press release in response to the budget. In the press release it
challenged the government to draw up a detailed fiscal framework
for the new millennium based on clear criteria for growth,
competitiveness and opportunity rather than arbitrary commitment
to allocate half the surplus to spending and half to debt.
The small business sector is still way overtaxed.
In our election campaign we wanted to move the small business tax
rate from 12% down to 8% which would make some marginal business
plans into more profitable business plans and actually put more
money back into small business pockets.
1550
We need to lower EI premiums for small businesses. Right now
the EI program has a $7 billion surplus annually which actually
belongs in the pockets of employees and employers. What this
actually does is taxes every new job is created.
In this same communique the Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated
that if the EI premium were reduced to $1.95 instead of the
present $2.70 per $100 of insurable earnings, every medium size
company across Canada would be able to hire at least one
additional person.
We know that all taxes kill jobs but payroll taxes at the end of
the day are actually more punitive than any other tax initiative.
What we challenge this government to do, when it is reviewing
the SBLA, is to review all the issues that affect the small
business sector. People may ask if the fund is sustainable if we
lower the EI premium from $2.70 down to $2.00. The chief actuary
for the government stated that if it were lowered from $2.70 down
to $2.00 it would be able to withstand a severe recession. That
is an initiative that the Progressive Conservative Party clearly
advocates.
We also know that the only economies which have any kind of
consistent growth are those economies that have less debt and
less tax. In order to reduce the overall tax burden of our
country, we need to lower the debt. That is why the Progressive
Conservative Party advocates lowering the debt to 60% of GDP by
the year 2000 and to 50% by the year 2005. It goes back to my
adage of what gets measured gets done. By saying we will put
half on new spending, half on new debt and half split between
debt and tax reduction, at the end of the day I get very worried
about that. Canada will not have a surplus if that kind of
approach is taken because at the end of the day we will end up
spending it.
We need less debt and taxes. We recently had a budget where the
government raised the personal exemption from $6,500 to $7,000.
That took 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls who should not have
been there in the first place. What we advocate is that is not
nearly enough. We want to raise the personal exemption to
$10,000 which would take two million Canadians off the tax rolls
overnight who simply should not have been there in the first
place.
Budgets are more than just about numbers. They are about values
we share as as nation. By that I mean that it is very
troublesome from the standpoint that we actually tax individuals
who earn $14,000 less than the poverty line.
We challenge this government to develop a plan for growth in
this country based on less debt, less tax and putting more
disposable income back into the pockets of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I know as the fiscal conservative that you are, you
can actually understand that Canadians are poorer today than they
were approximately eight years ago. I know the hon. members over
here will understand that the disposable incomes of Canadians has
gone down 6% since 1990.
1555
We need to ensure that we put more disposable income back into
Canadians' pockets so that more individuals can have an
opportunity to participate in the economy in general. The only
way to do that is to provide Canadians with broad based tax
relief.
It is with regret that we are voting for a bill because the
government did not take advantage of the last five years to
seriously look at the SBLA.
The government knew it had to be reviewed, but all of a sudden
it came to a stage and said “oops, the bill is coming up for
renewal, what are we going to do about it?” Instead it said it
would wait for the report of the auditor general.
I find this kind of perplexing because yesterday the finance
minister wrote a letter to the auditor general saying that they
are not so keen on some of his work. On the other hand right
now, they are saying they want to wait for the report of the
auditor general.
The member for Kings—Hants made a comment that I will address
later. What I am trying to say is that if there is one credo this
government can be described by, it is that sometimes it makes it
up as it goes.
This Small Business Loans Act really is an example of that. It
is oops, do you mean we actually have to review a bill? What we
are going to do is ask for another year.
I believe that the government, in good faith, is going to take a
serious look at the auditor general's report and act on some of
those initiatives as opposed to making it up as it goes. We saw
that in Kyoto. Sadly, we also saw it in the unity issue in 1995
during the referendum.
We need more planning and less improvization. We also saw it
again with a provocative approach regarding the supreme court
reference. It comes down to exactly what the member for
Kings—Hants states, brinksmanship.
The supreme court reference kicks a hornets nest. It does not
tell us anything that we do not know. The government has chosen
to play Lucien Bouchard's game of getting this kind of issue back
on the national agenda.
The reason the government is doing that in the absence of plan A
is that it tried to come up with a kind of plan B. There is no
such thing as plan B. There is no Canada unless we have our
territories and all 10 provinces.
I challenge this government to do two things. The first is to
develop an approach or a plan for growth for our country based on
less debt, fewer taxes, more disposable income into Canadians'
pockets so that more Canadians can participate in the economy.
Second, have more planning and less improvization as we saw in
Kyoto, as we saw in the unity issue and as we see here in the
SBLA or even in the postal strike.
I am looking forward to the bill being tabled in its new form in
the coming days.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among
representatives of all parties on a matter of authorization to
travel. I wonder if you might seek the unanimous consent of the
House for the following motion. I move:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and the
necessary staff be authorized to travel to Europe from April 20
to 27, 1998 to gather information in relation to their study on
the national passenger rail system.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1600
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, an
act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why is
it so rare for a government program to shrink as opposed to grow?
I have only been here a short while. I am tender in my years.
Some would say that I am chronologically challenged. However,
having been here for as long as I have, I have noticed that
things rarely tend to shrink around this place. They generally
tend to get bigger as opposed to getting smaller. That is
exactly the case with the Small Business Loans Act which we are
debating today.
I ask myself why that is. I look at the department which I
critique. It is a $57 billion monster that started off very
small, but then grew and grew over time to become the biggest
department in government. The Department of Human Resources
Development now has a budget of $57 billion. It is the biggest
monstrosity of a department there is within the federal
government.
We could document this process with other departments, but let
us take a curious look at what has happened with the Small
Business Loans Act.
First, the government started with the intention that small
businesses in Canada are a major job engine and that they should
be helped. Everybody agrees that small businesses are a job
engine in this country, but let us look at what type of help the
government has actually stepped in with, at what benefit its
intrusion has provided.
We always ask the question: Who wants it? Do they actually
want the help? There are many small business owners in this
Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you may be one of them. If we were to ask
small businesses what—
An hon. member: He makes bread.
Mr. Rob Anders: That's right. Making bread is a good
idea. There is nothing wrong with making bread. Bread is not a
dirty word.
We ask ourselves if small businesses want the Small Business
Loans Act.
I asked some of my friends who I went to high school with about
this. I will tell the story of Mike Nyhus, a fellow who I went
to high school with. He started a very successful construction
company. Mike was never a Reformer when we attended high school
together, but he has changed because he is now out in the
workforce making money and paying other people's salaries.
I asked Mike how we could change things to make them better for
him so he could employ more people. He told me that his biggest
problem was the red tape and the administrative nightmare he has
as a small business person. He said that his biggest problems
were looking after the GST and all the paperwork, as well as the
payroll taxes, including the Canada pension plan and employment
insurance.
The last time I heard word of him, Mike said that he could hire
five people, but he did not do that. His business could afford
to hire five more people, but he said that the administrative
nightmare was preventing him from hiring them for his business in
my riding of Calgary West.
When I look at that I say shame on the government. Its whole
idea behind this is that it can toss more money at a problem and
make it go away. That is exactly what it wants to do with Bill
C-21. The government hopes that by increasing the taxpayer
liability from $14 billion to $15 billion it will magically
create more jobs and help taxpayers and small businesses.
If we look to the businesses that this loans program is aimed
at, 40% of the businesses that receive loan guarantees under the
Small Business Loans Act actually did not need to have the loan
guarantees.
An hon. member: Do you mean it's a subsidy?
Mr. Rob Anders: It's a subsidy. That's right. I hear
other members across the way and within the Chamber who are
finally realizing that this is actually a subsidy. I thank other
members for pointing this out, for noting it and for being
concerned.
It is actually a subsidy. They do not actually need it. It is
a case of profitable companies which could go ahead and find the
resources and the guarantees they need through other mechanisms.
They are getting these things and they do not actually need them.
Government is trying to solve a problem where a problem does not
exist.
The real problem is that small businesses have an administrative
nightmare, red tape, payroll taxes and high taxes generally which
prevent them from hiring more people. That is the obstacle to
more jobs in this country.
I remember during the last election campaign that I heard
“jobs, jobs, jobs” from the Liberals.
1605
I was a young lad at the time of the 1993 election, but if I
think back I heard something then, and it was jobs, jobs, jobs.
If I think about it again—
An hon. member: They said that for two elections?
Mr. Rob Anders: The member is right. It was the same
people. It was the Liberals. They said jobs, jobs, jobs in both
elections. Yet, instead of creating jobs, instead of actually
lowering EI premiums in this country—and I would like to point
this out because I am getting some cat calls from across the
way—
An hon. member: A million new jobs. We gave you a job.
Mr. Rob Anders: That's right. I am going to stick it on
him, because it looks good on him.
The Liberals have milked $14 billion out of businesses in this
country in overpayments on EI. As a matter of fact, if we take
how much Albertans overpay in EI taxes—and I want Mike Nyhus and
other people in Calgary West to pay attention—they are paying
$833 million more per year than they are actually collecting in
EI premiums. That is their overcontribution. It is not how much
they are paying.
If we broke that down for every single worker in Alberta, which
has a workforce of roughly one million people in a province of
about two and a half million to three million people, it
represents about $833 per individual. Everyone who is working in
the Alberta workforce is being milked hard by this government by
over contributing to employment insurance. That is what this is
coming down to.
Instead of giving taxpayers $1 billion in liability in the Small
Business Loans Act, creating a bigger hole in my pocket, a bigger
hole in my wallet, creating more administration and giving out
more loans and loan guarantees to businesses that do not actually
need loan guarantees, why does the government not do what
businesses are calling for and cut EI premiums, cut CPP taxes,
cut taxes generally and help businesses that way? That is what
businesses are calling out for. It is not just me. I am not
delusional over here.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a business
lobby group, an organization that represents small businesses in
this country, is calling for these changes. It is calling for a
lowering of taxes. It is not just me calling on this side of the
House, it is the CFIB which represents businesses from coast to
coast to coast in this country which is calling for those
reforms.
There is also another fundamental question. One of the first
questions I asked was: Why is it so rare for a government
program to shrink? The other question I asked was: Who wants
it? Not the small businesses. Forty per cent of them are
eligible to get loans in other places and do not need the loan
guarantees. The government is trying to solve a problem that
does not need to be solved for those businesses. It basically
amounts to a business subsidy.
The third question is: Who is going to pay for it? This is the
real travesty. Other businesses are going to have to pay for
this increase in taxpayer liability to help out their
competitors.
Why is the government always meddling in banking like this?
I am going to tell members another story because the government
needs to know some of its other foibles. If it knew more it
might not pass these things.
The Federal Business Development Bank has billions of dollars in
assets. Once again, when it first started this noble concept,
the concept that warmed the cockles of the government's heart, it
was to help invigorate and open new businesses and set up
avant-garde enterprises. It would be the cutting edge. But
politics got in the way. It realized that it actually had to
make safe investments. As a matter a fact, it started making
safer investments than what the chartered banks in this country
make. Why? Because it was worried about the political
ramifications, that it would be smeared with making bad loans.
Goodness knows, the government has all sorts of experience in
making bad loans. It would not want any more of that, would it?
There are billions of dollars of taxpayers' assets with the
Federal Business Development Bank. What does it do? It intrudes
into what other private sector institutions would be able to lend
out. It goes ahead and takes taxpayers' money, sweat-soaked
dollars, and it gives it out to businesses through the Federal
Business Development Bank. It is intruding on loans that private
sector institutions, the chartered banks in this country, would
be able to make. It is so conservative with its loans that it
does not come close to serving the original mandate of giving out
that money to entrepreneurial, avant-garde, cutting edge
businesses.
1610
Once again, who is going to pay for it? The businesses that
receive these loans are going to be subsidized by their
competitors who are paying these high taxes and they themselves,
if they become profitable, will be the ones who will be anteing
up money for this poncy scheme. It is a joke.
We have asked four questions. Surely if I was to ask five or
six questions the government would tuck its tail between its
legs, walk out of this place and forget that Bill C-21 was ever
raised in the House.
But I am going to press on. I am going to hope.
Question number five is: Does it actually solve the problem?
No, it does not. If the problem is that there are not enough
jobs in the country, then surely Bill C-21 is not going to solve
the question of the high unemployment rates this government has
been pregnant with for all of its time in office, after promising
jobs, jobs, jobs. No, it has not realized the problem.
The problem is that it has this red tape, this bureaucracy and
high taxes. Even its own members have admitted that taxes are
too high in the country. It hushes it up now, pulls its foot out
of its mouth and buries it. But, indeed, people across the way
admit that taxes are too high in the country. The Liberals know
it and they know they should be lowering taxes.
I wish, I pray, that during my time in the House I will see it
happen in a real substantive way, as opposed to seeing just lip
service.
Does it solve the problem? No, it does not solve the problem.
The government is not creating more jobs by going ahead with
this. Indeed, it overinflates. This is not the first time. It
is not the only time and it probably will not be the last, sadly
enough. But it overinflates for every single job that may be
created as a result of the Small Business Loans Act.
If I have to come down to trusting the credibility of the
auditor general or the credibility of the government, some of its
spokespeople and ministers on this subject, I will take that of
the auditor general. Call me a skeptic, but I will trust the
auditor general before I will trust the government.
Even the auditor general admits that the government over reports
the success five times, not twice. For every single job created
it reports five. That is how embarrassing the track record is.
It over reports five times the success of any type of job
creation program.
That was question number five.
Surely by now the government argument on Bill C-21 is full of
holes and the taxpayer will have to pay more money. All of this
is bleedingly obvious, but I am going to go on to point number
six. This one will severely Swiss cheese the government's
argument.
Question number six is: Would it pass the judgment of fellow
businesses? Once again we look at the CFIB survey of businesses
in the country. The CFIB is not calling for an expansion of the
Small Business Loans Act or a hike in CPP premiums. That
federation is not calling for the government to continue taking
$7 billion a year more in employment insurance contributions than
it needs. The CFIB is not asking for more regulation. It is not
asking for the 38 tax increases brought in since this government
came to office in 1993. The CFIB is not begging and pleading for
any of those things, yet the government keeps on delivering.
The federation is asking for a cut in EI premiums. It is asking
for a cut in taxes that is long overdue and well deserved. That
is what it wants. That is what will pass the judgment of fellow
Canadians and fellow businesses. That is what is going to create
jobs. That is what will deliver on Liberal election promises,
instead of the pandering and dribbling and “drabbling” out.
That is where the real success story lies.
Shame on the government. By increasing the liability for
taxpayers with Bill C-21 the government is not solving the
problem which it intends to solve. It is not speaking to the
issues it would love to actually be able to say it is addressing.
It is actually creating a higher, larger liability for taxpayers.
It is growing a government program and it is not doing the
service it should be doing for Canadian taxpayers. Shame on it.
Bill C-21 should go back to the drawing board and be reformed.
Shame on the Liberals.
1615
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to
take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-21, an act to
amend the Small Business Loans Act. This is the final debate
before the vote that will allow us to dispose of this bill.
This is a relatively brief bill, containing only two clauses.
What do these two clauses say? First, that the existing
legislation, which would normally cease to apply on March 31 of
this year, should be extended for one year. Second, that an
additional $1 billion should be made available for other loans.
The auditor general reported on this and we read his remarks
very carefully. He suggests changes, and I will come back to this
a bit later on.
An in-depth review of the program is required. The Minister
of Industry undertook to have one carried out, so that it would not
be necessary, as in other years, including last year, to come back
to the House each time in order to add another $1 billion and to
extend the existing program for another year. The Minister of
Industry agreed to allow the Standing Committee on Industry and
experts from the department to review the program.
I hope that the business community, people representing SMBs
in all sectors of Canada, will be consulted, and that people from
Quebec and elsewhere will be able to come and testify.
We have already heard from the Canadian Bankers Association
and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
These organizations recommend a formal review of this program. It
will soon be the year 2000. As everyone knows, the economy is in
full transition and, unfortunately, the transitions are occurring
with greater frequency.
In the past, we saw transitions perhaps every 25 years. Now,
economic cycles are much shorter in length, seven years they say.
In the era of globalization, high tech equipment, and so on, people
are realizing that SMBs are undergoing transitions even more
frequently.
The questions asked by the auditor general are extremely
important ones. Of course he wants to see more control over what
it costs the government to compensate lenders, because a certain
number of borrowers, approximately 5% when it comes to small and
medium-sized businesses, do not pay back their loans. The
auditor general feels that the auditing procedures for these
requests for compensation must be tightened up.
He also says that the interest the government would have to
pay on compensation must be reduced to a minimum. This needs to be
reviewed. I would point out that, with respect to student loans,
the Quebec Minister of Education tried to avoid taking anything for
granted and decided to renew annually all procedures and mechanisms
relating to loans from the caisses populaires and the banks. He
succeeded in the end in saving money.
I believe there is always a way for governments to save money,
and this money of course belongs to the taxpayers.
In my opinion, the most important element in what the auditor
general says is that there must be a more stringent assessment of
the program's impact on job creation.
1620
Those who have spoken before me have addressed this point a
little, but I would like to take a different tack than the Reform
member. I feel this review is worth a serious effort. In the
final analysis, if we want small businesses to have access to
guaranteed loans, we must remember that what everyone really wants
is to see as many jobs created as possible.
The jobs created must be quality jobs. It is all very fine to
create jobs, but the statistics are often misleading or incomplete.
The type of jobs created, the salary, and whether these are
permanent or part time jobs must all be looked into.
We also have to consider whether these jobs are in sectors
that will last, because, as you know, a lot of small businesses are
failing. Most bankruptcies occur in the first year of business.
However, in 75% or 80% of the cases, they happen within the first
three years. This is where we must pay particular attention.
Given all the good that this bill can do for business, and I
think we must not lose sight of this fact, we are obliged to
support it. In the past fiscal year, 34,000 SMBs across Canada
benefited from the program. This means that over $2 billion in
loans were guaranteed by the government, including $732 million for
businesses in Quebec.
How was this $732 million distributed? The caisses populaires
loaned out $321 million of it, while the other banking institutions
in Quebec provided $385 million.
For Canada as a whole, the 34,000 SMBs created, according to the
inadequate figures available, 73,000 jobs, of which an estimated
25,000, at least, were in Quebec.
So this is why we in the Bloc Quebecois feel obliged to
support this measure. If the bill is not passed by April 1, we
could not use it to help small and medium size businesses.
I will digress a bit further here. In 1995, the figures
showed that SMBs contributed 43% of Canada's economic activity.
That same year, in Quebec, 45% of all jobs, not just the new ones,
depended on SMBs. So they account for nearly half of the jobs in
business.
We often think that big business creates jobs, but we note—and this
is true in all countries, all the OECD reports confirm it—that
big business is no longer really creating jobs. It creates
some, but others are lost. Often government efforts, and this is
true for a business in my riding in Quebec, are aimed at
maintaining jobs. Frito-Lay is one example, and there are many
others.
On the subject of big business, the challenge is not to create
jobs, but to maintain existing ones. The Lévis shipyards come to
mind. Barely seven or eight years ago, when things were really
booming, 2,500 people worked there. Now they have a hard time
keeping 500 to 700 people employed. So SMBs are an area for the
future and where most of the jobs are created.
They often represent the only option for someone without a
job, who is unable to find one in the public service. We know that
neither the federal nor the provincial public service creates jobs
anymore. So SMBs are the only option for young people or those who
have experience in the labour market, but find themselves
unemployed.
1625
I heard the Reform member criticize the Minister of Human Resources
Development. But some good came out of the program, including the SEA
initiative, the self-employment assistance program, which helped many
jobless people, for a period of up to a year, set up their own
businesses. Many of these businesses survived. If these people had not
set up such businesses, they would have remained unemployed.
We must do our utmost to help them. I do not doubt that all the
members here, from all parties, can work so that, in the end, the
largest possible number of jobs will be created. The Liberals even made
job creation their slogan in 1993, with their “jobs, jobs,
jobs”.
As we saw, their approach was based on macroeconomics, in that they
concentrated on economic indicators and let things sort themselves out.
Contrary to that approach, I think governments still have a very
specific role to play to help businesses create jobs. At the same time,
we must be careful and make sure public funds are not wasted. The fact
is that setting up a business is risky. This basic program allows
thousands of businesses to take the necessary risks to create jobs.
Members of this House can never make job creation too much of an
obsession, too much of a daily concern.
I see that I have some time left. When we review the program, we
will have to see which sectors are doing best, which ones are providing
quality employment.
For example, in the Quebec City region, socio-economic stakeholders
noticed that the number of jobs in the public service was the same,
because of a freeze, if not diminishing. This led a number of them to
try to devise a strategy geared to the new economy. I want to point out
in particular the efforts of the technological park, in Sainte-Foy.
There are also other sectors in the Quebec City region that are
interested in developing projects that will create quality employment.
I can never repeat it too often: there are sectors where investing
makes less and less sense. In the context of globalization, our
businesses must be the best in the world, if they are to survive. They
must also be in fields that have a promising future.
I will conclude by saying that Bloc Quebecois members will support
the bill at third reading, because until a more comprehensive reform is
done, it is the only way that other businesses can get a loan from
banking institutions in the next fiscal year.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. Before we go
to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Halifax West—Immigration; the hon. member for
Dartmouth—Post-Secondary Education; the hon. member for
Verchères—INARI; the hon. member for Kamloops—Child Poverty.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to
the member opposite. I have one question to ask him.
The member emphasized how jobs are changing and how important it
will be during the comprehensive study to understand who is
creating jobs and what the future will be.
1630
Would the member agree that passing this bill and then spending
extra time on the comprehensive review taking into account the
auditor general's report will be helpful to all of us in the
House as we discuss this bill in committee and take our time to
establish the new SBLA for the future?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said he agreed with
what I said. It is hard to say anything more, except perhaps to add
that, while sovereignists, the members of the Bloc Quebecois make a full
contribution to parliamentary committees, including the Standing
Committee on Industry.
In that particular case, we make as positive a contribution as
possible because, as long as Quebec remains part of the federal system
and Quebeckers pay their share of taxes to the federal government, we
are perfectly justified in taking advantage of this process, since it
benefits Quebec businesses.
Of course we feel the Quebec government and every region in Quebec
should be involved.
There are 16 economic regions in Quebec and each has a separate
strategic plan. Realities vary from one region to the next, be it
geographical realities, distance or what not. Some natural resources may
also be found in one region but not in others. Hence the need for
regional microeconomics.
This bill dealing with small business loans of up to $250,000
directly concerns the type of businesses we find in all regions of
Canada. This is a basic program but it should be pointed out that
similar programs already exist in Quebec. Take the FTQ workers' fund for
example. This is a Quebec initiative, which the CNTU recently imitated.
Funds are generated to help small and medium size businesses and promote
their sustainability. This also allows for the establishment of new
businesses.
Consideration in committee of this bill should focus on assessing
existing programs at other levels to make sure they are complementary
and useful. Other programs will need to be created.
Entrepreneurs often come to see me at my office. They tell me there
is not always enough time to compare the benefits of all the programs
available. I was told—and did not get a chance to check—that
credit and loans are available from at least 50 sources. Checking them
all is a time-consuming process. I think it should be simplified.
This is a time when the federal government should work in
co-operation with provincial governments to prevent duplication
and competition. This would allow us to develop business
assistance programs that meet the particular needs of businesses
in a given region.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
1635
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have been
requested by the government whip to defer the vote. Accordingly
the vote stands deferred.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN PARKS AGENCY ACT
Hon. Andy Mitchell (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency
and to amend other Acts as a consquence, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today
on the occasion of this second reading of Bill C-29, an act to
establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other Acts as a
consequence.
[English]
I can certainly say on behalf of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and on behalf of myself and all Canadians that we take
great pride in our national parks system, in our national
historic sites and those other special places that we protect and
for which we provide stewardship.
The proposal of Bill C-29, the development of the Canadian parks
agency, is indeed a type of new beginning. We have had as part
of the Department of Canadian Heritage, as part of the Department
of Environment before that and as part of the Department of
Indian Affairs before that, Parks Canada. Over those years the
men and women who have worked in that department have done an
excellent job in protecting our special places in ensuring that
our special places are there for the benefit of Canadians.
There is a need to bring certainty and permanency to that
organization so we can move into the future reflecting the
realities of the 1990s and making sure that we are prepared to
deal with the challenges of the 21st century. That is what
developing and producing a Canadian parks agency is all about.
In my comments today it is my intent to talk about why we are
developing an agency and what we have done so far in terms of
consulting and talking to Canadians about how we should approach
this issue. I am going to talk about some of the components of
the legislation which is before the House today.
My connection to parks and our other special places has
certainly preceded my time as Secretary of State for Parks and
the time before I became a member of this House.
In my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka we are pleased to host the
smallest geographic national park in the system, Georgian Bay
Island National Park which is in the southern end of my riding. I
and all of my constituents take great pride in that facility and
what the men and women who run that facility have accomplished
and the thousands of visitors who come to that area.
In my own hometown of Gravenhurst we have the birthplace of Dr.
Norman Bethune as a national historic site where we recognize the
achievements of one our most famous Canadians. Also as part of
my riding and making up part of the southern boundary is the
Trent-Severn Waterway one of the historic waterways which is
administered by Parks Canada.
1640
Beyond this hometown experience I have been able to build on my
appreciation of what Parks Canada has done in the past. I have
had an opportunity to talk to Canadians from coast to coast to
coast this past year. We consulted with large numbers of
stakeholders and employees about the proposed Canadian parks
agency. In doing so, I have come to appreciate even more the
importance of these special places, the importance of how
Canadians view our national parks, how they view our historic
sites and all of the other special places.
As I deal with the ongoing files that are part of the
administration of Parks Canada, I see on a day to day basis why
it is that Canadians place a high value on our national parks and
historic sites. I have come to learn and to understand why our
national parks are the third most recognized symbol of Canadians.
It is because of the importance and the special place they have
in our nation and the special place in which Canadians hold them
in their hearts.
This agency is going to allow us to produce an organization that
will be able to achieve our two primary mandates. The first is
to ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to enjoy our
national parks and other special places today, so that they can
learn about our history, so they can learn about our heritage and
experience the very specialness that is uniquely Canadian. That
is indeed our mandate and this agency will allow us to carry it
out.
It will also allow us to carry out our second fundamental
mandate which is to ensure that Canadians of future generations,
Canadians of the 21st century and beyond will be able to enjoy
those special sites as well. It is an obligation we take
seriously as a government and which I believe Canadians take
seriously as a nation to ensure that we can pass on those assets
in an unimpaired way to future generations.
With this legislation we are going to be developing an
organization that will be designed in a way that will allow us to
deal with the economic realities of the 1990s. It will allow us
to organize ourselves efficiently so that we can meet the
challenges and we can do our job, do it effectively and do it
with less financial resources. We are going to create with this
agency an establishment that will provide our employees with the
tools they need to be more efficient and more creative in doing
their jobs.
[Translation]
In the 1996 budget, the Government of Canada announced
its intention to create the Canadian Parks Agency. Two rounds of
consultations ensued in the months that followed, at the request of
the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Indeed we undertook that consultation with the belief that we
had to include a wide range of Canadians. We ensured that the
various stakeholders who have an interest in our national parks
and those individuals who work within our national parks and
other special places had an opportunity to talk to us and provide
us with some of the important ideas and components on how we
should proceed in creating this agency.
During the last two years there have been two rounds of
consultations. Over 150 stakeholders have provided testimony. In
addition over 300 of our staff have had an opportunity to provide
direct input to us on what they believe should be part of this
agency.
As I mentioned earlier we took the opportunity to go across
Canada. We took the opportunity to hear Canadians in Atlantic
Canada, Canadians on the west coast, Canadians in the Arctic and
Canadians in central Canada so that we could have a full
understanding of what Canadians in general want to see in this
agency.
I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and myself to thank all of those employees and
stakeholders who took the time and the opportunity to provide
their valuable input. We have listened to what they have had to
say.
Many of their comments and suggestions have found their way into
the legislation before the House today.
1645
What did we hear? We heard a number of very important messages
and a number of very important principles which Canadians believe
should be in the legislation.
None has been more important than the belief shared by Canadians
from coast to coast that the parks portfolio needs to be under
public stewardship. Our special places, our parks and national
historic sites, are a public trust and public stewardship needs
to be exercised in a public way.
I state clearly to the House and to all Canadians who are
watching or will be reading this debate that the creation of
the Canadian parks agency is the creation of a public agency that is
fully accountable to the House and to government.
During our consultations we heard that the public and our
employees wanted us to ensure we had a mandate that included firm
commitments to ecological and commemorative integrity and that we
reinforced the programs we undertake in terms of interpretation
and education.
They told us that not only was it important to maintain these
special places. It was also important for Canadians to learn
about them and understand the history. Whether or not Canadians
have the opportunity to travel to these locations they can
collectively take pride and joy in the reality of these special
places.
As we travelled across the country we heard that message over
and over again. Let us ensure that Canadians generally have an
opportunity to learn about and to experience our national parks
and other special places.
They also told us that they wanted to be engaged on an ongoing
basis. They did not want the consultation to be a one time
opportunity. They generally felt very good that there was a
forum in which they could provide the type of input they thought
was important in terms of the management of our national parks.
In that respect they suggested there should be some sort of
permanent structure in place to allow for that input to be
ongoing.
In the bill to set up the Canadian park agency we see a call for
biennial forums so individuals or groups of Canadians have an
opportunity to evaluate the ability of the agency, to measure our
performance in fulfilling our mandate and to provide input in
terms of whether we have been able to fulfil it in the way they
think best.
This is almost unique among government initiatives. We will
proactively and on a mandated basis allow Canadians to evaluate
the work we will be doing as the Canadian parks agency. It is
mandated in our legislation. It is not subject to regulatory
change. That is an important component of the bill. It was
suggested during our consultations. I am pleased we will be able
to move forward with it.
This will be a public organization in terms of its transparency
and accountability. The legislation will ensure that there
cannot be and will not be any degradation of the roles of
parliament, the minister or the government in exercising their
stewardship of our special places. Parks and our other special
places like historic sites and historic waterways belong to all
Canadians and will be managed on behalf of all Canadians by
Canadians.
[Translation]
With the creation of the Canadian parks agency, we wish to
attain four key objectives.
[English]
Those four objectives are very important. I will take a moment
to summarize them. The Canadian parks agency will be a separate
ongoing service organization which, under the direction of
parliament and the government, will provide continuity in
managing Canada's special places.
I emphasize the concept of continuity. One of the challenges
those who have spent their careers in parks have had to face is
that it has gone from ministry to ministry, from department to
department.
1650
With the creation of this service agency we will bring some
certainty and some continuity to ensure we will be able to manage
our national historic sites and our national parks in a sound
ongoing way. I believe this is a very important objective. It
will be a very important accomplishment of the legislation when
it passes the House.
Also we have as an objective the creation of an organization
committed to some very important goals we have established as a
government to complete Canada's system of national parks. This
is something we have committed ourselves to work toward as we
move toward the 21st century. The organization would be
committed to expanding the system of national historic sites and
to creating and maintaining marine conservation areas.
This is a unique concept, one that we are near the lead in the
world. With the creation of marine conservation areas we will
translate ecological standards and re-create the work we have
done in protecting our terrestrial areas to our marine areas. I
look forward later in this session of parliament to tabling
legislation which will allow this agency to proceed with that
very important task.
The legislation will also create an organization that has the
necessary financial and organizational flexibility which empowers
our employees to fulfil their mandate in a creative and efficient
manner.
As I travelled from coast to coast consulting with our employees
I learned how fortunate we are as Canadians to have men and women
who have dedicated themselves to careers in Parks Canada. They
have dedicated themselves to protecting our special places. They
have dedicated themselves to ensuring that Canadians have an
opportunity to enjoy our special places and to see what is truly
unique about the country.
The legislation will establish an agency as a separate employer
or a structure that will allow us to meet the very specific
organizational and environmental challenges that are unique to
Parks Canada.
We will provide a human resource regime that makes sense for
Parks Canada, a human resource regime that understands Parks
Canada operates from coast to coast to coast seven days a week,
24 hours a day, in all kinds of geographic and climatic
conditions.
We will ensure through the creation of the Canadian parks agency
that we have a human resource system which will be able to meet
those challenges. We are working at creating that system, not in
isolation but in partnership with our employees as we have gone
across the country on consultations, in partnership with the
unions that represent our employees, and in partnership with the
Canadian stakeholders who believe in and about the Canadian parks
agency.
We are working on this group to create a human resource regime.
I am pleased the partners have come together over the last few
months and are working diligently in creating the type of HR
regime that works not only for the agency but for employees
within the agency.
[Translation]
Now, if I may, I will describe the new agency.
[English]
Let me explain for a moment some of the important changes the
agency will bring to the operation of our portfolio.
1655
We will be able to flatten the organization. We will go a
system where we have a field superintendent who is responsible to
the head of the agency, who in turn will be responsible to the
minister.
This will allow us to see decisions made far more quickly, more
efficiently. Decisions will be made, taking into account local
conditions and local challenges. We will provide to our field
superintendents increased levels of responsibility so decisions
can be taken in a way that reflects the needs of local areas.
The Canadian parks agency will have a number of financial
authorities not traditionally associated with government
departments. These authorities will allow us to operate in a
business-like manner but remembering we are not a business.
We need to operate efficiently but remember that we do things as
part of the Canadian parks agency that are not done solely for
profit. When we establish a national park in the far north of
Canada, we do so because Canadians believe it is important to
protect these special places. It is not because we believe we
can turn a profit. That is not what we are all about. However,
with this agency we have created a number of financial
authorities which will allow us to be more efficient in carrying
out our tasks.
We will be able to maintain the revenue generated by Parks
Canada within the portfolio of the Canadian parks agency. This
will allow us additional financial resources that can be used in
the creation and expansion of our national parks system and our
system of national historic sites.
With the new authorities being granted to this agency we will be
able to establish a non-lapsing capital account which will allow
us to keep the proceeds from gifts and endowments, or the sale of
excess assets such as vehicles or buildings, and use them for
investment into new Canadian parks.
This is important. In the past the funds would simply have gone
back into the consolidated revenue fund. Under this agency the
revenue will be there and available for investments into
important priorities which Canadians place on the shoulders of
the Canadian parks agency.
The Canadian parks agency will be working on what we call a two
year rolling budget. It will be able to carry forward its budget
from one year to the next. No more will we have the scenario,
which many of us have seen all too often as we approach the end
of the fiscal year, where expenditure decisions are being made
not on sound business practice but on the calendar. We will put
a system in place by going to a two year rolling budget that will
allow our managers in the field to make the best possible
decisions in utilizing their budgets.
Something that will be a special authority to the agency and is
particularly important, given our mandate in the Canadian parks
agency, is the ability to advance funds from appropriations up to
a certain limit from future years. If an opportunity presents
itself in this fiscal year, for instance to purchase property in
terms of establishing a national park, we can do it this year
because it makes economic sense, whereas in the next fiscal year
it may not. This will give the management team the ability to
make decisions based on sound business practices. I am pleased
these financial authorities will be granted to the new Canadian
parks agency.
As all Canadians want to know—and it is part of our public
stewardship—we will continue the use of appropriations as the
primary source of funding for the national parks system. Roughly
today the split is about 75:25 and that is where we intend to
keep it in the foreseeable future.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the specific aspects of the new
agency will be the establishment of a separate human resource
regime which will allow us to create a structure that reflects
the realities we face in the Canadian parks agency, the number of
hours our employees work and the types of conditions under which
they work, to make sure we have an HR regime that reflects their
concerns and their needs.
That is one of the things we are doing with this agency.
1700
We are also going to create with the agency an organization that
will have a number of simplified processes that will allow
decisions to happen more quickly and in a more business-like way.
As I mentioned, we will be able to increase the authorities that
we are providing to our local field superintendents. We are
going to simplify the process by which decisions can take place
at the local level. This is important and Canadians will see a
direct benefit from this.
One of the things we heard very clearly when we did our national
consultation was that Canadians wanted to ensure that this new
agency would have ministerial and parliamentary accountability.
One of the specific components of this legislation is to ensure
that accountability is there. Canadians have said they want to
make sure they as Canadians have an impact on the stewardship of
our special places. The accountability processes that this
legislation brings forth will certainly allow that to happen.
As I believe this position of accountability is a very critical
point, I am going to take a moment to review a couple of the
processes this legislation brings forth to ensure accountability.
First, in terms of the minister responsible, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, that cabinet position will continue to have
responsibility for developing and seeking approval from cabinet
for broad policy issues. It will remain accountable to the
public and remain within government.
In addition, the minister will approve the guiding principles
and policies under which the new Canadian parks agency will
operate.
Each one of our national parks today and, under this
legislation, each one of our national historic sites will require
the development of a five year management plan which will be
approved by the minister and tabled in this House in order to
allow parliamentarians to be part of that review.
The minister will be recommending the corporate plan to Treasury
Board and approving an annual report which will detail how we
managed to fulfil our objectives that we established in the
previous year. The minister will be approving the state of the
parks report which will become a much broader report to include
the ecological integrity of all the special places that we
manage.
The minister will be responsible for fixing and establishing
fees that will be charged at our national parks.
In terms of talking about the creation of a new HR regime, every
five years the minister will be tabling a summary report on how
the human resources regime supports the values established within
government to management our human resources within the agency.
Beyond just ministerial accountability, this legislation builds
in accountability that Parliament itself will have an opportunity
and an obligation to exercise. As is the case now, we as
parliamentarians approve the establishment of new national parks.
We as parliamentarians do now and will continue to approve the
annual appropriations which the Canadian parks agency will be
receiving.
The summary of the corporate plan will be tabled by the minister
in this House for the review of parliamentarians.
In terms of the corporate plan, the annual review, which will be
undertaken by the minister, will not only contain our objectives
but will also analyse and determine whether we are achieving
those objectives.
1705
I mentioned there will be a biennial report which deals with
the ecological integrity of our special places. Not only will
the minister receive and review that report but it will come to
Parliament.
In conclusion, 113 year ago our predecessors made the decision
to protect and preserve the newly opened wilderness around Banff.
Today we are the beneficiaries of that vision and foresight.
The establishment of the Canadian parks agency reflects our
effort and will provide us the tools to fulfil that vision into
the future.
It is important to us in the House and indeed to all Canadians
that 113 years from now Canadians will look back and know and
appreciate that the decisions the House will take today and in
the weeks to come in terms of this legislation will lead to the
protection and the creation of the special places that will be
the enjoyment of Canadians in the 22nd century.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that was a very interesting speech. The pairing off of the parks
from Heritage Canada and the insertion of the junior ministry of
parks I believe has been a very positive step in the management
of parks in Canada.
I have had a good working relationship with this minister and I
would hope that, all partisan politics aside, it might continue.
The purpose of the Canadian parks agency act is to administer
and protect our national parks, national historic sites and other
heritage areas. This is a very important part of Canada. Indeed,
as Reformers representing the grassroots, ordinary Canadians,
more and more people across Canada are coming to see and
understand and value the importance of parks and the preservation
of parks.
We may have different visions and from time to time we find that
some of the visions of this minister, indeed of this government,
are rather restrictive and a touch myopic, but nonetheless we
have the ability to dialogue. I think we have established a
working relationship here that the Liberals clearly understand,
that the Reform Party is very keenly interested in maintaining
our natural ecosystems, in maintaining the ability of Canadians
to be able to know, see and understand the importance of parks in
their lives.
At present the responsibility for parks, as I have mentioned,
falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage. Although this
agency will still report back to this minister and the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, maybe we have to give even more creative
thought as to how we can even further depoliticize the whole
issue of parks.
The new agency will remain accountable through the minister to
Parliament. One of the concerns we had when we first saw the
title of this act was that it was a step further removed in terms
of being answerable to the people who are elected on behalf of
the citizens of Canada to administer parks, but indeed it is not.
One of the major reasons we recognize that parks are unique in
terms of their administration is that there are many things that
we can do to create and there are many things that we can
dismantle or take apart and then rebuild from a legislative
perspective. When it comes to parks what we have to all clearly
understand is that we are talking about living ecosystems. We
are talking about our very environment. We are talking about
being able to do absolute total damage that is irreparable.
1710
We all recognize and acknowledge that. Again I want to make the
commitment on behalf of the Reform Party that any actions taken
with respect to parks, any management of parks, are taken from
our perspective with that in mind.
We also like the idea that the agency will be more efficient
since it will be able to raise and keep its own revenues, to
bargain directly with its employees, to permit third party
operators to administer certain facilities and to allow the chief
executive officer of the parks agency to set terms and conditions
of employment.
One of the difficulties there has been, because of the very
unique nature of parks in Canada, is to try to fit into a
template that simply does not fit. Parks are of an unique shape.
Parks do not fit into the box that most of the government
functions can easily fit into.
The agency will have access to a new $10 million parks historic
sites account. Any funds drawn from this account will be
repayable to the crown with interest. Even this in itself is
somewhat innovative and will permit a flexibility within the
parks agency that is not clearly available with the existing
legislation.
In relation to Reform Party policy, No. 5 in our statement of
principles is that Canada's identify and vision for the future
should be rooted in and inspired by a fresh appreciation of our
land and the supreme importance to our well-being of exploring,
developing, renewing and conserving our natural resources and
physical environment. We support the concept of environmentally
sensitive zoning. Therefore this park agency fits very well into
the established policy of the Reform policy as it presently
exists.
We are committed as a party to having our national parks and
heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost
effective manner. We support the agency's objective of cost
recovery while at the same time ensuring that fees at Canada's
national parks and heritage sites do not become prohibitively
expensive.
The minister will know that I have had some criticism in the
past. I continue with the criticism over the way in which the
entrance fees are administered in our parks. It is a hodgepodge.
It is an unenforceable hodgepodge. It is one which is very
important.
If we were to take a very rough figure of $350 million as being
the parks gross budget, at this point approximately $50 million
of that is accounted for in terms of fees, rents and leases in
external money coming into the park. The problem is that 40% of
that, $20 million, comes from park entry fees that cannot be
administered effectively. In fact, it is in a position of
causing people to really cheat and creates an environment where
there is a sufficient advantage for people to cheat on these
fees. We are losing that revenue side. It is this kind of thing
that is currently going on within the parks system that will not
be resolved with the establishment of the parks agency.
I believe that the structure of the parks agency will lead to an
environment where questions like this can be dealt with in a more
business-like manner. It is the same thing as the enterprise
units that were established on an experimental basis. These were
the hot pools in the four mountain parks. It was a first step in
the direction of the parks agency that the revenue coming from
the hot pools in Banff, Radium and Jasper would be able to go
into its own account and be accounted for. Unlike the current
system within the rest of the federal government where funds that
come in go into consolidated revenue, these funds would be
earmarked. This enterprise unit would be able to administer the
pools in a business-like way. There has been some success with
that as a first step.
The Reform Party has taken a look at a number of these things
and we see some real glimmers of hope that there is going to be a
much more rational approach in the area of financing the parks.
1715
Canadians benefit through a continued service at the parks and
sites. The flexibilities and authorities provided in the
legislation are designed to support the agency in delivering
services within substantially reduced budgets.
To comment parenthetically for a second, it may be known that I
have the good fortune of having four parks in my constituency,
Mount Revelstoke, Glacier, Yoho and Kootenay National Park. Of
course, Kootenay is adjacent to Banff and Jasper parks and
Waterton in the southwest corner of the province of Alberta. I
am actually surrounded by a tremendous number of parks.
I am indeed fortunate to live where I do. I also live near the
people who work at these parks and they have spoken to me. They
have my ear. They have some concerns with respect to how the
parks agency is going to relate to them as the workers in the
parks. I look forward in committee to having input from people
representing all the layers involved in the delivery of services
in the parks.
It is the Reform Party position that first there is the
necessity through services like the ranger service to ensure that
the physical management, administration and enforcement within
the parks are maintained at a very high level. That is very
essential to ensure the integrity of the parks.
Second, with respect to the delivery of the other services,
particularly for parks visitors, it is the party's position that
it is done in a cost effective way. It must be done in such a
way that Canadians will always be able to access the appropriate
places in the parks where they should be going so they can enjoy
their out of door experiences.
With this in mind while speaking parenthetically, one of the
major disappointments to me as a member of Parliament occurred
when Parks Canada in its present life decided it would start
contracting out. It struck me that what we should have been doing
at that point was rather than going to contracting out without
having established the structure of the parks agency, that we had
an effort to do something without having any idea of what the
structure was going to look like. That struck me as being a very
shallow way for us to be going ahead and doing something which
perhaps was politically popular at the time.
Of the 3,500 parks employees there are many people, whether we
are talking about top management or about hourly workers, who
legitimately have been very concerned about their livelihoods.
They are concerned about whether they are going to have a job, if
they are going to be able to buy running shoes for their kids
next month.
This has been very unfair. I was very happy to see Parks Canada
back off a very flawed process. With that in mind I close my
parenthetic remarks.
The people who are going to be affected by the parks agency I am
sure with the co-operation of the minister will have access to
the committee to speak to the various provisions of the
legislation. Whether they are in unions or are non-unionized
hourly workers or whether they are in management, they must be
able to have access.
We should also bear in mind some of the unfortunate things that
have happened. For example at the Department of National Defence
people have come forward to make submissions and have been
chastized for it. I am sure that would never ever happen with
Parks Canada.
Through the parks agency Canadians will benefit by the creation
of new parks and sites. We have to be very careful. We do not
have a limitless chequebook. We have to recognize that the money
that will be expended on parks in the future is coming from the
taxpayers' chequebooks.
We have to be very prudent in the way we do that. On the other
side of the coin, we also have to recognize there are some
identifiable areas in Canada that we have to look at and which we
have to preserve for the benefit of our children and our
grandchildren.
1720
Under the parks agency there is the potential to have enhanced
accountability to Canadians. The legislation, while encompassing
the existing activities associated with national parks, national
historic sites and related protected heritage sites, reinforces
roles which engender pride and give expression to our values and
identity as Canadians.
The minister will retain full power of direction over agency
activities. The legislation provides for new or improved
accountability mechanisms to Parliament. These are the parts that
we really like: a summary of the corporate plan and annual
report; a biennial state of Canadian protected heritage areas
report; the tabling of management plans for national parks and
national historic sites in Parliament; and a unique mechanism
which requires that the agency hold a biennial forum which will
permit Canadians from all walks of life to share their views on
the agency's program and to participate more fully in the
management direction for these treasured national places.
These parks do not belong to the minister. They do not belong
to members of Parliament. These parks belong to the people of
Canada, and who better to have a say in the way in which they are
managed and the way in which they are preserved and enhanced for
the future of Canadians. In that respect we find that part of
the parks agency legislation to be the most beneficial.
Working toward the completion of the national parks system and
to enhance the systems of national historic sites and marine
conservation areas is probably the biggest single challenge we
have. This is most likely the area where we would end up with
whatever disagreement we would have with the Liberals. I would
not see it as being a political difference of opinion although
the Liberals have a well-deserved reputation of intervening in
many situations where there does not need to be government
intervention.
We see being able to co-operate with the Liberal government,
with any government. For example, three and a half years from
now when the Reform forms the government, we would look forward
to the participation of the Liberals with us along with whoever
else gets the remnants of the seats in Canada. We would hope
they would co-operate with us in the continued management of the
parks.
There has been a challenge of maintaining the services and
achieving long term goals. With that in mind again we are
enthusiastic supporters of the way in which the accountability
has been structured within this bill. I have stated that the
agency will report directly to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
who will in turn be accountable for its activities before
Parliament. Current mechanisms to ensure responsible public
dialogue and accountability will be enhanced.
There will be a summary of the corporate plan of the agency, a
five year plan, and management plans for the national parks and
national historic sites, and an annual report on the agency's
operations. There will be a summary of the prepared report at
least every five years on how the human resource regime supports
the values and principles established by the government
management of human resources. There will also be a biennial
report on the state of Canadian protected areas.
We find the way in which the funds are going to be administered
also makes a lot more sense, that of accountability, of the
financing being on a two year operational rolling budget
providing an annual carryover of funds.
We have had an exceptionally light snow year in the mountain
parks, not that these are the only parks in Canada. Heaven only
knows they go from Newfoundland to the Arctic and back—
An hon. member: And Peterborough.
Mr. Jim Abbott: —and Peterborough.
1725
In the mountain parks where there is normally a tremendous
requirement for snow clearing and road maintenance, although this
year has not been a breeze, it has been the next thing to it.
The cost has been very low. This was really quite fortunate
because Parks Canada initiated a system whereby it ended up
pulling the maintenance facilities for the road clearing
equipment from where it should be and I believe should continue
to be, back to Lake Louise.
I really hesitate to think what would have happened if we had
had a normal snow year or a heavy snow year. However, the gods
of snow shone favourably on this Liberal government in spite of
its rather bone headed way of doing this road clearing
reorganization.
My point is that the two year rolling budget is going to be
beneficial exactly in that situation. When there is a low cost
year, why would we turn around and paint signs and bridges that
do not need painting? We would do it under the existing regime
because the money had been left over from the snow clearing. But
then next year, when we did not have El Niño and we ended up with
a dump of snow in the parks, we would be short on budget.
As a matter of fact a couple of years ago it was so short on
budget because of a heavy snowfall in Mount Revelstoke Glacier
National Park. On the Trans-Canada Highway over the Rogers Pass
there was a series of accidents as a result of not having
sufficient salt or gravel to take care of the Trans-Canada
Highway.
This is an absolutely classic example of why the parks agency is
going to be such an ideal fit in its present form. We are going
to look at it. We are not giving it the green light completely
but at least it is a faint green light. There are some good ideas
which recognize that parks in Canada are not like a theatre
operation which comes under the heritage minister and they are
not like a television network. Those are things that can be
built up or cut down. However, we cannot build up and cut down
on what we are doing with respect to natural ecosystems in parks.
In conclusion, a major concern that we have in this process and
one I am sure we are going to have good co-operation on from the
minister is to ensure that all interested parties, all people who
will be impacted by the parks, will have an opportunity to have a
say in committee.
Again I am going to remark parenthetically. There is the
situation when the marine park in Quebec was set up recently. I
was the parks critic and I said I was looking forward to people
being able to make representations at committee. That did not
happen. We basically got involved in a clause by clause study.
For the people reading Hansard or the viewers who might not
understand, we went over the legislation clause by clause, shall
this clause pass, shall that clause pass and then boom, it was
back in the House. I was very disappointed with that process.
I just want to say very clearly to the minister that will not
happen on this bill. We will give everybody who was involved
particularly on the human resource side an opportunity to have a
kick at the can. We want them to help us understand, perhaps not
only from a legal point of view but also in their judgment as
they read the words, what this will mean to them in terms of
everything from collective bargaining to the way in which their
hours will be set, the whole nine yards.
The Reform Party will be supporting this legislation at second
reading to go to committee for this process. As I said to a
colleague just before I rose to speak, when I am the heritage
minister I will probably do this legislation this way.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: When the House resumes consideration
of this bill, the hon. member will have 16 minutes and 47 seconds
remaining in his remarks.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
KAMLOOPS INDIAN BAND TAX
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the taking of several deferred divisions, pursuant to
an order adopted earlier today.
The first recorded division is on ways and means Motion No. 10.
Call in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 194
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nunziata
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Strahl
| Vellacott
|
Williams – 41
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Crête
| Fry
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goodale
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lincoln
|
Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Speller
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Valeri
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
ways and means Motion No. 11.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 110]
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, an
act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be read the third time
and passed.
The Speaker: The next recorded division is on the third
reading stage of Bill C-21.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is
unanimity that the hon. members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
Liberal members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote
yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the small
business community in York South—Weston I will be voting in
favour of this bill.
(The House dived on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 195
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Penson
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Vellacott
| Williams – 40
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Crête
| Fry
| Girard - Bujold
|
Goodale
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lincoln
|
Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Speller
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Valeri
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1805
[English]
HOBBY FARMERS
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the definition of hobby farmer stated by Disaster
Relief Canada should be split into the following two
definitions: (a) Hobby farmers: individuals who seek careers
outside agriculture and have farms for recreational or
investment reasons; and (b) Junior farmers: individuals who
intend to become fulltime farmers, but currently are forced
to seek off-farm income to build an equity in their farming
business.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this evening to rise to
debate private member's Motion No. 11. It came about as a result
of a situation in my riding in the summer of 1996. I introduced
a similar motion in the last Parliament which died on the Order
Paper and, therefore, I have reintroduced it in this Parliament.
Since I first drafted the motion circumstances across the
country have brought new relevance to the whole issue of how
farmers, particularly part time farmers and small businessmen,
are compensated in instances of natural disaster.
In the summer of 1996 there was a situation of serious overland
flooding in the northern part of my riding.
In my part of Alberta and in many parts of Canada part time
farming has become a way of life because the economic realities
of farming demand that many farmers, or members of their
families, take off-farm employment to supplement their farm
income in order to survive. The very fact that they demonstrate
the determination and the willingness to do this has brought
about a situation where they are ineligible for disaster relief
funding under the criteria of the guidelines of national defence.
It has created a serious and almost ridiculous situation where a
farmer or a businessman on one side of the road receives disaster
relief funding to compensate him for damages to his property,
while his neighbour across the road is denied that funding.
I do not want to get into a debate over whether or not the
natural disaster was worse in one area than in another. I firmly
believe that the effect on the individual is the same, whether
you are an individual among thousands or an individual among
hundreds. My heart goes out to everyone who suffered through the
Red River flood in Manitoba and the Saguenay flood in Quebec, as
well as this winter's ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.
The very occasion of a natural disaster has a devastating affect
upon Canadians. It robs them of their valued property and
possessions. It certainly takes away their financial security
and their peace of mind.
I can sympathize with those individuals, having operated a farm
for probably 35 years. During many of those years I had to take
off-farm employment in order to build equity in my farm.
I know what it is like when you are young, you have a dream, and
you and your family work your hearts out to build that dream. In
a matter of hours those dreams can be wiped out and destroyed by
a natural disaster. That kind of loss, in itself, is enough to
destroy families. Many families in my area have been destroyed
through no fault of their own, but through circumstances which
arose as a result of these natural disasters.
We have to stop and imagine the anxiety and distress that would
be added to the suffering because of the uncertainty over whether
or not these farmers would receive assistance through Disaster
Relief Canada.
In the last three years farmers across this country have
suffered serious damage to their farms and businesses due to the
flooding of rivers and streams all across the country.
1810
Extensive media coverage made all Canadians familiar with the
Saguenay flood in Quebec, with the Red River flood in Manitoba
and, of course, with the ice storm in Quebec and Ontario.
Certainly less attention nationally was given to the floods of
1996 and 1997 in northern Alberta. It was the flood of 1996,
which occurred during the same summer as the Saguenay flood,
which motivated me to draft and to introduce this motion.
Following the flood in northern Alberta my office was bombarded
with phone calls from farmers who were seeking assistance and
disaster relief. The majority of the phone calls came from part
time farmers who were not covered by Emergency Preparedness
Canada because they earn more than half their income off-farm.
The federal government's response to their pleas was nothing
short of a slap in the face.
My constituents were forced to sit by and watch as side
agreements were made to compensate hobby farmers affected by the
Saguenay flood, the ice storm and the Red River flood, although
there seems to be some confusion about whether part time farmers
did receive compensation for damage caused by the Red River
flood. Certainly that was the case in the Saguenay and in the
areas affected by the ice storm. Individuals in northern
Alberta, in 1996 and 1997, were denied that funding.
It is for this reason that my motion asks for the definition of
a hobby farmer to be divided into a hobby farmer and a junior
farmer under the Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines.
The current definition assumes that all farmers earning less
than half their income from their farms have those farms for
recreation or investment purposes.
In my riding it is more often the case that so-called hobby
farmers are part time or junior farmers who intend to become full
time farmers but who are forced to seek off-farm income to
supplement farm income.
In the case of the ice storm, the part time farmers in question
were the maple sugar producers whom I visited shortly after the
storm. They have an extremely short season and under the current
system are penalized for having the drive and ambition to seek
additional work during the off-season.
Ironically, the majority of part time farmers reinvest their
off-farm income into their farms to build equity, to accumulate
capital and quota until they are able to maintain a full time
farming operation.
The advantage of splitting the definition is clear. Hobby
farmers who own farms for recreation and investment purposes
would still be excluded from disaster relief programs, while part
time or junior farmers would automatically be included in federal
disaster relief programs.
Part time farmers would no longer have to wait for or rely on
side agreements that are negotiated entirely at the discretion of
the Treasury Board. This would eliminate the problem of regional
inequality whereby some part time farmers, like those affected by
the ice storm and the Saguenay floods, are given assistance while
others are not.
Northern Albertans were denied additional assistance by the
Treasury Board, while part time farmers in Quebec and Ontario
received it for reasons known only to the Liberal cabinet.
Presumably the smaller magnitude of the Alberta flood in terms
of dollars and cents was the reason. However, whether 200 or
2,000 farmers were affected, the impact on the individual farmer
is the same.
How can it be justified to a part time farmer in Alberta that he
will not be helped because not enough people were affected? It
makes no sense that a person be given assistance for damage done
by what was clearly a natural disaster while his neighbours
across the road or his colleagues in other parts of the country
are denied the same.
The devastation to the individual farmer in Alberta was, most
assuredly, equal to the devastation experienced by the individual
farmer in southern Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario.
The Liberal government is proud of the compensation given to the
part time farmers affected by the Saguenay flood as it was the
first time part time farmers have ever been included in a
disaster relief agreement.
However, this move is only commendable if it is applicable to
farmers across Canada under similar circumstances. Otherwise, it
is little more than a divisive tool that deepens the gap and
increases regional tension among Canadian provinces.
The divisiveness of federal policies was one of the primary
reasons for the formation and continued existence of the Reform
Party. Any policy or legislation that allows one farmer to be
helped while another is ignored under identical circumstances
hinders Canada's growth as a strong and united country.
1815
Therefore in order to ensure equality, legislation should be in
place to prevent the need to negotiate on a case by case basis.
Let me give an example of one of the many part time farmers who
would stand to benefit from this motion. I received a call from
one farmer who started a grading business on the side to
supplement his farm income. This farmer is by no means wealthy
or a foreign investor or keeping a hobby farm for investment
purposes. Rather, he is a farmer with 200 head of cattle who
wants to raise his income in order to be able to keep his farm
going so he took an extra job. Unfortunately, because more than
50% of his income comes from his grading business, this farmer is
ineligible to apply for assistance under Disaster Relief Canada.
The farmer's hay and alfalfa fields were the only feed he used
for his cattle. His other flooded fields were used for grazing
his cattle. Without some sort of relief, this farmer was faced
with selling or slaughtering his cattle because of his inability
to feed them. Flooding also resulted in limited work for the
graders.
Therefore this farmer, like so many other affected part time
farmers, felt that he was financially destroyed. Certainly this
is only one example among hundreds of similar stories from my
constituency as well as Peace River to the west of my
constituency.
In a letter to one my constituents, the executive director of
Alberta Disaster Services expresses his dissatisfaction with the
current criteria for qualifying for assistance. He too has
received many phone calls from frustrated farmers forced to give
up their farming business. The eligibility criteria are outdated
in light of the current reality.
The current reality is that the agricultural community has
changed significantly and has come to depend on the contributions
of part time farmers. It is becoming increasingly difficult for
families to live on farm income alone.
In the last three years over 300 part time farmers in northern
Alberta have applied for disaster relief funding and have been
denied eligibility under the program. While the numbers seem to
be dropping year by year, I think that is more a result of
farmers becoming more aware of their ineligibility for the
program than a drop in damages.
The recent ice storm reminded Albertans once again that everyone
is not treated equally in this country and certainly not under
Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines. This needs to be
remedied.
The only clear solution, therefore, is to distinguish between
hobby and part time farmers and businessmen and to amend the
guidelines to ensure equal assistance for all part time farmers
and small businessmen in the event of a natural disaster. This
assistance should be automatic as it is with full time farmers
and businessmen and not decided on by a partisan body like the
Treasury Board.
At this time I would like to point out that even the hon.
members opposite have noted the need to reassess existing
eligibility criteria. In the fall of 1997 I was told that
Emergency Preparedness Canada was in the process of reviewing
eligibility criteria in consultation with a working group from
the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I sincerely hope
these discussions are progressing quickly.
Changes need to be made as soon as possible because, as we have
been recently reminded, one can never be certain when or where
another natural disaster will occur. I also sincerely hope that
the hon. minister of agriculture, as he has assured me, and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are actively pursuing equitable
access to relief for all farmers.
It is most important that all members of this House, especially
the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, give this motion
fair and serious consideration. Through the division of a single
classification into two separate classifications, this motion
will do two things. First, it will ensure fairness. It is
unfair to continue to lump part time farmers with the owners of
recreational farms. Part time farmers need to be recognized for
their unique contribution to agriculture and must be protected
against natural disasters that will adversely affect their farms.
This motion will also establish equality between part time
farmers no matter what the disaster or where the farm is located.
It will prevent the bitterness and resentment arising from
perceived regional favouritism.
1820
To emphasize this equality it is also important that the
government retroactively compensate those part time farmers and
businessmen overlooked since the Saguenay agreement with part
time farmers, including those denied assistance after the
northern Alberta flood. I believe this motion addresses the
suffering of all part time farmers and businessmen affected by
the natural disaster and it is an important step in securing the
future of part time farmers in Canada.
Therefore I conclude by asking every member of this House to
give this motion his or her full attention, consideration and
support.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
National Defence is also responsible for emergency preparedness
and the disaster financial assistance arrangements. As the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence I am
pleased to speak to the motion before us today and I welcome the
hon. member's suggestions.
I would like to take members a few weeks and remind them of our
most recent disaster, the ice storm of 1998. Although this storm
had a devastating effect on so many people in Ontario, Quebec and
New Brunswick it also showed us Canadians at their very best,
banding together in times of trouble to assist their friends and
neighbours. This was a national crisis requiring a national
effort. People worked together to overcome adversity. I am proud
and I know Canadians are proud of their efforts and the high
level co-operation between the federal government and the
provinces, local authorities, community groups and scores of
individual Canadians.
I also want to mention the role played by Emergency Preparedness
Canada. This Department of National Defence agency worked
closely with other federal departments and provincial governments
to ensure that the emergency response was there when it was
needed. A federal emergency operations and co-ordination group
worked basically around the clock to locate, buy and transport
emergency materials in response to provincial requests for
assistance.
Emergency Preparedness Canada also co-ordinated public
information across all federal departments and agencies
participating in the relief efforts. But we were not only
reminded of Emergency Preparedness Canada's value during the
recent ice storm, it was also there during the disasters in
Saguenay and Manitoba, Peace River and Athabasca.
While provincial authorities were in the lead during these
emergencies, the federal government was there for support where
and when needed. When the federal government was taking steps to
ensure that we can provide support for future disasters, and in
response to disasters in recent years, the President of the
Treasury Board asked the Minister of National Defence and the
Minister of Industry to undertake a review of federal financial
assistance to provinces and territories following natural
disasters.
This review is under way and has been carried out by an
interdepartmental working group with representatives from
Emergency Preparedness Canada, Industry Canada, Western Economic
Diversification and the Economic Development Agency of Canada.
For the regions of Quebec the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
and the privy council and Treasury Board secretariat are also
involved in this.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be among the other key
federal departments consulted. They will also consider the
findings of the working group that presents the recommendations
to Treasury Board.
Provincial and territorial governments will have the opportunity
to comment on the working group's findings. They will also be
able to make their own recommendations on any changes to the
disaster assistance arrangements before a final version is
adopted by the federal government.
As part of its review the working group will examine the
disaster financial assistance arrangements as well as eligibility
criteria for disaster relief to farmers.
I want to assure the hon. member proposing the motion and all
members in the House that the economic recovery of the
agriculture sector after a major disaster will continue to be a
major concern of this government. The financial assistance
provided by the federal government in response to the January ice
storm is a recent example of how the government helps the
provinces, their citizens, including farmers, to recover from
natural disasters.
A share of the $25 million the federal government has already
provided to the Ontario government and a share the $50 million to
the province of Quebec under the disaster financial assistance
program arrangements are destined in part for full time farmers
in these two provinces.
However, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has announced
that part time farmers in Quebec who were hardest hit by the ice
storm can look forward to $50 million in further federal
assistance to help get them back on their feet.
1825
The fifty million dollar federal ice storm recovery package for
part time farmers, although outside the disaster financial
assistance arrangements, addresses the main concerns put forward
by the hon. member in his motion, namely that part time farmers,
including so-called hobby farmers and the junior farmers category
defined by the member's motion, will receive financial assistance
from the federal government to help them recover from the ice
storm.
Without going into the details of the program administered by
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, let me point out that
this special ice storm recovery program provides part time
farmers in Quebec with $1,000 toward their eligible ice storm
related costs for each full week they were without power.
The minister responsible for emergency preparedness and the
Ontario ministry of municipal affairs and housing have announced
the joint financial assistance program that will help part time
farmers and rural communities in Ontario to the tune of $20
million. This assistance is being provided without changing
current eligibility criteria or definitions in the longstanding
disaster fund assistance arrangements.
We all know how devastating the ice storm was for so many
people, including many farmers. We all want to do our part to
help these people get back on their feet. This private member's
motion reflects the very Canadian desire to help our neighbours
when they are need. But because we are currently reviewing the
eligibility criteria for farming operations and there is a
special program for part time farmers devastated by the recent
ice storm, I believe this motion to change the current definition
of hobby farm under the disaster financial assistance
arrangements should be put to the interdepartmental working
group.
I assure all hon. members that this government cares about all
Canadians, including all farmers, who suffered major losses during
the January ice storm and other major disasters that wreaked
havoc on their homes, farmsteads and essential personal
properties. This government stands on its record of providing
financial assistance in disaster stricken provinces in a prompt
and equitable manner. We have done this through the longstanding
disaster financial assistance program and the arrangements that
flow from it.
When circumstances warrant, as in the case of the recent ice
storm, we have provided support outside these arrangements with a
special ice storm recovery program for part time farmers in
Quebec and Ontario. We are consulting and reviewing these
arrangements to ensure we can continue to help people when
disaster strikes.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion
on Disaster Relief Canada's definition of part time farmer is
incomplete. Every time there is a disaster, there is the big
problem of how to compensate these farmers who do not come under
the program's very specific categories.
The motion introduced today would expand the definition of
hobby farmers, without changing the surrounding text of Diaster
Relief Canada's definition.
Even with a broader definition, part time farmers would not be
better covered by the disaster relief program. From this point of
view, the motion becomes almost pointless.
After the flooding in Lac-Saint-Jean, and in the context of
municipal tax reform, Quebec looked at the definition of part time
farmer. It includes some useful categories covering people
starting out in farming, so as to allow them time to get up and
running, as well as all forms of specialized farming requiring a
certain number of years to become established. I am thinking, for
instance, of orchards, which are not productive initially and where
the operator must look elsewhere for money to get his enterprise
going.
1830
However, part time farming, or at least as I know it in
Quebec, is vital. It is important, in my opinion, because in
certain places it holds communities together and makes a major
contribution to the economy, because people increasingly have to
look for income from other sources to combine with what they earn
in their business. Some communities would be changed drastically
without all the part time farmers, who hold things together and
provide support.
In such cases, the importance of part time farming cannot be
denied, and the term hobby farmer is an insult to all those who
play a vital role in supporting the community.
Obviously, it is in times of disaster that we discover the
weaknesses in such assistance programs. At such times, there is a
lot of co-operation and assistance, because it is a time of crisis.
However, when things settle down, and it is time for action, for
rebuilding and compensation, the questions begin. Action must be
taken within the framework of the programs.
I listened to the suggestions earlier about the study
undertaken by the ministerial task force, but I think their work
should be reported to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and to
us so we may consider all angles of it, because from the
definition, we assess the criteria and then things get more
complex.
Reference was made as well to the programs that were
implemented, and I would like to return to the statement made by
ministers Vanclief and Massé on February 17. These two ministers
of the federal government announced unilaterally that they would be
granting aid of $50 million to part time farmers in Quebec.
The federal government said that, with this program, and that is
the crux, part time farmers will receive from the federal government
assistance comparable to that provided to full time farmers under the
disaster assistance arrangements.
When assistance programs are implemented after a disaster or some
other difficult event, we can see the hardship experienced by the
farmers and how important it is for part time farmers to be included in
the group that requires protection and help to get back on their feet.
However, as it stands, the agreement does not cover them.
Part time farmers were told on February 17 that they would be
treated exactly the same as full time farmers. This has not been the
case.
For full time farmers, the Government of Canada and the provinces
share the cost 90-10, but in this program a 50-50 split was demanded.
I think that the intent of the announcement made on February 17 has
not been respected, which creates another problem, which is a major one
in my opinion: duplication with respect to the cost of administering the
program.
I inquired how the implementation of the program for full time
farmers was coming along and I learned today that some 9,000
applications had already been distributed: 6,000 for full time farmers
and 3,000 for part time farmers. This information comes from Quebec
agricultural information offices because we in Quebec are close to our
farmers. They are registered with us.
1835
But it is a system that is already in place and that,
unfortunately, has some experience, because of the flooding in the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. One learns rather quickly in this
kind of situation, although one would have preferred not to have
had to.
But the result is that farmers have already been surveyed and
work is proceeding very quickly. We are prepared to sort out the
problem of part time farmers.
But now another system is being introduced for part time
farmers that goes through a different channel, that is therefore
not as easily accessible to farmers, who are very familiar with
their regional offices, and that, worst of all, increases this
program's administrative costs.
In crisis situations such as this one, I think the need is not
to increase visibility or administrative costs, but to meet the
needs of these part time farmers as quickly as possible.
As my colleague pointed out, some of them are hobby farmers,
but others are young or not-so-young people with growing
agricultural operations. For those who know this sector well, in
these circumstances, every cent counts.
So, a solution must be found. We must not wait for another
disaster before finding a solution to this problem.
In this sense, it is true that we must look at the definition of
part time farmer or part time farming, as they would have it.
I would like to make one final point. The inflexibility with
which the $50 million program is being implemented in Quebec is
costing farmers dearly. A shared-cost initiative was discussed,
without both parties being required to participate. It is rare for
two parties to act together when the consultation is all on one
side. This was the case here. The measure introduced in no way
took into account Quebec's programs.
For all these reasons, therefore, and I would like to speak at
much greater length because this is an issue that touches me
deeply, the expression part time farmer must be redefined.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca for bringing Motion
No. 11 before the House. It enables us to speak to the very
crucial and important area of part time farmers.
We recognize farming in general as one of the stronger
frameworks of Canadian society. That is where the permanent
settlement is. These are the people who come into an area and
make a commitment, not to stay for a year or two or three but
perhaps in many cases for generations.
As my friend from Athabasca indicated these are extraordinary
families. Farming is not a job. It is a life. It is a
lifestyle. It is a career where one works in a sense 24 hours a
day. Not only does the farmer work but the entire family works,
friends probably join and extended families become part of the
operation. It is one of those aspects of economic development
that does not fit the usual economic model. We are talking about
people who are prepared to devote their lives to developing a
farm.
As others have indicated, obviously for many this starts off as
a part time operation. That is the way, particularly these days,
for young people to get into farming or in British Columbia, in
my area, what we normally call ranching. One cannot afford the
money to simply take over an operation on a scale that will
enable the making of a decent living.
Consequently most farmers or ranchers I know have to seek off
farm work to make a go of it unless it is a huge corporate
operation. Those running the typical family farm or ranch are
inevitably driving a school bus, working at part time teaching,
running a gravel pit on the side, or who knows what.
1840
In other words, it does not take much for farmers to find
themselves in situations where they consider themselves to be
full time regular farmers but find out that half their income has
to come from someplace else to make a go of it. That is the
nature of the business and I think we acknowledge that.
My hon. colleague from Athabasca has provided a very valuable
service to the country. I have had consultations with my
colleagues from Winnipeg—Transcona, Winnipeg North Centre, and
the leader of the New Democrats in Manitoba, the member of
Parliament for Provencher.
In the area of Manitoba that experienced serious flooding
problems there are still hundreds and hundreds of farmers who
have not received any support as a result of all types of
jurisdictional disputes and in my judgment some rather
insensitive political leadership in that province. That is the
area I know best in terms of the details.
Let us look at the disasters that have befallen many food
producers, farmers and ranchers in Alberta, northern British
Columbia and elsewhere. When these folks apply for support in
recognition of a natural disaster that has occurred in their
region, they are told that there is no support, that there are no
programs available. Yet, when the same thing happens in other
parts of Canada, lo and behold there are all kinds of programs,
all kinds of support.
As my friend has indicated even then there they have problems.
If one point becomes clear today, it is that the whole area of
farmers dealing with natural disasters and receiving some kind of
support or encouragement to get them through these difficult
periods has to be re-examined.
We have the interdepartmental task force but that is not where
the answer will lie. It is a cumbersome process, to begin with.
The agricultural committee, as my hon. friend has indicated,
might be a place to begin. My suggestion would be that the next
time agricultural ministers from territorial and provincial
governments across the country get together with the federal
minister of agriculture, one of the items on the agenda should be
how to deal with this issue in the future.
Flooding will not stop this year. Ice storms may not stop this
year. We certainly hope they do but they will probably come
back. Some form of natural disaster will occur.
If there is one thing we have learned it is that existing
programs do not work well. They do not treat people fairly. They
are not offered in an equitable and fair way. Some farmers are
eligible; others are not. Some parts of the country seem to me
to be treated different from other parts of the country when it
comes to farmer support during natural disasters.
The whole thing is kind of a hodge-podge and we need to
acknowledge that. There is a serious problem. The parliamentary
secretary to the minister of agriculture in his speech today
acknowledged that point. While we send the issue off to the
interdepartmental task force, that is one step but it is not good
enough.
We owe the member a great deal of gratitude for bringing this
matter to our attention today. The issue of farming and the fact
that people have to seek off farm employment to survive as a
legitimate farmer these days has to be acknowledged.
We are moving into a whole new world of hemp cultivation. The
federal government announced that regulations were in place so
people could start growing what I call industrial marijuana or
hemp. This is a new enterprise. When we consider that there are
50,000 identified uses for hemp, this will provide an awful lot
of marginal farming operations with one other crop they can
pursue as long as those markets are developed appropriately.
Let us deal with the whole issue of what is a legitimate farmer.
What is a legitimate part time farmer? What is a hobby farmer?
We acknowledge that hobby farming is a reasonable category as
well. Then let us identify appropriate ways to compensate
farmers for natural disasters, when, where and if they occur, in
a fashion that is fair, justifiable and equitable to all.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not want to give a long speech. However, I listened very
carefully to the member for Perth—Middlesex, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
I thought he explained particularly well the role of the federal
government in dealing with natural disasters and how the special
nature, magnitude and focus of a particular event and the nature
of the farming community affected by the ice storm encouraged the
federal government to move into the area of assisting part time
farmers.
We have great sympathy for the very large number of people in
that category in eastern Ontario and Quebec. I think it was the
particular circumstances and I think the member explained the
federal government's position with respect to disasters.
1845
The member opposite who raised this issue knows that we cannot
anticipate the nature, scale or even location of disasters.
Therefore we have to be flexible. In this case the needs of part
time farmers were particularly strong.
I happen to know from personal knowledge that the member for
Provencher has been working hard to get the province of Manitoba
to amend its agreement. He has been encountering great
difficulties at the level of the provincial government. I
encourage the member for Provencher to continue doing that.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a real
honour to stand in favour of my colleague's motion. There is no
doubt that the challenge to farmers these days is higher in all
likelihood than it has ever been, although I remember as a
youngster growing up on a farm in Saskatchewan that things were
not very easy then either.
In the year I was born the farm had produced nothing for two
years in a row. When I said in another speech in the House that
I grew up very poor, it was because of that fact. When I came on
the scene in 1939 two things happened: the drought came to an end
and the war started. I do not know how we would correlate that.
Let me turn to the motion and the definition of farmers and the
need for government help when they meet disaster. The speech of
the parliamentary secretary gave one of our grievances out west.
There seems to be an immediate program for disaster in some parts
of the country. In no way are we insensitive and unsympathetic
to that. However, we observe that when we have similar disasters
in our part of the country the federal government seems to be
much less sensitive to them. It seems to be very difficult for
us to obtain help for those who need it.
There are many areas in which there seems to be a discriminatory
attitude. I had an interesting case reported to me in my riding.
A young farm couple was having a great deal of financial trouble
making ends meet. It was tough. Income was slow and there were
many pressures in terms of higher costs and the need to work long
hours for a very low rate of return.
This couple found that there was federal legislation stacked
against them. She had to take a part time job to pay the bills
and keep the farm running. Lo and behold, she got in what we
call euphemistically the family way. She is now eligible for UI,
as most people are, having taken a job in one of neighbouring
towns. It is one of the benefits under that program.
Because she also had an interest in a farm, the government
applied some very stringent and unreasonable rules in computing
their average, forcing them to take 15% of their gross income and
apply it as income to the family. She only wished they could
make 15% of their gross income; it was much less than that. As a
result, she is ineligible for the UI benefits that everyone else
receives. They were and are a family that is struggling
financially.
1850
In the north end of the wonderful constituency of Elk Island
there are farmers who for two years in a row have not had a crop,
either because of too much rain at the time of seeding or too
much rain at the time of harvesting. They have not been able to
get their income. As a result they are facing tremendous
financial pressures.
Is there help for them? No. It does not seem to come from
anywhere. Their financial distress is as severe as those who
suffer from more immediate and sudden weather disasters, which we
have heard a lot about in the last couple of years.
I emphasize again that I am neither unsympathetic to them nor
saying in any way that they should be cut off. What I am saying
is that there ought to be a system of equity applied so that
different members of society and the farming community are
treated equitably. Those with financial difficulties because of
circumstances totally beyond their control as in the case of
aberrant weather should have assistance from a government program
as do others in different parts of the country.
A lot of people are part time farmers and part time everything
else. Some farmers in my riding and elsewhere who among other
things went into trucking because there was not enough income
from the farm to keep the farm going. Consequently they get
involved in trucking or some other part time business. They take
employment in the oilfields or in my riding in some of the
chemical plants. Some farmers in Saskatchewan had to take jobs
in the potash mines just to supplement the farm income and keep
on farming.
As a result they are ineligible in their farming operation for
some other benefits. Even with the passing of the Crow rate
there was some tremendous inequities because of the application
of certain rules that apply on the federal scene.
I urge members of the House to support strongly my colleague's
motion. Action should be taken. The motion was not drawn for
being a votable motion so it appears, having had the pleasure of
getting this off our hearts, nothing will be done about it. That
is wrong. Action should be taken.
The motion is one of great importance and urgency. If we cannot
vote on it in the House and bring in an act that will result in
some changes, at least my colleague has brought the matter to our
attention, to the attention of the government and to the
attention of ministers who are in a position to do something
about it.
If the government were to bring forward a bill to address the
issue in the way my colleague is suggesting, it would receive the
attention the House would be willing to give it. Certainly our
party would support it, provided that it met the criteria my
colleague is suggesting. We should do that.
I challenge the government and the minister to look at it, to
treat it as a matter of urgency and to do something about it. It
is not sufficient and it is not satisfying to me as a member of
Parliament for farm families in my riding, in Athabasca, in some
cases who have been in the farming business for years and for
generations, to face the loss of their property at this stage. I
urge the government to do something about it and to bring in a
government bill that will bring this matter to a resolution.
I sincerely hope this will not have been just an hour of debate
but that something will result from it.
The Deputy Speaker: When the hon. member for Athabasca
speaks he will close the debate.
1855
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
really do not know how to express my disappointment at the
response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence to this issue. Either he misunderstood issues
in the motion or he chose to ignore them almost totally.
It is wonderful news that the Department of National Defence and
other departments are considering changes to the way disaster
relief funding is provided to small businessmen and to farmers.
Another fundamental issue that he refused to even acknowledge
was that there was a flood in northern Alberta and that the
Alberta government applied for special funding for disaster
relief for part time farmers and small business people. That
request was denied to farmers and small business people in
northern Alberta on two occasions, once the same summer and now
this winter, for whatever reasons. I have to assume because they
were in a different part of the country that special funding was
provided. That was a sad day for Canadian unity, for equality
and for fairness across the country. I was certainly
disappointed.
While the flood in my part of the world was nowhere near the
magnitude of the Saguenay or of the ice storm, certainly I know
of farm families that were destroyed and are no longer families.
I know of farmers who committed suicide because of the economic
and personal hardship they suffered because of the disaster. To
simply brush them off as not important and not worthy of the same
kind of consideration as farmers in Ontario and Quebec is simply
wrong, unfair and unworthy of a government that has
responsibility for all Canadians.
I heard from the member of the Bloc Quebecois Party and others
that there was some desire to have the issue go further. I would
like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to refer this
subject matter to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food for further study and recommendations to the minister.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the hon. member for Athabasca. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. The
period 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.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, over
the last few months I have had the chance to familiarize myself
with the reality of immigrants and refugees trying to settle in
Canada in hope of a new life.
Without a doubt, starting a new life again in an often entirely
different social and cultural environment is a long and difficult
process. I thus believe it is our collective role to facilitate
the adaptation of newcomers who wish to participate fully in our
society.
Let us not forget that most of us are immigrants or descend from
people who decided to settle here two years or two centuries ago.
Canada, as we all know, is a country of immigration. We are all
immigrants except for the aboriginal peoples.
Over past decades immigrants have made enormous contributions to
the success of our economy. The mix of people of various ethnic
origins has enriched our national life tremendously.
Following the release of a report from an advisory group in
January 1998, the minister announced her intention to review the
Immigration Act. We agree that our immigration policy and
practices need some refreshment. People seeking protection in
Canada are often waiting more than two years before their case is
settled.
I recently had someone calling me, saying that her family was
separated since 1991 because of complications in the sponsorship
procedures.
1900
Another dramatic example of the limits of the system is a case I
was personally touched by, a drama that took place in my own city
of Halifax. I am referring to the four Filipino seamen who
courageously reported an incident of three Romanian stowaways
while their ship, the Maresk Dubai, sailed toward Halifax.
These four courageous men asked for Canada's protection after
their families in the Philippines were harassed and intimidated
due to their testimony against the captain and five other crew
members who allegedly forced the Romanian stowaways overboard.
Although going back to the Philippines appeared to be a threat
to these people and their family security, they were denied
refugee status by the Immigration Refugee Board. The board's two
member panel concluded that the harassment was not sufficient to
be considered persecution. Now their only chance is through a
request to the minister for exceptional humanitarian
consideration, but that same minister refused to allow the
seamen's family members to come and testify during the refugee
board hearings. What chance do they have? Under basic justice
principles these men and their families truly deserve our
protection.
This is the kind of example that makes me worry about the
changes coming to the Immigration Act. The government seems to
think of immigration as an economic tool with people seeking
protection as a secondary category.
We will also remember this Liberal government as the government
that imposed the infamous head tax on newcomers. This $975 right
of landing fee imposed on all adults becoming permanent residents
is reminiscent of the head tax that was used to prevent the
establishment of Chinese Canadian families at the beginning of
this century.
The new head tax is disproportionately affecting refugees and
families immigrating through sponsorship. The United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees raised some concerns that refugee
access to protection might be affected since many are coming to
Canada with limited financial resources.
When I asked the minister to remove this offensive tax she
responded: “According to our studies we have penalized no one
wishing to settle in this country”. When I asked her for those
studies I was informed they did not exist. People working
closely with immigrants clearly told me that there was an impact
on low income families. It is time for the minister to realize
this tax, the resource from which does not even serve to help
newcomers settle in Canada, was a mistake.
The current review process is a good time for this government to
give some indication of the future direction of our immigration
policy. Will that direction be toward a restricted view based on
cold economics and fear of differences or rather toward an open
policy that recognizes both the positive impact newcomers have on
our collective life and the humane dimensions of immigration?
The Canadian government must live up to its commitment and
change its current policy of giving priority to investors and
economic immigration over family reunification and humanitarian
cases such as the case of the seamen from the Maresk Dubai.
Removing the head tax would be the first step in that—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, family
reunification has been and continues to be very important for
this government. There are no limits. It is strictly on demand.
There is not a cap nor is there a quota on family reunification
in this country. There was none before, there is none now and
there will likely be none.
The report of the advisory committee to the minister is not a
government report. The minister has said that she has concerns
with aspects of that report. There are also interesting and
useful aspects of that report. If the hon. member wants to
participate in that discussion it is important that he does so at
this time. It is important when the decisions are made that they
be the right decisions for Canadians and for immigrants.
With respect to the issue of fees, as we are all aware, certain
fees are associated with obtaining permanent residency in this
country. The government recognizes that some individuals,
specifically refugees, may have some difficulty in paying these
fees. That is why a loan program is in place to offer financial
assistance to these individuals.
I do not understand my hon. colleague's concern about this
program or his implication that it does not work. In every
respect it has been a major success story. First, there is no
evidence to suggest people are being unfairly penalized by our
fees. The loan program ensures money is available to individuals
in genuine need. In fact, 95% of the beneficiaries of loans are
refugees. Second, we are not simply giving this money to people.
It is a loan. I am pleased to inform the House that over 92% of
the loans have been paid back. Repayments to this revolving fund
in 1996-97 totalled $10.2 million.
This not only demonstrates the government's commitment to
helping immigrants and refugees enter Canada, it also speaks well
of the integrity of newcomers who are coming to our country to
start new lives.
1905
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February
24, I asked the Minister of Finance on the eve of his balanced
budget to address the serious concerns about funding for
post-secondary deaf students in Ontario.
Beginning on April 1, 1998 funding for post-secondary education
and disability related post-secondary school support will no
longer be the responsibility of vocational rehabilitation
services in the ministry of community and social services.
Currently students in the VRS program receive financial support
to cover direct costs such as tuition and books as well as
indirect costs such as a living allowance, interpreters and
note takers.
Through VRS counsellors these students also receive advice and
support in planning their educational and vocational careers.
As of April 1 these students will be required to seek assistance
instead through the ministry of education and training's Ontario
student assistance program and through special needs offices in
colleges and universities.
The Ontario Association for the Deaf has identified a number of
specific concerns around this new formula. First, eligibility
for financial assistance will be based on a family's income as
determined by a needs test. It is anticipated that many current
VRS students will not be eligible for OSAP and that will impose
immediate and significant financial burdens on families.
Second, special needs offices in colleges and universities are
already overworked and understaffed. In addition, they do not
have the experience or expertise to meet the unique
communications needs of deaf and hard of hearing students.
Although a total of $4.9 million is being transferred to meet
these students' access needs, no details have been announced
about how much is being allocated to each institution and how
these funds will be used.
Third, the valuable consultation and support currently provided
to students by VRS counsellors will cease on April 1. No
provision has been made to replace this essential vocational
planning support.
Finally, many deaf and hard of hearing students are not
academically ready for post-secondary studies. No accommodation
has been made for the funding of upgrading and retraining
programs.
Parents and students are extremely upset, confused and angry
with these new developments. The domino effect for deaf students
and all disabled students continues as the government continues
to balance its budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.
Disabled students are being short changed in their educational
opportunities. This will seriously weaken their employability
and this will perpetuate the cycle of unemployment and
underemployment that has plagued people with disabilities
historically.
I ask the government to seriously consider the additional cost
of education facing deaf students and all students with
disabilities. I ask the government to keep the promises it made
to the disabled in its 1996 task force report “The Will to Act”
and to start doing the right thing for the disabled in this
country.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to state that the Government of Canada is committed
to providing all Canadians with the opportunity to access
affordable post-secondary education so that they may prosper in a
knowledge based economy.
The Canada student loans program recognizes the particular needs
of students with permanent disabilities. A special opportunities
grant of up to $3,000 a year is designed to offset certain
exceptional education related costs incurred as a result of
disability.
Students who are unable to pay their loans because of disability
may also apply for a permanent disability benefit in the form of
loan forgiveness.
Effective August 1 this year, Canada student grants will also
offer up to $3,000 per year to students who have permanent
disabilities and dependence to assist them in their full time or
part time studies.
The Canadian opportunities strategy will also help Canadians,
including Canadians with disabilities, to succeed in the changing
economy. It provides for improved access to knowledge and skills
for all Canadians through the new $2.5 billion millennium
scholarship fund, a fund which persons with disabilities will
also be able to tap into.
The budget will also help Canadians coping with student debtload
with tax relief on interest payments and debt assistance to those
facing financial difficulty.
I also want to point out that the 1998 budget announced
additional tax measures to recognize the cost associated with
disabilities. Following the 1998 budget, tax assistance measures
for disability and medical expense now represent $635 million per
year in tax credits.
1910
Our budget also proposes a new special tax credit for
caregivers. In last year's budget $30 million for the
opportunities fund to help between 4,000 and 6,000 Canadians with
disabilities find and keep jobs was announced. Indeed the
Government of Canada is committed to people with disabilities
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to have a chance to say a few words about the state of
child poverty in our country.
I remember a very wise person once saying that you can tell a
great deal about a society when you see how it cares for its
children. On that count the federal government has to be
somewhat embarrassed. This morning, probably in the richest
country in the world, 1.4 million children woke up living in
poverty.
As someone said recently in this House, when a parent fails to
provide basic food, shelter and clothing for a child they are
often charged with child abuse. It is considered to be a form of
child abuse when you deprive a young child of decent food,
clothing and shelter. Yet when a government does that it is
called balancing the budget or getting the fundamentals in place,
or some various of that.
The reality is tens of thousands of children every week in our
country have to go to food banks with their parents in order to
survive. Tens of thousands of young children from coast to coast
to coast are living in conditions that are completely
unacceptable. They are living in little dark, damp basement
suites, tiny cubicles in overcrowded tenements, forced to stay in
a broken down motel on social services in some community.
When we consider that the richest country in the world has a
government that stands passively by and is prepared to accept the
reality that 1.4 million children must live in poverty, it is
nothing short of immoral. We should be embarrassed as a
Parliament and as a country. The government should place as the
highest priority to take steps to ensure that these children no
longer have to live their lives in poverty.
I suspect there are some people who would say that is just the
way the world is, there are no alternatives and there are always
poor children. That is not the case. There are many countries
where there are no poor children. Norway has no poor children.
There are no poor children in Denmark. The reason there are no
poor children in Denmark or Norway is there are no poor parents
living in those countries.
They have social and support programs that place a value on
children and young people. When a mother has to leave her place
of work in order to bear a child she gets a year's leave at 90%
salary. The father gets a leave up to a year with 90% salary.
That country puts a priority on parents being able to be there at
that very crucial young age to nurture, develop and support and
to give that young child the kind of break in life he or she
deserves.
What do we say to the 1.4 million children who live in poverty?
It means they are being denied a whole set of things in their
lives that they should not be denied. I realize poverty does not
necessarily mean that you live a deprived lifestyle but it
certainly goes a long way to see that reality.
The Conference of Catholic Bishops said that for the Government
of Canada to stand passively by and allow 1.4 million children to
live in poverty is in fact a form of child abuse.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, child poverty is a pressing
issue and the concern of everyone in the country. It cannot be
eliminated overnight. It cannot be addressed by one level of
government alone. The federal government has recognized this
issue and its complexity and is therefore determined to continue
to address it as a priority in collaboration with the provinces
and territories.
1915
That is why we have built the national child benefit system.
That is why as a first step in our last budget we allocated $850
million to begin increased support to over one million children
and their families starting this coming July. That is why we
have allocated in this year's budget an additional $850 million
to enrich this benefit over the next two years, $425 million as
of July 1999 and another $425 million as of July 2000.
The goal of this additional initiative is simple: pooling
federal, provincial and territorial resources to ensure that
children are always better off when their parents leave social
assistance.
In summary, when the annual federal assistance provided to
families through the Canada child tax benefit system is fully
implemented it will have increased by $1.7 billion, which is more
than 30% since 1996.
The government is committed to giving our smallest infant and
older children a good start in life. The national child benefit
system will play a key role in fighting child poverty so as to
help provide that good start for them.
This is our collective duty to humanity.
[Translation]
INARI
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this evening's adjournment debate.
On November 25 and December 1, I questioned the Minister of
Foreign Affairs about a problem affecting the residents of the
riding I represent in the House. Litigation continues between
three constituents and a nebulous non profit organization that is
accredited with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the
international agency for rural industrialization, better known as
INARI.
On May 5, 1997, the individuals involved complained to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs about this agency, alleging fraudulent
practices and false representations. Nearly a year later, they are
still waiting for the matter to be resolved.
In brief, the facts are as follows. A number of Canadians and
Quebeckers, including the three I referred to earlier, paid
substantial sums to INARI and incurred considerable expenses to be
repaid in initiating a rural industrialization project.
The agency, it must be understood, appeared entirely credible,
because it was using the United Nations' logo, prestige and network
to carry out its operations. These people saw their investments
rapidly disappear, thus discovering the agency's lack of
responsibility and dubious practices.
Claims for refunds and compensation have been made to the
director general of INARI, a man named Okorie Okorie, who could not
offer anything but false hopes. This has had serious consequences on the
psychological, social and financial well-being of the families involved.
Investigations and redress procedures have been launched by the
victims. Messrs. Audet, Daoust and Yee did not miss the opportunity to
inform me, as well as my colleague, the member for Marguerite-d'Youville
at the National Assembly, of the problems they faced. As a matter of
fact, we made representations jointly to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
to ask him to intervene in this matter to defend these people and all
the other Canadians and Quebeckers whose rights were obviously abused by
this agency.
The Quebec minister of international relations, Sylvain
Simard, was also interested in this matter, as were some of the
media, who made inquiries of the United Nations only to be turned
away and to see a number of those responsible for this sidestep the
issue.
There is definitely something very fishy here. It seems that
the federal government was aware of these dodgy manoeuvres by
INARI. INARI's financial director, a certain Louie Moore, had
apparently been convicted of fraud in the United States, and banned
from France on the same grounds. Yet, on a number of occasions, he
was able to cross the border in order to pursue his illegal
activities on Canadian soil.
It was therefore the duty of the Canadian government to
intervene in order to assist the victims and ensure such a thing
could never happen again.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs therefore wrote last December
informing me that a representative of the Canadian delegation to
the UN would be attending the next meeting of the committee
responsible for NGOs, in mid-January 1998, in order to make sure
this case was raised and that proceedings were initiated to resolve
the disputes.
That committee would then have the authority to suspend
INARI's observer status and, eventually, to withdraw any United
Nations accreditation. We are now half way through March and have
still heard nothing about the outcome of this theoretical meeting.
In my opinion, the victims of this fraud have waited long
enough, and they now deserve to know where the matter stands, after
the meeting of the UN committee responsible for NGOs.
1920
It is high time the government showed some compassion regarding
this issue and informed the House and those directly affected by this
fraud of the outcome of its representations to the United Nations.
These dispossessed people have suffered enough because of the
irresponsibility, the proscratination and the apathy of the people
involved.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in May, three
businessmen from the Montreal region wrote to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to complain about the fraudulent practices of the international
agency for rural industrialization, a non-governmental organization
accredited with the United Nations.
A reply was sent, explaining that INARI is a private organization
based in Togo, with the status of observer at the UN's Economic and
Social Council and its subsidiary bodies. It is strictly in that
capacity that INARI participates in ECOSOC's debates, and its status
does not in any way engage the responsibility of the UN or its member
states regarding the legality of its activities.
Since INARI is a private organization based in Togo, the Canadian
government does not have jurisdiction to get involved in the management
of its internal affairs.
Still, we did report the complaint made by these Canadian businessmen to
the UN secretariat, which pledged to refer it to the UN committee
responsible for NGOs. The members of that committee—Canada is not one
of them—review issues relating to NGOs at the United Nations, and can
review, if necessary, the observer status granted to certain NGO's.
[English]
I undertake to provide the member with a full written version of
this reply.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.)