36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 59
CONTENTS
Friday, February 13, 1998
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Economy
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1005
1010
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1015
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1020
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1035
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1050
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1055
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CIVITANS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1100
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE EDDIE SARGENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRIBUTE TO DORA WASSERMAN
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUNTINGTON SOCIETY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARKHAM RESOLUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1105
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINTER OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STUDENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1110
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRIDGEWATER
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1115
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1120
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1125
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1130
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUG LICENSING
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1135
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1140
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1145
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA'S ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1150
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1155
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRPORT SECURITY
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REVENUE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1200
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-319. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-320. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1205
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-321. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-322. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-323. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL LITERACY STANDARDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-324. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION STANDARDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-325. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-326. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-327. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1210
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-328. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-329. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIVORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-330. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-331. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-332. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-333. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-334. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-335. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL JUDGMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-336. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1215
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-337. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXCISE TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-338. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXCISE TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-339. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIVORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-340. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-341. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-342. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-343. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN CHILD RIGHTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-344. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-345. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-346. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPRETATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-347. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXTRADITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-348. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-349. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-350. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDIAN ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-351. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-352. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-353. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND TITLES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-354. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSION FUND SOCIETIES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-355. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVACY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-356. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAGES LIABILITY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-357. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARKHAM RESOLUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1220
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Economy
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1235
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1250
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1305
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1310
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1330
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LOUIS RIEL DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1350
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1355
1400
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1410
1415
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1420
1425
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 59
![](/web/20061116193053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 13, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That this House condemns the
government for promoting an economy where the gap between
the superrich and ordinary Canadian families is widening,
risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges the
government to introduce in the coming budget measures
ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new
prosperity.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we
have introduced a topic in the House for debate today which is a
very important and growing issue right across the country, the
issue of increasing inequality.
For many years in the sixties and seventies the gap between the
rich and the poor was narrowing in this country and we were proud
of some of the progress we had made. New social programs like
the Canada pension plan and universal health care had narrowed
the gap between the wealthy people and the poor people of this
country.
It was a legacy that we were all proud of as Canadians.
1005
I remember very well back in 1968 when the then leader of the
Liberal Party and the prime minister of the country, Pierre
Elliot Trudeau, campaigned across this country about a just
society and decreasing these disparities. That went on for a
while, but in the last 10 years or so, and in particular since
this Liberal government came to power, we have seen the creation
of what I call the unjust society where the gap is widening once
again between the wealthier people and the poorer people in
Canada.
As we are only two weeks away from the budget, it is important
that we start putting some of these issues into the public record
and debate what I think is a big issue in this country, two
classes of Canadians, the wealthy Canadians, the very wealthy
Canadians and the rest of Canadians, particularly the poorer side
of the spectrum.
What I want to do this morning very briefly is put some
information into the House and hopefully put some parameters on
the debate we are having today.
Since 1989, which I am going to use as our base year, average
family incomes in Canada have fallen by roughly 5%. They have
gone down, not up. This is despite the fact the Minister of
Finance says the economic fundamentals are right, unemployment is
finally starting to go down, inflation is below 1%, that the
budget is going to be balanced and there will be a fiscal
dividend.
Despite all that and despite the fact the economy, as the
minister says, is doing better, the question is better for whom.
It is certainly not better for the average Canadian family whose
income has gone down by 5% in the last seven or eight years.
Since 1989 we have 538,000 more children living in poverty in
this country, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The
number of food banks has tripled in Canada since 1989. The
number of people filing for bankruptcy has tripled since 1989.
We also see that the number of low income persons in 1996 was
40% higher than in 1989. What we are seeing now, I maintain, is
the creation of an unjust society that is going to be the legacy
of this Minister of Finance unless he changes his priorities and
starts to redistribute income and opportunities in Canada. That
is what this debate is all about this morning.
What are the reasons for this? I think there are four or five
very obvious reasons. One has been the determination of the Bank
of Canada over the last number of years, with the support of this
finance minister and previous finance ministers, to fight
inflation and put inflation ahead of the creation of jobs and
economic growth. That has slowed down the economy, created
unemployment, made the borrowing of money more expensive and
slowed down the expansion of small businesses and the farm
economy right across the board.
Second, there is no priority in this country to create jobs.
There are no targets for reducing unemployment and poverty like
we have had targets for reducing inflation in Canada. The big
one has been the cutback by this Minister of Finance in the
transfers to the provinces on health and education. This has
increased disparities right across the country.
In addition to that, we have had the gutting of the unemployment
insurance system by the Minister of Finance in an effort to save
money to balance the budget.
Finally, I suppose the symbolism of what is happening where the
rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer was the
announced proposed merger of the Bank of Montreal and the Royal
Bank about two weeks ago. I predict that unless the Canadian
people and the Liberal backbenchers in Parliament get up and
speak about this, the Minister of Finance will acquiesce to this
demand of his friends in the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank
come about October or November of next year.
These are some of the reasons why the disparity is growing. I
have had a chance to look at focus groups over the last couple of
months and a major concern has been the growing gap between the
rich and the poor, growing inequities which have created despair
and poverty and crime and the social unrest we are starting to
see not only in our big cities but right across the country.
When we talk about income disparity, this is something we should
all be concerned about. Last year the top 20% of the Canadian
people saw their incomes go up by almost 2%. The bottom 20% had
a decrease in their incomes of around 3%. The disparity widens
and it widens under the tutelage of the Minister of Finance. We
see tremendous disparities.
Chief executive officers had a 14% increase in salaries in the
last year while their workers had an increase in salary in those
same factories and same companies of some 2.1%. CEOs received
14% and workers received 2.1%.
1010
The CEOs of the Toronto stock exchange 300, those companies in
TSE 300, who exercised their stock options in 1996 enjoyed an
average increase of $653,700 in the last year, up from $238,000
in the previous year. In contrast, the wages of the CEOs'
employees were raised by an average of 2.1 % in 1996, again a
tremendous disparity that all Canadians should be concerned
about; once again, the creation of what I call the unjust
society.
Another good example is the whole question of some of the
salaries of some of the leading CEOs in the country. I can
mention Matthew Barrett, the president of the Bank of Montreal or
John Cleghorn, the head of the Royal Bank in Canada. Both of
them, with stock options and salaries and bonuses, enjoy salaries
of well over several millions of dollars each and every year.
Then of course there is our good old friend Frank Stronach, the
president and CEO of Magna International. I want to tell a
little about Frank Stronach, the friend of the minister across
the way of financial institutions. Frank Stronach had
compensation last year of $43.2 million. Frank Stronach said:
“If I add up all the hours I've spent working over the last 40
years, I probably haven't made much more than the minimum wage”.
That salary is $43.2 million.
Let us do a little calculation. At $7 an hour, minimum wage, it
would take Stronach, even if he worked 24 hours a day each and
every day of the year, some 688 years to make some $43.2 million.
And the ministers across the way just smile and they say that is
fine, they contribute to our party. That does not matter. We
are friends of Frank Stronach, we are friends of John Cleghorn,
friends of Matthew Barrett. Whatever they want they will get.
These growing disparities in our country ought to be of great
concern to us. It is not just Frank Stronach or the Cleghorns or
the Matthew Barretts, but wealthy 2% or 3% of the people in this
country are increasing their salaries, increasing their
compensation, increasing their bonuses month after month and year
after year and the disparity is widening. That is not a very good
legacy to leave to the next generation.
I want to close, because I want to share my time with the member
for Vancouver East, by pointing out some international statistics
that we should take note of in terms of the gap between the rich
and the poor. This is based on household income. We will find
here that Canada has the second largest gap of the seven or eight
countries in the OECD.
In the United States the gap between the rich and the poor is
over $54,000. In Canada it is $42,500. It is the eighth largest
gap of these nine countries. We are the second worst in terms of
the gap between the rich and the poor.
I plead with the minister who is going to respond today on
behalf of the Minister of Finance, the minister of financial
institutions, to get up and tell us how they are going to create
in this country more equality and more fairness between the rich
and the poor. It is an extremely important issue. It is a sad
commentary on our country, a country of great prosperity, with
great potential, to see that out of the nine leading countries
like France and Britain and Germany and the United States, we
have the second largest gap between the rich and the poor.
What we are seeing now is the creation of the unjust society,
the legacy of this Minister of Finance and the legacy of this
Prime Minister.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member spoke at length about CEOs and how much they earn. I
wonder what he is exactly suggesting here. Is he suggesting that
we just print money and pay everybody $2 million a year? In
which case we know for certain that it will not be long before we
will be like Russia, communism all over again with total collapse
of the economy, no incentive to work, no incentive for private
enterprise or business whatsoever.
I would like to know if he is suggesting that. If not, I would
like to know whether he is suggesting that we reduce everybody's
wages to $10 an hour, in which case I hope he and his colleagues
would set an example by getting out of their business class seats
on their flights back to Vancouver and by starting to act like
socialists.
1015
Surely they can see that 30 years of government overspending to
get us $600 billion in debt did not create any jobs. We had the
worst unemployment when we had $40 billion deficits every year.
It is only now that unemployment is coming under control, thanks
to Klein and thanks to Harris who finally have brains in their
heads unlike the socialists who were in power.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am always very happy
to receive a comment and a question from the Reform Party. People
watching the debate should know that Reformers are against this
motion. They want to create more inequalities, more disparities,
more money for the rich and less money for the poor. That is
exactly what he is saying in criticizing our approach.
We are not talking about printing money. That is where he came
from: Social Credit and funny money back in B.C. and Alberta many
years ago. That is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about a Canada in which disparities will be
decreased as they were in the 1960s and 1970s when the
disparities between the rich and the poor were gradually
decreasing because of programs and tax policies that were of more
benefit to lower income people than they were to wealthy people.
That is the direction we want to go in. We can do it through
the tax system. We can do it through emphasizing growth and the
creation of jobs. We can do it through the federal government
spending money on health and education. That is what Canadians
want according to all the polls we have seen and all the people
we have spoken to. They want more money put back into health and
education.
The Minister of Finance has cut back on health and education.
Reformers would want even more cutbacks on health and education.
They worship at the altar of Mike Harris. They worship at the
altar of Ralph Klein. They worship at the altar of the far right
in the world like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan, but that is
not the way the Canadian people want to go.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the comments made by my two colleagues, one from the Reform Party and
the other from the NDP, and I see two worlds. One is the capitalist
world so aptly described by my colleague from the NDP, which is
heartless and would have us take as much as we can out of the pockets of
the poor.
Let me give you an example. There was a report in yesterday's Le
Soleil about a family of five in Rivière-à-Martre, in my riding, that
had lost their home. This happened just recently. This is not a
hypothetical case. They lost their home because someone did not have
enough hours to qualify for employment insurance, which to me will
always remain poverty insurance.
This morning's Le Soleil reports the case of a lady in Carleton who also
lost her home. These are facts.
My hon. colleague from the NDP said that
banks are allowed to make billions while the government is withdrawing
from everything. Would he agree that—incidentally I congratulate him on
his speech—when we try to help out a small business, there is so much
red tape and government standards are so high that we end up doing more
harm than good. I would like to hear what he has to say about this.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my hon.
colleague from Quebec.
From time to time, things do get too complicated at the federal
level and in many provinces. I also agree with my colleague when he says
that the Reform Party stands at the extreme right of the ideological
spectrum in this country. It is an old-style ideology, a Margaret
Thatcher ideology. We saw how the Reform Party reacted when I mentioned
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The Reform Party is also good
friends with the likes of Frank Stronach and Conrad Black, the very rich
in this country. Those are differences. But the extreme right is not at
all the position held by the people of Canada.
1020
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
NDP opposition motion before us today is an important one because
it comes just before the introduction of the budget. It gives us
an opportunity to take stock of the reality facing most
Canadians.
There is more than enough evidence to show why the government
should be condemned for promoting an economy where the gap
between the rich and ordinary Canadians is widening. As my
colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, has so eloquently
pointed out, there is enormous statistical information and
evidence in our local communities about what the impact of
Liberal government policies has been in every part of the
country.
The reality is that between 1973 and 1993 the richest 30% of
Canadian families saw their share of the nation's income increase
by 5.4%, while the poorest 50% saw their share drop by 9%. This
represented a $14 billion transfer from low and middle income
Canadians to high income Canadians. We have information and
evidence to show that over the last decade there has been an
enormous growing disparity, something that Conservative and
Liberal governments have abysmally failed to deal with.
We hear a lot of rhetoric in the House about the growing concern
for children living in poverty. We have to understand that
because of the policies of the government we have seen an
increase in the number of poor families in Canada. Most of us
would find it shocking to know that in this wealthy country we
now have five million Canadians who live below the poverty line.
Recent statistics from the Canadian Association of Food Banks
show that the number of Canadians who depend on food banks is now
something like 2.5 million people.
At our last caucus meeting we had a delegation from the Canadian
Association of Food Banks that rightly told us its mandate was to
see that food banks were eliminated. The main issue in terms of
what causes the need for food banks is income inequality, the
lack of income for poor people, the working poor and the
unemployed. That has to be addressed in the upcoming budget.
The reality is that in Canada there are now half or more
children living in poverty. In a country such as Canada that has
tremendous wealth and resources this is something we simply
cannot tolerate.
We have to ask what are the reasons for this growing inequality.
It was very interesting to read a recent Angus Reid poll in the
Globe and Mail which showed that 69% of Canadians felt that
the federal government was deliberating pursuing economic
policies that were widening the gap between rich and poor
Canadians. This growing understanding within local communities
and within Canadian society as a whole has been completely
ignored by the Liberal government.
The Minister of Finance and other members of government continue
to say that they are the defenders of social programs, young
people, seniors or the unemployed. The real evidence is in the
changes to our employment insurance program. The report tabled
yesterday in the House demonstrates in a very tragic way that 37%
of people who contributed to EI are now eligible for it, whereas
a few years ago it used to be 87%.
We have seen a situation where the cuts in the Canada health and
social transfer have had a devastating impact on our health care
and education programs. More than that, we have seen debate take
place about the multilateral agreement on investment. There is a
seriousness about that debate. Canadians understand the Liberal
government is pursuing with an aggressiveness we have never seen
before a race to the bottom or a race for globalization, which
means there will be a transfer of power to vary powerful
corporations and a growing income disparity within our country
and in global terms.
1025
The hon. member who spoke before me addressed the very serious
situation of the last few weeks with the merger of banks or the
proposal to merge two of Canada's major banks. It was a real
test to see whether or not the Liberal government was willing to
stand up for the people of Canada and to say that the merger was
not in the best interest of any Canadian, that it was not in the
public interest.
Instead we saw a response that was ambiguous, that was waffling,
and that called for review and study. We want to see leadership
such as we have seen from the New Democratic Party. The
government should state clearly that the merger of these banks
will fail the Canadian people and will increase the growing
inequality in our country.
I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about some of the local
impacts of the policies of the government and why its economic
policies should be condemned by relating them back to my own
riding. My riding of Vancouver East includes the lowest income
neighbourhood in Canada, the downtown east side. Every day I
meet constituents who come to me with their issues and concerns.
I am reminded of Frank who came in to see me and told me that
his income was $770 a month. Of that he is paying $540 a month
in rent. That is an issue of being one step away from
homelessness. That is an issue of stark reality in my riding. It
is not just my riding. It is right across the country.
There is also a man I meet on the street from time to time whose
name is Gary. He lives in a cardboard box. He is homeless. He
wishes the federal government had not abandoned the social
housing program, our national program for housing, in 1993.
In my riding of Vancouver East every day I meet people who are
living in what is called single occupant rooms in incredibly
substandard housing that in any middle income or middle class
community would not be tolerated. Yet the reason people are
living in this kind of housing is that the federal government
abandoned its social responsibility and its fiscal responsibility
to provide a social safety net to make sure that no person goes
hungry or homeless.
That is the real evidence of what I see in my riding of
Vancouver East in an urban community as a direct impact and
result of Liberal government policies.
I have also met many students at Carleton University, the
University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia and
Simon Fraser University who have told me about their rising debt
load. They are now carrying debts of $25,000, $30,000 and
$40,000 as a direct result of the massive cutbacks to
post-secondary education by the Liberal government of $2.29
billion since 1993.
Being a new member of the House and listening to the debate, I
have heard many times members of the Liberal government talk
about their professed concern for young people and the future.
Young people are sick to death of waiting. They are fed up with
the rhetoric. Their debts are climbing. Their inaccessibility
to post-secondary education is growing. They understand clearly
it is as a result of Liberal policies that have eroded our public
education system.
A few months ago the NDP held a number of round table
discussions across the country. One of them was on youth
unemployment. Again the message was the same. Young people were
saying they were fed up with government programs that provide a
few months of training or a job opportunity and then there is
nothing.
In speaking to the motion today as to why we should condemn the
government for its policies, we want to say roundly and strongly
that its policies have had a devastating impact on low income
people, on poor people and on the middle class.
We have an opportunity today and in coming days to reorder the
priorities and say that we are willing to set targets to reduce
unemployment. We are willing to set targets to reduce poverty.
We are willing to ensure there is a national child care program.
We are willing to say there is a national housing program. As
has been demonstrated by the alternative federal budget, these
things are affordable to us if we have the guts, the courage and
the leadership to say they are our priorities.
1030
That is why we are condemning this government for the policies
it has enacted.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform actually agrees with the NDP that the Liberal government
made a big mistake cutting transfers in support of education and
health. Since 1990 it has always been Reform policy that we
would not cut those transfers and that has always been printed in
our policy. So it is one thing we do agree with.
However the NDP is constantly bleating about the growing gap
between the rich and poor but it does not offer any solutions
other than taking other people's money in the form of taxes and
spending more. We do not help the poor by killing the rich. We
do not help the poor by destroying the rich. We do not help
people get jobs by destroying businesses.
New Zealand, which is the country I emigrated from, found out in
1983 that socialism does not work. I had a two hour meeting with
the prime minister at the time, Mr. David Lange. He was an NDP
equivalent. He told me that he had learned that without a vibrant
private sector there were no social programs. It just does not
work.
Capitalism does have a heart, but we see a different way of
getting there. If we do not have businesses with good job
creation we have not got any social programs whatsoever.
I ask the hon. member to give some solutions please. Stand up
and tell us how we get to where she wants to be. We have a plan
to get there and it is beginning to work. We can see it in
Alberta and in Ontario. Unemployment nationally is going down.
Let us hear her solution and tell us of a country where it has
actually worked.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. Frankly I am very surprised to hear that the
Reform Party agrees that cutting transfers was a huge mistake and
it has had a very negative impact on Canadians right across the
country.
What we have heard from the Reform Party time and time again is
that it also takes a slash and burn approach. When the member
offers up Ontario and Alberta as examples of what should be done,
my goodness, is there any other evidence that we need to
understand the direction the Reform Party wants to drive us in in
terms of throwing everybody into unemployment or into low wage
jobs.
In response to the question as to what are the solutions, I
would suggest the Reform Party might join the NDP in having the
courage to stand up and say that to have banks which make profits
of $7.5 billion is obscene, that there is wealth in this country
and the solution is in how that wealth is distributed. If we
could harness that wealth and make sure it is reinvested and
redirected to help ordinary Canadians, then we would be a lot
better off.
The response to the question is that we need to have fair
taxation. The Reform Party promotes an agenda and a program of
unfair taxation by basically letting off profitable businesses
and saying that somehow this will not create jobs. The reality is
that what this country needs is a program of fair taxation
whereby businesses and corporations pay their fair share of the
need to support a public infrastructure which is something that
benefits all of us whether we are rich or poor.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, February 13, for two
reasons. First, it is my mother's birthday. Happy Birthday,
Philomène. Second, I strongly support my colleagues to my left, the
members of the New Democratic Party.
I particularly support the tax system they are advocating. I
think the Canadian tax system is unfair.
Here is an example. Why is a single mother earning less than
$30,000, who sends her child to daycare, able to deduct $170 per
$1,000 of income while someone earning $60,000 under the same
system gets a tax break of $290 per $1,000 of income, a difference
of $120?
Do not give up, we are behind you. We too think the gap
between the rich and the poor has to be narrowed.
1035
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for his comments. We in the NDP agree with the
comments that have been made. The evidence before us in the
House concerning the growing disparity particularly for families
and for working people is something we should be ashamed of.
The hon. member mentioned the need for child care. I am sure we
would agree that this is a priority which has been completely
lost in the government's agenda. I remember well the promises
that were made to women and families of this country, that the
need for a national child care program was a key ingredient in
ensuring that women could become part of the workforce and in
ensuring that families were able to cope in today's society.
This has been completely abandoned by the federal government.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NDP has
raised a very important issue for all Canadians as well as for
people in other countries. It is the issue of income disparity.
Unfortunately there have been no solutions presented today. Is
the NDP solution to regulate and cap salaries and profits?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Fair taxes.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Fair taxes. If fair taxes is the
issue, then let us look at Canada's overall tax structure.
We all know that in the global world we have to have a tax
structure which is relatively competitive with those of our
neighbours. When we look at Canada among the G-7 countries, we
are square in the middle of the seven. Our total tax burden is
36% of GDP. At the highest end there is France where it is 43%.
At the lowest end there is the U.S.A. where it is 28%.
The competitive realities are that we cannot get too far out of
line with the Americans to the south. Our overall tax burden is
about 30% higher than that of Americans. However, I would never
advocate that we should go down to American levels. Part of the
difference is because we have a health care system which the
Americans do not have. It gives Canadians tremendous security
and it also gives us a competitive edge over the Americans.
Nevertheless when we consider our comparative tax levels we will
find that the personal income tax in Canada is 13.4% of our gross
domestic product and in the U.S. it is 9.8%. In Japan it is
6.4%. On top of that we have a capital gains tax which is among
the highest in the western world.
The progressivity of our tax system is something which I think
hon. members from the NDP should take into consideration. They
have great envy for the rich. Maybe a lot of people do. However,
these are the facts. Only 2% of tax filers in Canada have
incomes over $100,000 and they pay 21% of all federal taxes. The
lowest 60%, those with incomes under $25,000, pay only 4% of our
taxes. We believe that a highly progressive tax system is an
ingredient in creating equality of opportunity and fairness, and
we do not back away from that one bit.
What have we heard in terms of solutions? I have talked about
their cry for tax fairness. Do they want to tax the rich more?
That alternative is there. Ours is still the most highly
progressive personal income tax system in the western world.
1040
If the concern of NDP members is for those who have been
marginalized in our society or for those who have the greatest
difficulty in coping, then we have no dispute with them. We would
hope that they would support the measures that we have brought
forward.
One of our major concerns has been low income working families.
The Caledon Institute and studies by the finance department
revealed that there was a welfare wall. A family on welfare
taking in all of the benefits provided by governments was about
$3,000 ahead of a family with two children and parents working at
low wage levels.
That is what was called the welfare wall. It was a barrier to
leaving welfare and going into the workforce. We addressed the
matter not by lowering benefits to the lower income people on
welfare but by increasing the tax incentives for those who were
actually working.
This is why we brought in the working income supplement. This
is why in an agreement with the provinces we have entered into
the national child tax benefit. This government has committed
$850 million to the child tax benefit which goes to those low
income families. We promised during the course of our mandate to
beef that up by another $850 million. This is at a time when all
parties in this House recognize that our deficit and debt are
major economic problems and challenges for us.
At the same time, we have increased the tax incentives available
to Canadians with disabilities. We recognize that the costs of
working and being disabled, or existing and being disabled are
very high.
Mr. Rob Anders: Why don't you brag about raising taxes 38
times?
Hon. Jim Peterson: Would the hon. member please show a
little bit of respect if he has nothing intelligent to
contribute. If the Reform Party member has nothing better to add
to this debate than inane accusations not based on fact and
shouting and screaming, I wish he would—
Mr. Rob Anders: Thirty-eight tax raises.
An hon. member: Bring in civility to the House.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Civility is not within that new
member's lexicon.
We must recognize that Canadians with disabilities need to have
the added costs they bear each day taken into consideration. We
have done that through the tax system.
Education is a great leveller in our society creating equality
of opportunity. We will never as a government be able to create
equality among individuals but we can at least create equality of
opportunity.
This is why in spite of our fiscal difficulties over the last
four years this government has introduced numerous measures to
help students in the education system. These include increasing
the levels for registered educational savings plans, the
educational tax credit, deductibility of ancillary fees and
expenses for students.
There is also the innovation foundation to which we have
contributed $800 million. In conjunction with the private sector
and other levels of government, there will be a $2 billion fund
for investment in research and development in our hospitals and
institutions of higher learning.
Last fall our Prime Minister announced that access to education
is very important to him and to this government. He announced
the creation of the millennium scholarship fund. The finance
minister a couple of weeks ago said that we can look forward to
ongoing measures to assist students in the next budget.
These are some of the concerns we have had about creating
opportunity for all Canadians. We have put our money where our
mouth is.
From the NDP we have heard about, and I will quote the member
for Qu'Appelle who was supported by the member for Vancouver
East, “the obscene profits made by banks”. Yes, they made
record profits last year but they have also paid record taxes in
Canada. Canadian banks pay 64% of their net income in Canadian
taxes.
1045
Compare that with the United States where it is only 54% of net
income and the U.K. where it is 52%. Canadian manufacturers pay
47%. Canadian credit unions pay 45%.
Are hon. members in the NDP suggesting that credit unions should
be brought up to a 64% of net income tax level in Canada? Let us
hear about it if the Canadian bank profits are obscene. Do they
want even higher taxes on the banks in light of these figures?
I say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that on December 4, 1996
the leader of the NDP said in a press release that she welcomed
bank profits if they were earned through good management, sound
long term investment and progressive participation in the
Canadian economy. The leadership race in the member's party is
over. He lost. Maybe it is time he started to support his
leader.
We take no back seat to anybody in terms of taxes in these
areas. We are the ones that increased the corporate surtax, the
large corporation tax, and introduced the temporary surtax.
Mr. Rob Anders: Now you are bragging about tax increases.
Hon. Jim Peterson: I am proud of these three tax
increases we brought in because we had to get our deficit under
control. We in this party have legitimate concerns about the
poor in Canada and sustaining the programs that keep them going.
At the same time we have started the process of bringing down
gradually tax levels in a way that is sustainable, fair and does
not undermine the social and economic underpinnings of our
economy. We are making those investments and we are proud to do
it.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot let the opportunity pass without commenting on
the hon. member's speech. He proudly mentioned to the House the
taxes introduced by his government. Congratulations.
Who ultimately pays for increased taxes? The public. Those
taxes fall on the shoulders of the public. The government has
balanced the budget on the backs of the public. What has been
the outcome? The worst unemployment we have seen since the
depression.
I cannot let pass the NDP comments. Proud NDPers wear their
hearts on their sleeves. They profess to be the saviour of the
poor and underprivileged. What would they do? During the
election campaign it presented a budget to the public that was
proven not to work and to increase the deficit of Canada by tens
of billions of dollars.
For once I would like the public to see the absurdity of trying
to increase taxes while trying to help the poor. Increasing
taxes, increasing government spending and increasing deficits do
what? They compromise the very people all in the House would
like to help.
For all the negativism we have seen across the House, the Reform
Party is the only party that put forth a workable plan that would
eliminate taxes for those in the lowest socioeconomic groups in
Canada, put more money in their pockets and save our social
programs. Deficits, debt and increased taxes are what compromise
the lowest socioeconomic groups and social programs.
The only party that has ever put forth a constructive plan to
save health care, pensions and social programs is this party. We
propose solutions to put our economic house in order so that the
government will have the money to spend on people who need it the
most.
Will the member acknowledge that increasing taxes, increasing
deficits and increasing debt compromise the lowest socioeconomic
groups preferentially?
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the terrible
impact of huge deficits on our economy. When we took office the
deficit was at $42 billion. We are still paying about a third of
every tax dollar to service the interest on our debt.
This is why, in a time period that is less than any Reform
package put forward, we will have our budget in balance. We are
starting to pay down the debt.
At the same time we will never adopt the Reform formula for doing
it. This is the party that was to cut taxes. At the same time
how would Reformers have paid for it? First, they would cut
drastically the programs to help with the pensions of seniors.
Second, they would cut transfers to the provinces for education
and for health care. Third, and probably the most draconian of
all, as seen through all their budgets which keep shifting with
the political winds and the latest polls, they would cut
equalization to the poorest regions and the poorest people.
1050
We will not cut taxes to break the backs of those who need it
most. We never will. We will have a balanced approach. At the
same time as we are gradually cutting taxes, starting with those
most in need, the disabled, the students, the working poor, and
helping charities and the voluntary sector do more to increase
tax incentives, we are helping those who need it most by
sustaining the programs that help Canadians have a secure
retirement, strong education and strong health systems. Those
are our priorities.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address this NDP opposition
day motion.
It is always a little bemusing to me when the NDP castigates
Reform. Quite frankly Reform and the NDP have exactly the same
goal in mind, that is to give ordinary citizens a break they very
richly deserve. It is long overdue after years of Tory and
Liberal mismanagement and taxation of their incomes.
I ask the NDP to listen very carefully to what I am about to say
because we have the same goal in mind. We care about the people.
It is because the traditional political parties no longer serve
our interests that we have a Reform vehicle, Reform members in
the House and a Reform vision which we are working hard to
achieve. That vision is a strong country with strong social
programs, with a safety net that we can count on, and with
incomes that are not constantly eroded by government
mismanagement, overspending and overtaxation.
We heartily agree with the NDP goal of ensuring that every
Canadian has an opportunity to share in a new prosperity. That
is what life is all about. It is about creating a strong,
vibrant future and life for ourselves and our families. That is
important to every Canadian.
The NDP also talks about the future of our youth. The future of
our youth is the future of our country. In that I know we all
concur. It is the young people who day after day come to us and
say they have done everything they can but cannot find a decent
job with a decent income. That concerns us very deeply because
it is their future we need to be looking after.
What is the NDP solution? It is to rant against the super rich,
the bogeymen, like the land owners in some South American
countries, like the nobility in eastern Europe, like some evil
force is keeping honest, decent, low income people from having
the opportunities they need. I appeal to the NDP to get
realistic about the problems and the way to achieve the goals we
all believe in, instead of creating scary bogeymen and railing
against people who are trying their best to create opportunities,
employment and income that can be taxed back to help the less
fortunate.
We agree that we need to give assistance to people who cannot
care for themselves. It is something that we pride ourselves on.
We must assist those who cannot meet their own needs in a
generous and compassionate manner. It concerns me that we are
losing the ability to do that as more and more of our money is
diverted into paying interest on a mortgage that we are placing
on our children's future and that the NDP wants to add to.
It wants to continue to mortgage our children's future by massive
overspending and to tax away the income young workers manage to
get.
1055
There is a role for government to play in its policies on
taxation and spending and in achieving the goal of ensuring
Canadians a high standard of living and real prosperity. However,
the NDP way of doing this and its proposals to do this have
proven over the last 30 years, not just in Canada but in country
after country in the world, to do the absolute opposite of what
it says it is trying to achieve.
I cannot understand. I have met a number of my NDP colleagues.
I have the highest regard for their compassion, for their heart
for people, for their desire to do the right thing, and for their
competence and ability in the legislative arena. Yet all they
can trot out is tired old failed policies of tax and spend and
government intervention. This will simply give us more of what
we have had over the last several decades. The same old failed
policies of the past are being touted by the NDP. It simply will
not wash. It will not serve Canadians. I appeal to the NDP to
become more realistic about what can be achieved.
The NDP is asking for state planing; big government; high
spending and huge bureaucracies that lead to waste and abuse of
taxpayer money; high taxes which means less to meet the needs of
families; and low incentives to invest and take risk. This means
less creation of wealth, a smaller pie, less to share for those
who truly are less fortunate and a lower standard of living,
which is exactly what we are seeing.
Reform instead says that we need self-reliance and individual
initiative. That is the spirit and that is the energy that will
give us real prosperity. We need smaller, more efficient
government. We need lower tax takes, in particular for low
income people who are struggling to give their children the
necessities of life.
Instead we have the NDP saying “The government can manage your
money better than you can. Just hand it over because we know
much better what to do with it”.
The fiscal platform of NDPers will simply give us what they say
they do not like. They call for huge increases in spending,
which will lock in the current record high tax burden that
contributes so much to the poverty they claim they want to
address, and higher inflation which eats away at the purchasing
power of retired Canadians, causes an increase in interest rates
and a slowdown in job creating investment.
NDPers talk about fair taxes. Have they not caught on to the
fact that when we raise taxes on business people and service
providers they simply pass the cost on to the consumer? That is
us. That is Canadian families. That is people who are
struggling to make ends meet. There is no way we will be able to
strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. It does not work
that way.
If the examples of country after country have not shown that
conclusively to NDPers, we have to wonder whether they are living
in never-never land and are not really prepared to deal with the
realities that face Canadians.
The way to create real jobs and to alleviate poverty in a
meaningful way is to reduce taxes on low income families to
create the conditions necessary for those families to earn
employment income, to shore up health and education, and not
implement passive welfare programs that encourage dependency and
discourage work and independence.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member. She will have two minutes remaining after question
period when debate on the motion resumes, followed by a five
minute question and comments period, should she wish it.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CIVITANS
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend Brockville and District Civitans hosted the
winter convention of the Canadian District East.
There were Civitans present from throughout the Ottawa Valley
and representatives from Civitan International in Birmingham,
Alabama.
1100
The Civitans are a non-profit group of people who volunteer
their time to help those less fortunate. Members of the Civitan
Club concentrate the bulk of their efforts on funding programs to
improve the quality of life for the developmentally and
physically challenged.
They have also undertaken to fund leading edge research into a
multidiscipline approach to preventing and treating developmental
disabilities.
It is a privilege for me today to pay tribute to the many
Civitan members throughout Leeds-Grenville who give selflessly of
their time and energy as builders of good citizenship.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians want accountable politicians. Reform is committed to
improving our government system. A critical step in this process
has to be a triple E Senate.
Canadians are calling for the return of some integrity and
purpose to the Canadian Senate. It is unacceptable that the
Senate is plagued with chronic absenteeism. It is undemocratic
that the appointment process is a thinly disguised patronage
plum. It is unfair to Canadians that the upper house provides
little in the way of regional representation.
The Prime Minister said in 1990, when in opposition: “A
reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is
elected, effective and equitable”. Good words, but are they
just empty words?
Begin today. Follow through on your words, Mr. Prime Minister.
Let's get away from the triple A Senate, appointed, affluent,
apathetic, and give Canadians some hope with a triple E Senate,
equal, elected and effective.
* * *
THE LATE EDDIE SARGENT
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay
tribute to an outstanding Liberal politician who fought for the
little guy at every turn of the road.
Eddie Sargent, former mayor of Owen Sound and former MPP from my
riding, passed away January 28, 1998 at the age of 82. Eddie
Sargent's political career spanned more than four decades. He
was Owen Sound's mayor four times and was elected to the
provincial legislature in 1963 and retired in 1987.
Eddie fought aggressively for his constituents. No problem was
too big or too small. He put so much into life. He was a man
with a heart and we will miss him.
* * *
[Translation]
TRIBUTE TO DORA WASSERMAN
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
the Soirée des Masques ceremony, the Académie québécoise du théâtre
paid tribute to Dora Wasserman, the founder and director of the
Yiddish theatre at the Saidye Bronfman arts centre.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to pay tribute to Ms.
Wasserman's exceptional devotion. She has given her life to the
theatre and to preserving the language and longstanding traditions
of the rich Yiddish culture.
After training at the prestigious Jewish theatre in Moscow,
she arrived in Montreal in 1950. For 60 years, the Yiddish theatre
has performed on the stage of the Monument national, which used to
belong to the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste.
Keen to build bridges between cultures, Ms. Wasserman and her
troupe presented a Yiddish version of Michel Tremblay's Les Belles-Soeurs
in 1992.
Congratulations Dora Wasserman for making Quebec culture even
richer.
* * *
[English]
HUNTINGTON SOCIETY OF CANADA
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to congratulate the Huntington Society of Canada on its
25th anniversary.
Located in my riding of Cambridge, the Huntington Society is a
national network of volunteers and professionals working to find
a cure and treatment for Huntington's disease. Huntington's is a
hereditary brain disease which strikes between the ages of 30 and
45, for which no cure has yet been found.
On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Huntington
Society for its 25 years of dedicated and tireless work.
* * *
MARKHAM RESOLUTION
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
supreme court begins to consider the legality of unilateral
secession next week, I would like to read part of a resolution
passed by the town of Markham in the riding of Thornhill on
January 13, 1998. As I only have 60 seconds, I will read a small
portion. It is entitled “People's resolution for a united
Canada”:
Whereas the municipality of Markham believes that all Canadians
are equal and all Canadian provinces have equality of status;
And whereas the municipality of Markham believes that Canada,
with its existing constitution and charter of rights and
freedoms, offers all of its citizens and provinces an equal
opportunity to prosper and flourish, this same constitution has
enabled and must continue to enable the province of Quebec, a
fundamental and valued partner of the Canadian confederation, the
opportunity to promote and protect its culture, civil law
tradition and French language.
1105
I am proud that this resolution came from my riding of Thornhill,
and I will later be asking for unanimous consent of this House to
table this resolution.
The end of the resolution says:
Now therefore be it resolved that the municipality of Markham, in
a spirit of friendship and in the name of unity, proudly adopts
this “People's resolution for a united Canada” and we hereby
urge all Canadian municipalities to join us—.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 1 this year, British Columbia Senator Len
Marchand was set to retire. Did he? No. The Prime Minister asked
him to stay on until after the election. Why? Because he did not
want to incur the wrath of British Columbians to have another
unelected, unaccountable senator who has the power to change the
laws of this country.
Putting senators up for election enables good, hardworking
senators to stay and will get rid of the dead wood. It will
invigorate the sleepy hollow Senate and make it an active,
vigorous place.
The people of British Columbia, the people of this country, want
value for money. They want a democracy. They want a triple E
Senate.
* * *
WINTER OLYMPICS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning in Nagano, Japan Team Canada began its bid for a
gold medal in men's hockey by defeating Belarus by a score of
5-0.
All Canadians share a sense of pride in the calibre of our men's
hockey team. We have great expectations.
There are three families in my riding of Whitby—Ajax that will
be on the edge of their seats throughout this whole tournament.
These are the families of Joe Nieuwendyk, Adam Foote and Keith
Primeau. These three talented players are products of the Whitby
Minor Hockey Association.
The town of Whitby wanted to recognize and cheer on our local
heroes. Several weeks ago I was thrilled to participate in the
kick-off of a banner signing campaign. Thousands of Whitby
residents signed the congratulatory banners which were presented
to the families for delivery to the players in Nagano.
All of Canada will be cheering our team on. Members will
appreciate, however, that the cheers from Whitby will be a little
louder, especially for our three homegrown boys.
To Adam, Joe and Keith, bring home the gold.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the last Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois presented a petition
signed by more than 40,000 persons condemning child sexual abuse.
The petitioners were calling for the minimum sentence for a
first sexual offence conviction to be raised to two years, five
years for a repeat offence, for a review and assessment of
treatments offered to abusers serving their sentences, for a post-release
follow-up on the effectiveness of treatment, and for
assurance that compensation measures and support would be made
available to sexually abused children and their families.
Shortly thereafter, a general election was called. The
petition therefore received no response from Parliament, and
nothing has changed. The new Minister of Justice has still made no
announcement.
Given the importance of this subject, I call on the minister
to follow up on this petition, which I personally endorse. The
minister must act.
* * *
[English]
STUDENTS
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of my most pleasant tasks since becoming the
member of Parliament for the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has been meeting students from my
riding when they come for a tour of these Parliament buildings. I
had that honour today with a group of students from St. James
school of Eganville. They are seated in the gallery watching
today's proceedings.
It is imperative that young people such as Shawn Lavigueur see
how their Canadian government works and learn more about the
Canadian parliamentary system. It is incumbent upon us as members
of this House to help these young men and women understand that
our system is one of the best in the entire world. The future of
our country will rest on their shoulders.
I want to thank the teachers responsible for arranging these
field trips and giving these students a firsthand look at our
Parliament. They represent our future. We must not fail them.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we now
have everybody criticizing Andy Thompson, even Senator Ron
Ghitter.
Canadians can be relieved that even Senator Ron Ghitter thinks
that Andy Thompson's attendance record is unacceptable.
A note to any senators watching, they may not remember Senator
Ghitter, since he comes to work only about half the time.
This week Mr. Ghitter cranked up the handle on his lazy boy to
a semi-reclined position and was outraged at absentee Andy.
A note to any citizens watching, this half-time senator cost
them $150,000 last year. That is a pretty expensive lazy boy.
1110
Now that Senator Ghitter is paying attention I will extend an
invitation to him to get up out of his easy chair, step down from
his Senate seat and stand for election.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the president of France recently stated that France is
one country indivisible, made up of regions and provinces each
different from the other.
Why are the premier of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois not quoting
him as they have before? It must be because it does not suit
their needs.
The Bloc will not speak about what it is to be a proud Canadian.
Is it not important to talk about the many fellow Canadians in
the Canadian military who have helped the province of Quebec in
times of trouble?
When the Saguenay flood occurred, who was there? Fellow
Canadians. When the ice storm hit, who was there to help? Fellow
Canadians.
Canadians have always loved and helped Quebec, a province of
Canada. Let us join together with all the provinces across this
great country and celebrate the pride of being Canadian.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
recently in my riding of Vancouver East a Liberal cabinet
minister came to undertake a public relations job to try to
convince us, by announcing an extension of the RRAP program, that
the Liberal government cares about housing in this country.
The announcement was a huge disappointment in the lowest income
community in Canada and in other urban and small communities
which are suffering desperately from the lack of affordable safe
housing.
The extension of the RRAP program does not make up for the
abandonment of the national housing program, our social housing
in Canada, by the Liberal government in 1993. In B.C. alone we
have lost 8,000 units since 1993 because of abandonment by the
Liberal government.
People in my riding of Vancouver East, in the downtown east side
and in other communities across Canada are demanding that the
federal government renew its commitment and provide financial
responsibility to ensure there is a housing program in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning we got some good news about research in the Montreal
region. The government of Canada announced its participation in
$15 million worth of investments for research at McGill University
and the Université de Montréal.
The Montreal region is becoming increasingly known as an ideal
venue for research and development. Our government is pleased to
be associated with this reality, which will benefit not only the
Montreal region but all of Quebec, which is already expending
considerable efforts to attract investments in this sector of
activity.
In our opinion, the image of our universities cannot help but
be enhanced by such encouragement, at a time when our young people
are increasingly choosing careers in this field of the future.
Good luck.
* * *
[English]
BRIDGEWATER
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to recognize the 99th birthday of the town of Bridgewater,
Nova Scotia.
Bridgewater is a picturesque town of 7,200 souls, located on the
bank of the Lehave River, 20 kilometres from the sea.
Since its early history Bridgewater has been an enterprising
town with boat builders, tanners, coopers, millers and foundries.
For years Bridgewater was the centre of a brisk lumber industry
and the fertile land of the south shore of Nova Scotia still
grows some of the best timber in Nova Scotia.
Mills such as Lohne's, Bowater and Turners continue to operate
in the area.
Mayor Ernie Bolivar, the Bridgewater town council, the local
chamber of commerce, businesses and merchants are the reason that
this town is the main street of the south shore.
As well, Bridgewater has attracted industry such as the Michelin
tire plant and centres like the new South Shore hospital.
Today, February 13, 1998, it is an honour to congratulate the
town of Bridgewater in the Parliament of Canada.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
multilateral agreement on investment currently being negotiated
will protect Canadian jobs and investment in Canada and abroad.
In 1996 foreign investment in Canada grew to $180 billion.
Canadian direct investment abroad stood at $170 billion, with an
estimated $30 billion in individual Canadian mutual funds
invested abroad.
1115
As a trading country, Canada relies on these investments. Our
social programs and safety net depend on the success of our
economy.
The NDP says that the MAI will kill jobs, but it is wrong. For
every $1 billion in new foreign investment 45,000 jobs are
created in Canada. NDP members say the MAI threatens Canadian
health care, social programs and cultural industries. They are
wrong. These items are not and will not be on the negotiating
table. They are opposed to the MAI. Those who are opposed to
the MAI remind me of someone who cannot go to bed at night
because they are worried someone else is still up having a good
time.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to express both concern and appreciation for the Senate. I
have witnessed the dedicated efforts of some of our honourable
senators. However, I am concerned that a representative of
Canadians can be so inaccessible to his constituents that he does
not even have an office, staff or a phone, that such a person
living outside of Canada returns but one day a year to collect a
$70,000 paycheque, that such a person will receive a lifetime
pension amounting to nearly $50,000 per year, all paid by
taxpayers.
Perhaps members of this House wonder how such a person could
remain in this place year after year. This is a safe riding and
how does one get the nomination? It is time for an elected
Senate. No riding should be that safe. Accountability is so
very obviously necessary.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed with oral questions
I draw to the attention of hon. members the provisions of
Standing Order 18 which may be applicable to some statements. I
urge members to read Standing Order 18 before our next meeting.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the finance minister is ever going to realize his dream of
becoming the prime minister, he must make sure he is a household
name. It is happening but I am not sure if the accompanying fist
waving and arm waving is what he had in mind.
According to a StatsCan study, Canadians pay more in taxes than
they do for anything else, including food, shelter and clothing.
From 1992 to 1996 while the finance minister has been in charge
of the coffers, Canadians' tax load has grown at twice the rate
of inflation.
Is the finance minister finally going to listen to overtaxed
Canadians? Is he going to offer broad based tax relief in the
upcoming budget?
An hon. member: Keep your hands in your pockets.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no money in my pockets. The statistics to
which the hon. member is referring obviously deal with the trend
that began in the middle 1980s and was exacerbated substantially
in the recession of 1989 to 1992. I am quite confident that as
we look ahead we will see Canadians paying less in taxes. They
will be paying more for things they choose for themselves. I am
about to be cut off but I would like to go on.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to save him. If the finance minister is going to be the
prime minister, he has to be known as the greatest. He is the
greatest tax collector the country has ever seen. That goes
without saying. His favourite slogan is never have so many been
taxed so heavily for so long.
But yesterday the Alberta treasurer showed him that it could be
done. Alberta can look forward to a balanced budget, and the
lowest taxes in the country are going to become even lower while
retiring more of the provincial debt.
I ask the finance minister again if he will commit 100% of the
budget surplus to tax relief and debt retirement.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he might want to take
a look at the Alberta budget and what the Alberta government is
doing. It is putting more money into health care. It is putting
more money into education. It is putting more money into the
priorities of Albertans.
It would appear that the whole country supports health care, the
whole country supports education, and the only Canadians who do
not are the members of the Reform Party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of
course it has to put more money into health care. He slashed a
whole bunch of the last budget out from under it.
Canadian taxpayers spent millions of dollars developing a French
version of a debt management software program for African
countries. This software program is designed to help nations
with huge debts become more responsible. It is kind of like
taxaholics anonymous for finance ministers.
I would like to ask my question to the minister responsible for
CIDA who developed this debt management software. Would she lend
a copy of this debt management software program to our finance
minister? He is $600 billion in debt and he needs all the help
he can get.
1120
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I would really like to do is to give that software
to the Reform Party members who every January seem to engage in
some kind of a flip-flop on their basic policies.
Perhaps if the Reform Party had been able to engage in some
proper analysis since it came into this Parliament it might well
understand that what Canadians are looking for is a consistent
and well thought out plan, which is what we set out in 1994. It
is working and Canadians support it.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, David
Pryce, special assistant to the Minister of Industry, pled guilty
on February 4 to charges of assault causing bodily harm. Can the
minister inform this House whether Mr. Pryce is still a member of
his personal staff advising him on confidential matters, despite
the fact that he has pled guilty to a very serious criminal
offence?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the matter has not been concluded before the courts.
The Deputy Speaker: I caution the hon. member for
Crowfoot that questions on this subject may therefore be out of
order.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pryce
has entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault causing
bodily harm.
My question to the minister is whether or not this person is
still employed as his personal assistant.
The Deputy Speaker: Given the answer the minister has
given to this question that the matter is still before the
courts, I think the member must accept that. Under the
conventions of this House it is not proper to ask questions on
matters before the courts, particularly ones involving criminal
proceedings as alleged by the hon. member.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This morning, we learned that Quebeckers are massively opposed
to the Supreme Court reference on Quebec's right to decide its own
future. Nine out of ten Quebeckers said that the democratic will
of the people should take precedence over a Supreme Court decision.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that this public
rejection signals the failure of Plan B and of the hard line
approach backed by the Prime Minister, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the entire government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, insists that we comply with the
decisions of the Supreme Court on all sorts of issues, such as the
dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland concerning
hydroelectricity.
So why not agree with Mr. Bouchard's point of view on this
issue of the rule of law involving the Supreme Court of Canada?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister's answer gives the clear impression that he
is completely out of touch.
With each passing day, the government is becoming increasingly
isolated with respect to its Supreme Court reference. Yesterday,
it was the turn of the Association canadienne-française de
l'Alberta, which represents 60,000 Franco-Albertans, to ask the
federal government to abandon its reference to the Supreme Court.
With this popular rejection now spreading outside Quebec, will
the government agree that the only responsible, and courageous,
thing to do would be to withdraw its reference to the Supreme Court
before hearings begin?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
a media scrum on September 21, 1996, Lucien Bouchard said: “I am
in favour of the rule of law. The law must always be respected”.
That is precisely what we are doing in this case. It is why
we believe that asking the Supreme Court to decide the matter falls
squarely in line with Mr. Bouchard's thinking.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While the American position on Iraq is being questioned by a
large part of the international community, and Russia is becoming
increasingly critical, the Canadian government is still talking
about diplomacy, but the reality is that the troops are on their
way to Iraq.
Since Iraq has recently offered to open eight presidential
sites to UN inspectors, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us
whether he thinks that that constitutes a worthwhile basis for a
diplomatic solution to the conflict?
1125
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
position of Canada and of other countries is very clear. Saddam
Hussein must comply fully with all UN resolutions regarding the
inspection and destruction of biological products.
The hon. member's question is an interesting one but, as
things now stand, we do not have the complete agreement of Saddam
Hussein with respect to this request. That is why we are
continuing our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
troops are on their way. The government keeps telling us that
their involvement will be limited to logistical support.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least guarantee the House
that they will never be involved in combat operations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we are serious in our intention to seek a diplomatic solution, we
must also be serious in speaking about what we will do in the event
of a failure to achieve such a solution. It is therefore not
possible to give the hon. member the answer he would like.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
High student debt, a 16.5% unemployment rate and diminished
opportunity. This is the legacy for the young people in the
gallery. Liberal reforms to the EI system now require young
people and students entering the labour force to obtain 910 hours
of work to qualify for employment insurance.
In light of the fact that the first contact with the workforce
for so many young people is part time or of short duration, how
can the minister justify this policy?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me see
if I can make this very clear to the member opposite.
We have on a number of occasions already made it very clear that
we recognize that student debt is an issue. We recognize that
youth unemployment is an issue. This government has made
improvements for youth relating to jobs, education and their
skills. That is our first priority. We have also put a number
of initiatives in place to deal with that.
If the member would like us to send a copy of all those—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad attention was brought to the young people in the
gallery. They, like Canadians—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that he is not
supposed to draw attention to persons in the gallery. I would
ask him to abide by the rules of the House in this regard.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected and I
apologize to the House.
Canadian youth want opportunity, not amazing rhetoric. The
policy of this government makes it take Canadian youth 117% more
hours of work to qualify and collect employment insurance.
Is the government prepared to stop discriminating against young
people?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is just
the opposite. I am quite surprised the NDP would be opposed to
this particular initiative in the new EI reforms.
The objective of making the entrance requirement higher for
youth is to make sure they do not get caught in the trap of
taking the easy way out. For example in the summertime they get
a construction job and thinking they are making big money they
stay in that field. They quit school because they can make some
money in the short term. Then they find out down the line when
they get a bit older that they do not have the education they
need.
The intent is to have young people go back to school. It is a
very important initiative. All members of the House should
support that.
* * *
HEALTH
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health who will be meeting next
week with his counterparts to discuss the issue of people
infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood.
There seems to be a will on the part of provincial governments
to deal with this, but there is also a concern that the federal
government will put forward some grandiose package and leave them
covering the real costs.
Will the Minister of Health commit today that he will put forth
a compensation package that is substantial enough to cover the
ongoing health costs provinces will incur in assisting these
victims?
1130
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since we received the Krever report last fall we have made it
clear that we are interested in finding some way forward to treat
humanely and fairly those who were the innocent victims of tragic
mistakes in the blood system. In that regard I think the
interests of victims are best served by levels of government
working together.
In response to the question put by the hon. member, I commit
myself today to continue to work with my provincial counterparts.
I am meeting with them Monday and Tuesday of next week to try to
find a way in which we can all contribute to the appropriate
outcome in these tragic cases.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, most
provincial governments have already clearly indicated their desire
to help victims of hepatitis C.
I would like to know whether the federal government now in
office will take into account the health care costs to provincial
governments of ongoing assistance to these people. I would
specifically like to know whether the minister intends to include
victims who received blood before 1986 in the federal government's
compensation plan.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will have an opportunity to discuss this with my provincial
counterparts next week. We are examining the entire issue. We
intend to look closely at Judge Krever's recommendations, including
those concerning which victims should be compensated. I am now
working with my counterparts and their officials to find a solution
to this major and difficult problem.
* * *
[English]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the B.C. unity panel
released its report, it showed that British Columbians are
prepared to support the Calgary declaration “A Framework for
Discussion”. However this support is based on the entire
declaration especially the equality aspects.
While this government has strongly embraced the unique character
aspects of the Calgary declaration, it has virtually ignored the
equality provisions. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, does this
government have any initiatives to promote the equality
provisions of the Calgary declaration?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
has always shown support for the provincial initiative undertaken
in the Calgary declaration. The government remains prepared to
support it.
The Calgary declaration is a declaration of principles that may
or may not lead to constitutional action at a later time. At
this point the federal government is happy that the provinces
have been working on it. Most provinces are prepared to pass a
resolution. We will be waiting to see the final result before
taking action.
* * *
THE SENATE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs stated that Reform's attempt to have an
elected Senate would result in gross under-representation of the
west in Parliament.
Since British Columbia is already the most under-represented
province in both this House and the upper house, will the
minister assure British Columbians that this government will take
steps to remedy the inequities before the end of this Parliament?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the matter of reforming the Senate is not one for this
government alone. It is a matter for Parliament as a whole and
the provinces as part of an amendment to the Constitution.
I complete my answer by asking my hon. friend this. If and when
the day comes that we propose a change to the Constitution on the
Senate, will she undertake on behalf of members of her party that
they will not vote against it like they did the last time when
the Charlottetown declaration was before Canada?
* * *
[Translation]
DRUG LICENSING
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Several drugs used in the treatment of HIV and AIDS have been
available in the United States, Europe and South America for more than
a year already. But the Health Protection Branch has yet to authorize
the marketing of these new drugs, thereby penalizing thousands of
infected individuals.
Does the minister realize that, due to the particular inefficiency
of the drug licensing process in Canada, thousands of people living with
HIV or AIDS are seeing their treatment threatened?
1135
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Health has the responsibility to ensure that drugs are
safe before they are put on the market for use by those who are sick. It
is the responsibility of the Government of Canada and we intend to
fulfil this responsibility.
At the same time, we are also fully aware of the fact that there
are urgent needs to be met. At Health Canada we have procedures in
place—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
September 1996, a parliamentary committee clearly recommended that the
minister radically reform the Canadian drug licensing system, which is
notoriously inefficient. Why has no action been taken since?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the
tabling of the report mentioned by the hon. member this morning, we at
the health department have made changes to the system to give some
people access to the drugs they need. We plan to keep improving this
system in the interest of the sick.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has happened again in my community of Abbotsford, British
Columbia.
William Gibson Brown was sentenced to 11 years for a violent
rape. He got out of prison and then recently sexually assaulted
some of our children. He received a conditional sentence, no
time in jail on the condition he does not do it again. Yesterday
he was back in court again. What for? Molesting a five year old
boy.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Justice. Why does the government refuse to prevent serious
sex offenders from receiving conditional sentences, no time in
jail?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the hon. member describes a tragic case and no member
in this House is pleased when they see that happen in the courts.
Conditional sentencing as the minister has said is a new
provision. The minister has stated that she and all her
provincial counterparts are monitoring closely what is happening
in the lower courts.
I refer the hon. member to the attorney general of Alberta who
has publicly discouraged the federal government from unilaterally
establishing further guidelines for this provision.
As the minister has said in the House, if she has to she will
amend the law.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are sick and tired of this government monitoring
these things. This is a legal loophole and we are sick and tired
of coming back and forth in this House of Commons on this issue.
A five year old boy has been molested because a judge issued
this pervert a conditional sentence after he molested children
and raped a woman.
Does this government agree that a repeat rapist, a repeat child
molester, should do no time in jail? What about protecting our
women and children for a change?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the hon. member's allegations to this part of the House are
based on false presumptions. First of all, no member of this
House has ever said they are happy with some of the decisions
that are rendered.
I would like to repeat what the Minister of Justice has said in
this House. She has stressed this. If she has to, she will.
I will quote the attorney general of Alberta, from your
province, who said “I like the flexibility in conditional
sentencing. As opposed to having”—
An hon. member: He is from British Columbia.
Mr. Randy White: We are sick and tired of this. We want
it now.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The parliamentary secretary
has the floor. It is difficult for the Chair to hear her
response. A member has asked a question, perhaps members might
listen to the response.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member
would please listen, his leader's provincial attorney general
said “I like the flexibility in conditional sentencing. As
opposed to having the federal government developing some very
specific guidelines, we have the courts reacting to the needs of
their respective communities across the country”.
I repeat, if we have to we will.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board.
One of the requirements—and I say “requirements”
advisedly—for employment in the public service within the national
capital region is residence there, although this contravenes the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1140
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell me which prevails
in his department: the Public Service of Canada Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is absolutely no discussion on that point: the Treasury Board must
comply with all of Canada's statutes, including the charter. This
is what it tries to do at all times.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would
appear that officials suggest to candidates that they change their
address in order to be eligible for certain positions outside their
region.
Does the President of the Treasury Board support this policy
over changing the rules for access to the federal public service?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, the Treasury Board must clearly implement all laws that
apply to its operations.
In the matter at hand, if my hon. colleague believes an
impropriety has occurred, I would ask her to send me all the facts
so I can see whether the legislation needs to be tightened.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister had a choice. He had a choice between meeting
with Mr. Wei, the father of the democratic movement in China, or
to warmly welcome the oppressive communist vice-president of
Cuba, Carlos Lage. The prime minister chose to meet Castro's
henchman.
How could the government justify this choice by the Prime
Minister?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wei Jingsheng met
with two ministers of the present government and appeared as a
witness before the standing committee on foreign affairs.
The vice-president of Cuba came here to sign two treaties with
the Canadian government, one of them an anti-hijacking treaty and
the other, an air transport agreement.
We will continue our constructive engagement with Cuba. We do
not make invidious comparisons. Does the hon. member want us to
join Jesse Helms?
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader
of the Opposition met with Mr. Wei, the Nobel prize nominee. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs snuck Mr. Wei up the backstairs to
his MP office. He did not even give him the courtesy of an
official meeting.
It is important that the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs hear the other side of the human rights issue in
China. Why will the government not admit exactly what its
choices are?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are no back doors
to the foreign ministry. The minister is up front in meeting
people. I say again the minister met with Wei Jingsheng—-
Mr. Bob Mills: He met him in his MP office. The Prime
Minister was too busy.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: We will continue our policy of
constructive engagement with China. We are maintaining an
administration of justice program. We are training Chinese
judges. We are training Chinese police officials.
Let us face it. We do not make invidious comparisons. We apply
human rights to every government we deal with.
* * *
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ACT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
In response to the publication of the Trempe Report on January
6, the focus of which was an in-depth revision of the Citizenship
and Immigration Act, the minister decided to hastily throw together
eight days of consultations in eight Canadian cities, refusing any
involvement by MPs.
What is the minister's reply to the 30 or so bodies, headed by
the Canadian Council for Refugees, who are calling for her to
extend the consultations so that the process—
The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the new Bloc
Quebecois immigration critic, who has just replaced the hon. member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in that position.
We have indeed just extended the duration of the consultations
on the immigration report I received. We have added one day in
Vancouver, one in Toronto and one in Montreal.
I am also pleased to announce to the House that one day will
be added in Ottawa and one in Edmonton.
* * *
1145
CANADA'S ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month the
parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe recommended that
member states eliminate the use of asbestos products. That
recommendation is very likely to result in the devastation of the
asbestos industry in Canada.
Can the Minister of International Trade tell this House how
the Government of Canada intends to protect Canada's asbestos
industry?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
intervened on a number of occasions on behalf of the industry at
the highest levels of government in both France and Britain. We
continue to believe that through continued diplomatic efforts the
safe use of asbestos can be promoted.
The minister believes that the playing of politics with this
issue can cause enormous damage in achieving our common
objective. The best strategy, we believe, is to pursue a common
front among all stakeholders.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
snack pack likes its bacon but when it comes to pork we raise our
forks to the Liberals.
Who is the latest to leave the sty for the public trough? His
name is Stephen Gaon. He was the riding president for Ottawa
South, the home riding of the Minister of Industry. Mr. Gaon is
now a chairperson of the EI board of referees.
My question is for the little minister who went to market. There
are millions of Canadians who need work. Do they need a Liberal
Party membership to qualify for the Liberals' promise of jobs,
jobs, jobs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are talking about somebody who is giving up his time
two or three days a month to act in a temporary capacity, helping
to deal with appeals on employment insurance matters.
Surely the hon. member should praise that type of activity. The
person appointed is a person of competence. If the person had
Liberal credentials at one time that does not make him less
competent, any more than being a Reform person makes a person
competent.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal cabinet just keeps on dishing out pork patronage
appointments and the little piglets keep on chowing down.
What a coincidence that in the city of Edmonton, a city of
800,000 people, one person qualifies to be on the National Parole
Board, Elizabeth McKall, the wife of the riding president in the
justice minister's riding. It is slim pickings for Liberal
patronage appointments in Alberta these days.
To the little minister who ran all the way home to appoint her
riding president's wife to a patronage position, will the
Liberals' job creation strategy ever include a Canadian who does
not slurp at the party trough?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we deal with appointments we are dealing with
matters of merit. If my hon. friend does not accept that then he
is insulting his own former colleague, Colonel Jack Fraser.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
took the Minister for International Trade less than 20 hours to
do a complete flip-flop on protecting culture. Yesterday he
unequivocally stated to the House that he would walk away from
the table unless there was a complete carve-out for culture on
the MAI.
This morning he contradicted his comments to the House by
stating that he would instead be fine with a country specific
reservation, which we all know means little or nothing.
Was the government being up front with Canadians yesterday, or
did the minister's comments this morning show what is really in
store for Canadian culture?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no deal has been signed. It is under negotiation. The
basic point about our position, which the minister stated more
than once in the House of Commons, is that if it is not a good
deal we will not be signing it.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
U.S. protects its shipbuilding workers and their families with
the Jones act while over 7,000 shipyard jobs have been lost in
Canada recently.
Will the government formally guarantee at the moment that the
MAI will not prevent Canada from developing a national
shipbuilding policy to put people in Nova Scotia and elsewhere
back to work?
1150
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a shipbuilding policy. It includes very
generous write-offs for depreciation. It includes a very high
tariff structure and it includes procurement preference for
Canadian built ships.
Nothing in the proposed agreement would imperil any of those
measures.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the Minister of National Defence said he
was sending the Toronto within missile range with the crew
partially immunized against anthrax.
It is not like 1991 when Canada played an important role. The
government has cut the military so much in the last four years that
now we are only there for moral support. We are sending one 30
year old helicopter so there is no rush.
Will the minister assure Canadians that the Toronto will
not enter missile range until the vaccine has taken full 100%
effect?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister
of National Defence did say something. He said there was a
series of inoculations. Protection starts with the very first
one and builds up until there is very substantial protection.
Meanwhile when the last one has been given the antibiotics take
over and there is full protection for our soldiers, sailors and
airmen.
However I would like to say this. What is the point here? Is
the opposition trying to score points for scaremongering? It
knows that what we have in place is a first class protection
agency.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we are not scaremongering. We are asking serious questions.
I have here the vaccine manufacturer's instructions to the U.S.
forces. It states:
If a person has not previously been immunized against anthrax,
injection of this product following exposure—will not protect
against infection.
Sending the Toronto within missile range is totally
irresponsible, especially when there is complete protection
available. I beg the minister to reconsider and hold
Toronto until the vaccine takes full 100% effect.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have recently placed
a doctor on board the Toronto. The practice of ongoing
nuclear, biological and chemical warfare is part of operation
procedures for all soldiers and sailors going overseas and a
fundamental part of the training of all our people in the forces.
The protective clothing equipment given to our sailors, soldiers
and airmen is world class equipment. It will give protection to
both hands and body. They are given instruction on how to
decontaminate one another.
While the members of the Conservative Party are playing loose
politics—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
* * *
JUSTICE
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
some courts have now ruled the law on access to the counselling
records of sexual assault complainants unconstitutional while
others have rendered a different verdict. They have upheld that
legislation.
What will the Minister of Justice do to bring consistency so as
to protect the right to privacy for sexual assault complainants,
privacy which once lost cannot be regained?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question.
We are very pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided
to give leave to appeal to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in
the Mills case. This case concerns the constitutionality of Bill
C-46, a very important piece of legislation for victims of sexual
assault which the government introduced in the last parliament
and for which certain lower court decisions have led to
uncertainty.
We would like to assure everyone that we will be supporting the
leave to appeal Bill C-46 in the supreme court. We will
intervene in order to uphold this very important piece of the
legislation which strikes the right balance between victims
rights—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Human Resources Development has appointed John Murphy, a
faceless, defeated Liberal backbench MP, to the National Council
of Welfare.
This individual lacks the aggressive smarts to follow other
defeated Liberal maritime MPs to the huge pork barrel, so he will
get a $250 a day consolation prize, which is not bad.
Is this part of the minister's Atlantic jobs strategy?
1155
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make
it very clear to the hon. member that the member to whom he
talked that was in his place last term is also in his previous
profession a health practitioner and one who has a significant
amount of experience in this field.
For the member to besmirch this man's reputation is uncalled
for, based not only on his education but his background in this
field.
* * *
[Translation]
AIRPORT SECURITY
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
There is a double standard in Canada. While the airports in
Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Ottawa are served by the
municipal police, in Quebec it is the RCMP.
Since renovations at the Dorval terminal are now complete,
when will the minister permit the ADM to put out tenders so
security will be provided by local police forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we intend to keep the RCMP at the airports in Montreal.
* * *
[English]
REVENUE CANADA
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to wake up the Minister of National Revenue if I can
and ask him a question.
Internal reports from his department say that about $2 billion
in tax revenue will be lost in this fiscal year because of a
shortage of auditors, a problem that was pointed out by the
auditor general just recently. This money could be spent on
health and education.
What action does the minister plan to collect this $2 billion,
or is he just going to throw up his hands and say hey, what's $2
billion?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the good work our
auditors do in Revenue Canada. Last year we were able to bring
in $5.4 billion due to their good work.
We are continuing to hire new auditors. If the hon. member is
saying we should hire more, we will.
One of the reasons we are working on the agency is to give us
flexibility so that we can more quickly respond to our human
resources needs and quickly respond and hire more people when we
need them and not have to wait for long periods of time.
I very much support the hon. member. We are working to do that.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
mid-December 1997 Revenue Canada announced to many owners of
fishing vessels in West Nova that they were now responsible for
CPP contributions on behalf of their crew members, retroactive to
January 1, 1997. This sudden change in policy will have an
enormous financial impact on the industry. Layoffs have already
been announced.
Will the Minister of National Revenue re-examine this decision
and invite his officials to meet with the fishing industry to
negotiate a more equitable start-up date.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the representations
of the hon. member, look at the issue and get back to him.
We at Revenue Canada are very sensitive to the fishing industry
and want to ensure that we are fair in our assessment. We will
work toward ensuring that we comply fully and are sensitive to
their concerns.
* * *
ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Atomic Energy Control Board recently said that Ontario
Hydro's failure to show detailed plans on how it will improve
deteriorating nuclear safety is entirely unacceptable.
What exactly is the minister doing to ensure that the Atomic
Energy Control Board is doing everything in its power to restore
faith and confidence in Ontario Hydro?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the control board is currently satisfied that Ontario
Hydro's nuclear facilities are being operated safely, but it has
called for significant improvements in management and operations
to ensure that the required margins of safety will not be
compromised in future.
At the request of the AECB, the chairman of Ontario Hydro will
attend the next control board meeting, which is scheduled for
February 19 in Ottawa. The public may be assured that the AECB
will monitor the situation very closely. If there is any
evidence to cause any source of concern, the control board will
not hesitate to impose restrictions.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Bruce Starlight wrote to the minister of Indian affairs last
year, only to be betrayed and have his letter leaked. The
minister is now investigating herself.
1200
Yesterday we asked if the report of this investigation would be
tabled. The government said it was concerned that this would be
subject to the privacy act and may violate the privacy act.
Why is the government attempting to hide behind the privacy act
to protect itself when it obviously had no concern for Bruce
Starlight's privacy? Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit here
and now in this House to table this investigative report when it
is finalized?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is quite wrong. The minister is not
investigating herself. She has called in an outside investigator
because she is concerned as are all members of this House about
this totally unauthorized leak of this letter.
We have also said that once the investigation is complete it is
our intention to make the report public to the extent that we are
entitled to do so under the Access to Information Act and Privacy
Act. We are bound by the rule of law. I do not know why the
Reform Party, who keeps calling for respect for the rule of law,
wants it to be ignored in this serious matter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a
notice of ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, along
with explanatory notes.
I ask that you designate an order of the day for consideration
of the motion.
* * *
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 eight petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 22nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding amendments to
the Standing Orders in accordance with its mandate under Standing
Order 108(3)(a)(iii).
Mr. Speaker, as you know, joint committees are established from
time to time. Because each of the chambers has its own
procedural rules, problems have developed in the past. The
proposals that the committee is presenting to the House today
will in our view help solve problems that may arise.
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-319, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to education).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make education a right for
every child until they turn 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to literacy).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Canadian Bill of
Rights to ensure that youth and children have a right to
literacy.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1205
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Immigration Act
(improvement of enforcement in the case of those who commit
offences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
my private member's bill known as the immigration enforcement
improvement act, which died on the Order Paper when the 35th
Parliament was dissolved.
I first introduced this bill following the 1994 Toronto murders
of Georgina Leimonis and police constable Todd Baylis. The bill
died on the Order Paper and I am asking for unanimous consent to
send this bill back to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have to wait to
make his request until after the bill is introduced.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has requested the
unanimous consent of the House that the bill be now read a second
time and referred to a committee. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (donors
to food banks).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make the donation of
non-perishable goods to food banks tax deductible.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax
credit for mental or physical impairment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make a tax credit
available to people who take care of those with mental or
physical impairment.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL LITERACY STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-324, an act to establish national literacy
standards across Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure we have a national
literacy standard across Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EDUCATION STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-325, an act to establish national standards
across Canada for education provided by the provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure we have a national
education standard across the provinces in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to housing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that every Canadian
has a right to housing.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BANK ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-327, an act to amend the Bank Act (definition of
“infant”).
1210
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that the Bank Act
is consistent with Canada's commitment to the United Nations in
1989 concerning the definition of a child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act
(definitions of “infant” and “minor”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will change the definition of a
child to anyone under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Canada Business
Corporations Act (definitions of “infant” and “minor”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will change the definition of a
child to anyone under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the Divorce Act (definition
of “child”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this will change the definition of a
child from someone under the age of 16 to someone who is under
the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-331, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan
(definition of “child”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is similar to the bill that was
introduced just a minute ago.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-332, an act to amend the Canada Health Act
(definition of “child”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill also will ensure that a child
is anyone who is under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-333, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act
(definitions of “child” and “infant”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that this Canadian
legislation is consistent with the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans
Act (definition of “full age”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that the definition
of full age as stated in this legislation is the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-335, an act to amend the Canada Cooperative
Associations Act (definition of “infant”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this bill, the word
infant would mean anybody under the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL JUDGMENTS
CONVENTION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-336, an act to amend the Canada-United Kingdom
Civil and Commercial Judgments Convention Act (definition of
“infant” in matters originating in Canada).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will remove the contradiction
between these different legislations so they will be consistent
with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1215
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-337, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (definition of “child”) .
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that the
interpretation of the term child means anyone under the age of
18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act
(definition of “adult”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will change the term adult in
this legislation to mean anyone who is over the age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-339, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act
(definition of “child”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that this
legislation is consistent with the UN convention on the rights of
the child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Divorce Act (right of
spouses' parents to access to or custody of child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is something like the fifth attempt
in this Parliament to change Canadian laws, in particular the
Divorce Act, to ensure that grandparents have the right to find
out about the well-being of their grandchild.
I would like to mention articles V, XVI and XIX of the
convention on the rights of the child which was adopted by the
United Nations in 1989 and accepted in Canada in 1991. The
articles state specifically that the child is entitled to have
access to his or her extended family, which includes
grandparents. Presently in Canada our laws do not permit
grandparents to have access.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-341, an act to amend the Canada Transportation
Act (definition of “adult”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that anybody under
the age of 18 is defined as a child.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-342, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(definition of “child”).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will also ensure that the UN
convention on the rights of the child is respected and the
definition of a child will be changed to anyone who is under the
age of 18.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a rare
occasion that I stand to defend the right of NDP members, but
this is their supply day. I wonder whether we could have
unanimous consent that all these bills be deemed introduced as if
they would have been read in the House and printed in the record.
The Deputy Speaker: That is an excellent suggestion.
Does the House give its consent that the remaining bills
standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre be
deemed to have been given leave to be introduced, read for the
first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for second reading
at the next sitting of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-343, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN CHILD RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-344, an act entitled the Canadian child rights
act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Carriage by Air Act, the Cree-Naskapi (of
Quebec) Act, the Criminal Code, the Pension Act and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-346, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act
(definition of “adult”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INTERPRETATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-347, an act to amend the Interpretation Act
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EXTRADITION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-348, an act to amend the Extradition Act
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Government Employees
Compensation Act (definition of “infant”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-350, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act
(definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INDIAN ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-351, an act to amend the Indian Act (definition
of “infant child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act (definition of “child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-353, an act to amend the Insurance Companies Act
(definition of “infant”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
LAND TITLES ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-354, an act to amend the Land Titles Act (age of
majority and definition of “infant”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PENSION FUND SOCIETIES ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Pension Fund Societies
Act (definition of “minor child”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PRIVACY ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Privacy Act (definition
of “minor”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
WAGES LIABILITY ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-357, an act to amend the Wages Liability Act
(definition of “adult”).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
MARKHAM RESOLUTION
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
request the unanimous consent of the House to table a resolution
from the town of Markham which I referred to in my statement
earlier today and I ask that it be distributed to all members.
1220
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to table the document she referred
to during her statement under Standing Order 31?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
PETITIONS
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from residents of New Brunswick. “We the
undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House to the
following: that the Canadian Human Rights Act includes provisions
to end pay discrimination against women by making equal pay for
work of equal value the law”.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member. The rules provide that she may give a brief summary of
the petition, but she is not to read the petition and I would
urge her to comply with the rules in that regard.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian human rights
commission tribunal has ruled that the results of the study are
reliable and that petitioners call on Parliament to put an end to
this pay discrimination by implementing the results of the joint
study through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of
Canada and the union representing those workers.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table a petition from 27 people in my riding
of Okanagan—Shuswap. These people point out that the best way
to deal with nuclear weapons is to do away with them entirely.
Therefore they ask Parliament to support an immediate start of
an international convention which will create a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 18
will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
How much has the government spent implementing all the
provisions passed in Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and
other weapons, which received royal assent (Chapter No. 53) on
November 8, 1995; and (a) provide an accounting of how this
money has been spent; (b) provide information on how many
federal employees are working on the implementation of this
statute and what part of it they are working on; and (c)
provide a revised estimate of the total cost and number of
federal employees needed to implement the provisions of this
statute in each province and territory?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.): The Firearms Act received royal assent December
5, 1995. To date, the government has expended $34.3 million on
the implementation of this legislation. Monies expended to date
have been utilized for the design and development of the new
Canadian firearms registration system, CFRS, for the development
of communications vehicles to make the requirements of the new
legislation understood by firearms owners and for associated
program administration and liaison costs with
federal-provincial-territorial partners.
At the present time, 53 federal Department of Justice employees
are working on the implementation of this statute at the Canadian
firearms centre, CFC. The overall salary cost to date for
1997-98 is $1.9 million.
No federal employees would be involved
in the administration of the Firearms Act within the provinces
and territories under normal circumstances. However, in view of
the position taken by the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, we are developing plans
with the RCMP for the provision of administrative services within
those jurisdictions. These plans are not yet complete and,
accordingly, the specific resources required to perform the
required work and costs related thereto are not known at this
time.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN ECONOMY
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in this debate on the poverty issue, which is brought into
focus by the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party, especially
since this year is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights. This declaration sets out the basic social and economic
rights that should be guaranteed to ensure that the most basic needs of
every human being are met.
Must I remind the federal government that, under the agreements
signed in Copenhagen in 1995, it is required to find concrete ways in
which to improve the living conditions of the poorest of the poor in
Canada. We must recognize that, as noble as the words may be, reality is
distressing and this government is more concerned with its visibility
than with the need to put up a real fight against poverty.
To better understand this reality, let me briefly describe the
situation with respect to poverty and then outline government actions
that make the situation worse. The Bloc Quebecois has suggestions to
make and I will suggest a few solutions.
It will become obvious, in comparing the actions taken by this
government and the solutions put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, that two
diametrically opposed visions are taking shape in Canada regarding the
distribution of wealth.
Two different readings which clearly illustrate that there is one
country but two peoples, as well as the necessity for Quebec to
attain sovereignty.
In my riding of Québec, poverty has a face and a name. It is
a reality we face every day. In some districts, the unemployment
level exceeds 15%.
On top of this high unemployment rate, there is an increase in
the number of welfare recipients. This sad reality impacts on our
socio-community organizations and our soup kitchens, whose mission
it is to alleviate poverty, but who have great difficulty keeping
abreast of the demand.
The first victims of this tragedy are children, young people
and women. We must not forget the too many families living below
the poverty line, either. Need I remind you that 20% of the
population of Canada lives below the poverty line.
1225
It is all very well to support “zero tolerance” of poverty,
but what strikes me as essential are the concrete actions that must
be taken to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged.
When we speak of concrete actions, we mean such things as
remedying the inequality of taxation practices, not taxing low wage
earners to death and encouraging job creation. Canada's track
record as far as poverty is concerned is not as great as this
government would have us believe. Canada ranks 2nd out of 14
industrialized countries where poverty is concerned. Canada has
the lowest basic child allowance.
The problem is equally dramatic where young people are
concerned.
Of the 400,000 Quebeckers without jobs in 1995, 35% were young
people between the ages of 15 and 29. And for all kinds of family,
the 25 and under category is far and away the poorest.
I would like to remind the House what the present government
has done to put its fiscal house in order. In their single-minded
battle to bring down the deficit, the Liberals have turned a blind
eye to poverty since they took office in 1993. I would even go so
far as to say that the measures they have introduced have played a
large role in widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
In order to put their fiscal house in order, here is what the
Liberals have done. First, they have cut provincial transfer
payments in such key areas as health, education and income
security. During its two terms in office, the Liberal government
has cut social transfers by $42 billion.
Cuts to transfer payments to the provinces represent 54% of all
cuts by the present government between 1994 and 1998. And although
the government forecast spending cuts of 19%, actual cuts were only
9%.
In addition, they savagely attacked the unemployed. Over the
last year, the Liberal government has recovered $1.5 billion on the
backs of the unemployed by tightening the EI rules.
They raised taxes and increased tax revenue by refusing to
index tax tables, GST credits, and the child tax benefit. Measures
such as these saved this government $2 billion.
That is what the Liberal government has done. Briefly, its
savings come from $46 billion in cuts on the backs of the most
disadvantaged members of society. That is how they have reduced
their deficit.
Bluntly put, they have reduced their deficit on the backs of the
provinces, the unemployed and the poor, not to mention the middle
class, which is steadily losing ground.
The Bloc Quebecois has some suggestions. As the Liberal
government gets ready to bring down the budget, the Bloc Quebecois
is proposing a number of measures that would protect the public
from new rounds of slashed social programs, improve the situation
of the most disadvantaged and ensure a better distribution of
resources.
We are therefore calling on the government to avoid the
temptation to do something visible at all costs by instituting new
social measures that would duplicate and overlap what is already
being done provincially and that would ultimately penalize those
whose need is greatest.
We are asking the government to give the provinces tax points
as reimbursement for the amounts kept back during the Liberal's
first term from the health, education and social welfare transfers.
The provinces are in a better position than the federal government
to provide sustainable and reasonable solutions to people's
problems.
We are asking the government to change the employment
insurance plan. The Bloc wants the employment insurance fund to be
kept separate from the government consolidated fund. It also wants
half of the annual surplus in the account to be used to reduce
contributions and the other to go to improving the current system
and supporting the efforts of small and medium size business to
preserve and create jobs.
We can never say it enough. The unemployment insurance fund
must be returned to workers and not used to reduce the deficit.
We are asking the government to make targeted income tax
reductions.
Tax tables, GST credits and child tax credits must be re-indexed to
inflation.
1230
We must remember that, because the credit is not indexed,
50,000 children are no longer entitled to the maximum benefit each
year and its value has decreased for those families continuing to
receive it.
What is more, 840,000 low income families have begun to pay
tax because tax levels and personal exemptions are not indexed.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the New Democratic Party's motion,
but it reminds members of this House that Quebec will have a tax
policy that will enable it to really fight poverty, once it has the
tools. The day may not be so far off.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to the debate which was introduced by
the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. We have heard from all parties in this
House at the present time.
Before they go on with further talk, we should look at what
measures have been taken by places in Canada, in the United
States and around the world to deal with this particular problem.
In North America we will find that the people who have the lowest
unemployment and the people who are giving and entertaining the
most employment are governments that have taken a look at their
tax structure. They have the best employment.
I want to refer the member for Qu'Appelle to my province of
Saskatchewan—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect,
questions and comments should be directed to the hon. member for
Quebec.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, they look alike.
We have a government that has sold many of its crown
corporations. It has lowered the taxes to multinational
corporations. It has lowered the taxes in potash. It has lowered
the taxes in oil and thus Saskatchewan is almost parallel to
Alberta in having the highest employment. This comes by
governments lowering taxes, thus feeding the industry and thus
creating jobs. You do not create jobs by continuing high
taxation. That is the point we have to get across.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon.
member for Quebec responds I remind members to address each other
through the Chair.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, you are going to confuse
him. He cannot look at two people at the same time.
I fully agree that the taxation system must be reviewed, but
there must also be a sensitivity toward the working poor, those
whose earnings keep them below the poverty level. What the Bloc
Quebecois is calling for is a review of the taxation system. We
are, therefore, most anxious to see the Minister of Finance bring
down his budget, so that we can implement real solutions to the
problems people are facing, the least advantaged of our society in
particular.
Job creation is the real solution to poverty, full time and
well paying work. We know, for instance, that earning the minimum
wage will not get a person above the poverty line. That is where
the problem lies. Often people do have jobs, but these do not pay
enough to provide them with a certain quality of life.
The Liberal government should review its taxation system, not
overtax low wage earners, and tie its taxation system to the cost
of living.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member
for Quebec's comments. She talked about many things.
I want to remind the member and members of this House that
when it was time to get our house in order, when it was time to
make sure we could get the deficit down to zero, and
hopefully we will see that soon, measures were taken. For
example, we introduced a new tax treatment of child support.
1235
An hon. member: Thirty-eight tax raises.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: I did not interrupt you when you were
speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Quebec.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, since it has been in
power, the Liberal Party has done nothing but add to the poverty in
Canada, and the figures prove it.
When we refer to band-aid solutions, we are thinking for
example of the Liberals' promise of $1.7 billion for children. The
Liberals have got off to a slow start on this. They tell us that,
this spring, they are going to put $850 million in, but there is
already a deficit because there was a promise of $250 million
relating to the child tax credit.
This is far lower than the amount required; at this time,
the amount they would need to invest in the child tax credit is
$1.2 billion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion put forward
by the member for Qu'Appelle which states:
That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy
where a gap between the superrich and ordinary Canadian families
is widening, risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges
the government to introduce in the coming budget measures
ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new
prosperity.
Of course the timing of the resolution is very good when in a
few days, February 24, the Minister of Finance will table the
first budget in nearly 25 years, 16 of which the Liberal Party
held power, in which the country's debt will not increase. That
is a very compelling statement, that the Liberals have been in
power 16 years of the last 25.
The Progressive Conservative Party is urging this government to
take immediate action to address a number of social and economic
factors now facing Canadians. We are asking the government to
reverse the pattern of governing by reactionary measures, crisis
management and economic tinkering that has become the norm for
this government.
It has been said before but I think it is worth repeating that
Liberal governments do not plan to fail, they just fail to plan.
This year's budget will be another example of what has become a
Liberal tradition, no doubt. They will promise the voters the
world and then not too long after we will see flip-flop after
flip-flop after the positive media coverage has ended.
Examples of Liberal flip-flops include scrapping the GST. Now
the Liberals claim that tax. The Prime Minister now claims the
GST was his tax and is his tax. They flip-flopped on
renegotiating the NAFTA treaty. They are now so keen on NAFTA
that they want to expand and increase trade throughout the world.
Of course we all remember the flip-flop of scrapping the Pearson
airport redevelopment project. Most recently, Canadians have
been reminded about the flip-flop the Prime Minister has done on
writing a cheque for zero helicopters.
We all remember the Prime Minister saying how he was going to
write zero to helicopters, zero helicopters. We know now the bill
for Canadians. We know now how big the cheque Canadians must
write is for zero helicopters.
Meanwhile Canadians have the highest personal income taxes among
the G-7 nations. Canadians have actually become poorer while the
Liberals have been in office. Disposable income among Canadians
has decline by 1.3% since 1993 when this Liberal government came
to power.
By the way, I have another interesting statistic. The average
American is now 25% richer than the average Canadian. The
average American manufacturing worker is paid $1 more than his or
her Canadian counterpart. These are interesting facts and these
things have taken place since 1993.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are preparing to
announce the details of the new millennium scholarship fund next
Tuesday afternoon, I am told. We are going to get details from
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance next Tuesday
afternoon on the new millennium scholarship fund. Of course the
government is hoping that this program will initiate the
formation of the Prime Minister's legacy as the education Prime
Minister.
1240
In reality it is another Liberal gimmick. They have
inadequately addressed a major social and economic issue but have
given the appearance that action has been taken. They will not
address the real issue here.
The expected $3 billion scholarship fund represents just a small
portion of what the Liberal government has cut from the cash
portion of CHST payments to the provinces. The Liberals have cut
$17.3 billion from the cash portion of the CHST over the past
five years. Now they are going to invest $3 billion back into
the system for a scholarship fund and they expect Canadians to
congratulate them. I am one who will not be congratulating the
government on its reinvestment. I am sure the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be congratulating
it either. They have watched the Minister of Finance cut our
cash portion of the CHST from $419 million in 1993 down to $275
million in 1998.
The students in Newfoundland and Labrador have felt these cuts
as well. A recent study by the maritime provinces higher
education commission found the effects of the cuts to be
devastating on Atlantic students. In 1993 there were eight
students in the Atlantic region with a student debtload of
$30,000. Today, thanks to the Liberal cutbacks which have forced
universities to raise tuition fees and driven education costs
higher, there are 904 students with a debtload greater than
$30,000. This administration should be proud of that, especially
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. What a statistic
of failure.
The millennium scholarship fund as currently proposed will not
solve the structural problem of student debt levels that are too
high. It will do nothing for students already in the Canada
student loans system who are carrying huge debtloads. So let us
hope the Minister of Finance has some options and answers in his
budget that will come down on the 24th.
We should forget about making the millennium scholarship wholly
contingent on marks and performance. Eligibility for part of the
scholarship should be based on financial need. No one can argue
that excellence is great but with the debt situation facing
Canadian students today, access is better.
Canada continues to have a youth unemployment rate of 15.9%. The
Liberal policy to maintain high payroll taxes and high income
taxes runs counter to the most basic of free market logic. By
reducing EI premiums to offset the CPP tax hike and lowering
income taxes, this government could spur job creation. Our party
has called on the government to increase the basic income tax
credit from $6,459 to $10,000 a year. This would allow lower
income families to have more disposable income which they could
spend as they saw fit.
If the Minister of Finance is so worried about poor children and
poor families he need look no further than his own tax system for
the answer. As the gentleman behind me said, if you tax people
less, they won't be so poor. That is something this Minister of
Finance, this Prime Minister and this Liberal government have
somehow forgotten.
To further strengthen the economic situation of Canadians, the
Liberal government should re-evaluate its plan to overhaul the
seniors benefit program, an issue that will soon be a very hot
topic throughout this country. The Liberals' current proposal is
to abolish old age security, the pension income tax credit, the
age credit and the guaranteed income supplement and replace them
all with the new seniors benefit.
This benefit will have a 20% clawback on incomes above $26,000.
When combined with the existing marginal tax rates, this will
result in a marginal tax rate of between 60% and 70% for middle
income seniors.
This will destroy any incentive to save for retirement and
seriously discourage seniors from working even part time after
retirement.
1245
A senior remaining in the labour force past 65 years of age
could be working for as little as 30 cents on the dollar. That
is what the new seniors benefit will do.
Very few seniors have any knowledge of these changes and what
impact they will have. Before long it will become perfectly
clear what the impact will be. I expect there will be tremendous
pressure on the government to shelve the new seniors benefit
package.
The major initiatives we have talked about, tax relief,
protection of seniors benefits and student debt relief, will
certainly foster economic growth and give the economic tools to
all Canadians to prosper in the 21st century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If a number of
members wish to ask questions and comments, I ask them to stand
so that the Chair will have some idea of the number of members
who want to rise on questions and comments.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the member from Newfoundland on his very progressive
speech. I want to ask him a question about tax reform and trying
to decrease the inequalities.
Back in October the revenue critic for the Reform Party said in
the House that he thought millionaires were overtaxed,
specifically that Conrad Black was overtaxed.
Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that
millionaires are overtaxed, that Conrad Black pays too much in
taxes? Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that
they are overtaxed?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Qu'Appelle for his question but I have to correct him.
I am not that familiar with millionaires and the amount of tax
they pay. I must correct him on referring to members to my
immediate left as cousins. I assure him that I cannot speak for
all the Conservative caucus but I can certainly speak for one.
They are not cousins of mine.
I do not believe millionaires are too heavily taxed. If there
is anyone who can afford to pay more taxes it is millionaires.
As I said, coming from the province I come from and particularly
representing the riding of Burin—St. George's, which is
devastated right now because of the downturn and collapse of our
ground fishery, I do not have that worry about the taxes the
millionaires of Burin—St. George's have to pay.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to
the member opposite in the Conservative Party speak earlier. I
understand the Mulroney years is something they want to put
behind them.
I want to relate my questions directly to two points. Does the
member opposite agree or disagree that when his party was in
office it raised unemployment four times and that since this
government has been in office it has been reduced three times?
In addition, if I remember correctly, in the fall of 1993 the
member opposite's party was forecasting the deficit to be around
$30 million and it really came in at $42 million. Does he agree
that really happened and that over the four years we have been
able to take that deficit close to zero and hopefully soon to
zero?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the
hon. member that the Mulroney government was not perfect.
However, I have to remind him that neither is the present Liberal
government close to perfect.
A Liberal member reminded me the other day how bad the
Conservative government was. I said “Yes, in Canadians' wildest
dreams they probably did not think they would see a government
worse, but I am sorry to say they are seeing one right now
sitting in the Chamber”.
As I said initially in the first paragraph of my speech, for 25
years the Liberals have been in power for 16 of the 25. For the
first time the budget will not see an increase in the country's
debt.
I look the hon. member straight in the face and say to him that
he should say thank you for the Mulroney initiatives, the PC
initiatives of GST and NAFTA. Without them this finance minister
would not be bringing in the budget on February 24 that he will
bring in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure hon.
members would thank each other through the Chair.
1250
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
few comments to make. It really makes me sad to see two political
parties blame each other, considering the current impact of poverty. I
feel a little uncomfortable to have to address, here in this House, an
issue as serious as poverty.
We hear about the negative impact of the deficit and the debt. Let
me tell the House about the negative impact of poverty.
We should ask ourselves some tough questions, considering that one
Canadian child in five goes to school on an empty stomach. These
children cannot do well in school, because they are hungry, and yet this
in one of the richest countries in the world. There is a delayed impact,
since these young people are not able to go to school and get a solid
education. I wonder what kind of society we will have 20 years from now.
My time is up, but I will get back to this issue.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick
response for the Bloc member. We are all very concerned about
poverty. It is a big problem in the country, particularly for
children from poor families.
I have just one comment to make. If his party gets its way, I
do not think it will do much to resolve the poverty situation. My
prediction is that it will be much worse in his province than in
other areas of the country.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
too commend the hon. member for Burin—St. George's on his
speech. I know he is not a cousin of the Reform Party. I come
from the island of Cape Breton and he comes from the island of
Newfoundland. I suppose we could refer to ourselves almost as
cousins. I should also indicate that I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Churchill.
I say to the last speaker that those of us on the east coast, in
Newfoundland, in Cape Breton, in New Brunswick and on Prince
Edward Island understand perhaps too clearly the growing
disparities in the country. That is part of the reason we
brought forward the motion we have today. I am proud to speak to
the motion on behalf of my party.
The upcoming budget presents an opportunity for the government
to address the very real economic challenge of how to stop the
disparity, the growing inequality between the super rich whose
incomes have increased and other Canadians.
I am not only saying the poor, although we know the poorest of
the poor continue their decline in income and in services. Today
we are seeing that even the middle class is shrinking. We are
seeing the middle class, young families and young single people
working at part time jobs and trying to make ends meet. We see
young people who are at a point in their lives when they should
be leaving home, getting apartments and setting up their own
independence, and they cannot afford to do it. They are staying
at home with their parents who are seeing their own incomes
shrink and their costs increase.
What is happening is clearly the rich is getting richer and the
vast majority of Canadians is getting poorer. I am pleased to
speak to this motion which states:
That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy
where the gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian
families is widening, risking the future of our youth, strongly
urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures
ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new
prosperity.
The premier of Nova Scotia who called an election yesterday
sometimes refers to members of our party as the doom and gloom
people in his election rhetoric. We are talking about the new
prosperity in the country.
We live in a prosperous country. We live in a country that is
the envy in many ways of the world. That is why it is so
inexcusable to have this growing gap between the rich and the
poor. If the country were not as wealthy as it is, we could
perhaps say our hands are tied and there is not much we can do.
However, we live in a country with tremendous resources.
The Canada I grew up in was one that guaranteed quality
universal health care. It was one that guaranteed quality
affordable education to everyone. Had it not been for that, I am
not sure many of us could be in the House today.
Many of us are the products of those very good social programs.
1255
It provided every citizen with an opportunity to earn a decent
living, which is what Canadians want. Most Canadians are happy
to have a good job and a good paycheque. They are not seeking to
be millionaires. They are seeking to provide for their families,
to be able to send their children to university, and to ensure
that what we give to the next generation is at least as good as
what was given to us.
My parents' generation grew up in a country where they could
make a good and decent living. Each generation gave to the next
hope and prosperity. That prosperity and that hope are no longer
shared by all Canadians.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned some statistics. I
will briefly refer to them because they are compelling statistics
in this country of plenty. Today in Canada over half a million
children live in poverty. The number of food banks in Canada has
tripled and the proportion of the population relying on them has
doubled.
I remember the first food bank in my community. It was a small
little church hall called Loaves & Fishes. It was supposed to be
a temporary measure to get us through a recession of a couple of
years. It began as churches were concerned about what they saw
then, the growing number of poor. They were ahead of their time.
The growing number of poor has increased to the point now where
in this country of plenty food banks are institutionalized.
The hon. member indicated that our caucus met with
representatives of the food banks. It is shocking to me that we
now need a national organization representing people who run food
banks. It is reminiscent of the dirty thirties.
In Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, where I come from, unemployment
continues to be double the national average. This widening gap
between the rich and the poor not only separates the population
into classes. It is beginning to divide the country along
regional lines. I indicated that those of us in Newfoundland and
the east do not share in the prosperity of this new Canada which
the government proclaims. In my community that has meant a
decrease in the population of young people. In the last five
years over 2,700 young people have left my community and will not
come back.
What does that mean for the growing gap between the rich and the
poor? It means that we have an older population and we do not
have that youth and vitality creating new business, entering the
workforce, purchasing, and creating jobs. This is because of
policies of the government that encourage a migrant workforce.
Young people would hop the train in Cape Breton if we still had
it, but we do not any more. They rely on their thumb to get to
somewhere else in the country where they might get a minimum wage
job.
The Reform Party talks about Alberta and how it has done some
wonderful things following a policy of lower taxes and supporting
the very wealthy. Many of the young people who leave my island
end up in Calgary in a minimum wage job without a bed to sleep
in, if it were not for shelters, because they cannot afford the
housing costs.
There are answers. One of them would be to change the GST the
government adopted. The premier of Nova Scotia came to the
government in November, although he supported the GST when he was
on the Liberal benches. He asked the Minister of Finance to take
it off heating oil and electricity. He failed in his request.
That is one measure where we could have some progressive taxation
policies by the government.
In terms of education, the comments from the member for
Burin—St. George's echo the fact that more and more Atlantic
Canadian students are simply not going to university. When the
government says that education is a great leveller it is not
happening for many students in the country.
For the young people of this nation, I ask for support of our
motion.
1300
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak in favour of our motion.
The cuts that helped balance the budget have been harmful to
Canadians and will have longstanding negative effects. We have
seen the deconstruction of much of our social system in the fight
against the deficit. Billions of dollars were withdrawn from the
social envelope before and after the introduction of the Canada
health and social transfer in 1995.
Equally serious was the loss of the Canada assistance plan. The
war on the deficit was won largely on the backs of social
programs. As a result, low and even middle income Canadians have
borne the brunt of continued cuts to federal transfers.
By offloading part of its responsibility for social expenditures
on to the provinces, for example, forcing unemployed Canadians to
turn to welfare, the government might have spent less but poverty
problems remain the same.
The government by its drastic cuts is ahead of schedule in its
quest to balance the budget. It has cut too deep, yet still not
deep enough for the Reform Party.
Reform has in its ongoing fanatical statements called New
Democrats communists because we believe that government should
reinvest in social programs, called New Democrats communists,
why? Because we want a caring, just society.
I quote from the Saturday Star: “Canadian church leaders
have launched a prebudget letter writing campaign to urge the
finance minister to live up to his word and make Canada a caring
society. The letters plead with the minister to use the expected
tax dividend from a budget surplus to combat poverty. The needy
are now being marginalized and even abandoned by callous
provincial governments such as Ontario's which are obsessed with
pushing through big income tax breaks for high income
Canadians”.
The Ottawa Citizen states: “Canadian religious leaders
have launched an unprecedented challenge to the finance minister
to live up to his own promise and make Canada a caring society.
For the first time ever the Canadian Council of Churches, the
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Reform Council of
Judaism are together urging the Liberal government to launch a
campaign against poverty in its February budget”.
I wonder if these church leaders know that the Reform Party
considers them communists.
Let me quote the Caledon Institute of Social Policy: “Ottawa
now has a wonderful opportunity to reinvest and rebuild not the
social system of the past but the better and new system of the
future, geared to the economy and society facing us in the next
century. It is time to reinvest in making Canada a better place
to live for all Canadians in a fair chance for all Canadian
children, in healthier, safer communities and in reducing the
growing inequality that threatens to turn our country into two
nations, the invidious two nations of affluent and poor. It is
time to reinvest the peace dividend from the war against the
deficit and build the social base of our country”.
My colleagues from the NDP and I share this belief that it is
time to reinvest in social programs. The coming budget should
introduce measures to ensure every Canadian the opportunity to
share in a new prosperity through renewed investment in health
care, education and other vital programs.
The gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian families is
widening. Since 1989 that gap has grown. Average family incomes
have fallen by roughly 5%. The number of poor children grew by
47%. The number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy has
tripled.
When I was in my early teens I read an article in which Mother
Teresa was being interviewed. The journalist asked Mother Teresa
what she would do about poverty. Her response was that
government should look after poverty and she would look after the
poor. Mother Teresa will always be with us through her efforts
in spirit and there will be those who continue to look after the
poor, but this government appears to have given up on the war on
poverty.
Young Canadians do not have much to look forward to. Youth
unemployment is high at 16.5% last month. That is a lot of young
persons whose first experience in the job market is no job. The
reward for young graduates of university or college is not a
decent job. It is a debt of $25,000 to $30,000. Affordability
should be a national standard for education. Young people
deserve the opportunity to learn, to develop skills, to build a
future. We cannot afford to risk their future or ours by wasting
their talents or by creating more financial barriers to
education.
Youth unemployment deeply affects my riding in Manitoba. The
average age of the aboriginal population is 10 years younger than
the general population.
1305
We welcome the government's statement of reconciliation, but
this is only the first step. Young people in my riding and
elsewhere in Canada deserve a better future. We are hoping that
with the coming budget we will see concrete actions to improve
the lives of young Canadians.
It is unacceptable that most aboriginal people are at or below
the poverty line. In major western cities four times as many
aboriginals as other citizens are below the poverty line.
Unemployment does not only affect young people. It affected 8.9%
of Canadians last month. But the official unemployment rate is
just the tip of the iceberg of Canada's job crisis. Hundreds and
thousands of Canadians have simply given up looking for work.
When people give up looking, they are no longer included in the
workforce. As far as Statistics Canada is concerned, they
disappear from the labour market.
It is ironic that with so many unemployed people in Canada, the
lucky ones who have jobs are working overtime. Statistics Canada
published a document entitled “Hours of Work”. It documents
the extent of total overtime work including unpaid overtime.
In any given week in the first three months of 1997, almost one
in five, 18.6% of employees, worked overtime defined as time
worked in excess of scheduled hours. On average, these workers
put in almost nine additional hours, the equivalent of more than
an extra day per week. The worst in this is that more overtime
was unpaid than was paid. In any given week, 10.7% of employees
worked unpaid overtime while 8.4% worked paid overtime and how
interesting to find out that the unpaid overtime is particularly
prevalent in the public services.
Another sad trend in the job market is multiple job holdings. A
lot of Canadians need to work more than one job to afford the
necessities of life. Five per cent of our labour force holds
more than one job. A labour force survey shows that multiple job
holders average more than 46 hours per week, this while the CEOs
of some companies are bringing home enormous pay raises while
their employees are struggling to make ends meet.
The richer are getting richer and ordinary Canadians are getting
poorer. This is the Liberal legacy into the new millennium.
There is no question that history should show the reign of the
Liberals as the decline of a just and caring society.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from the NDP.
Canadians know that maintaining a strong economy and providing
opportunities is really critical for social success and for the
success of so many of the issues she brought to the fore.
She did give us a whole list of grievances and things that are
wrong in Canadian society and in the economy, but she did not
give us any suggestions as to how we can deal with those issues.
It is so very easy to give us a long list of what is wrong or
what she thinks is wrong. I wonder if she could tell us what is
the NPD's position in the whole series of things that would help
the economy, like NDP policy on trade promotion, NDP policy on
access for small business enterprises, technology partnerships.
Can she tell us the NDP's suggestions to the government as to
what we can do to ensure that we give the economy the kind of
energy it needs in order to respond to the whole list of issues
she has outlined?
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the NDP
has ever shirked from coming up with an alternative approach.
Number one in our position has always been that the tax system in
Canada is unfair. We do not believe we need to totally tax the
horribly rich and everybody else does not want to pay their fair
share.
Canadians want to pay their fair share for education, for
health, for transportation, for social programs. What they do
not want to pay for are things like an unfair tax system when one
of Canada's supposedly finest, an Order of Canada recipient,
transferred to relatives or turned over his assets into cash.
The process involved more than just houses, cottages, mortgages,
small commercial investments and condominium lots. Eagleson has
also been selling furniture for many years. He collected
valuable antiques for his office, depreciating them by 20% each
year and then, when they were no longer deemed worth anything on
paper, moving them into his homes. The Eaglesons furnished their
Rosedale houses from 1976 to 1997.
They have owned three pieces of English Gregorian mahogany
furniture which were described by one of the experts as being
high quality for Toronto.
1310
What we are asking for is a fair system. All Canadians should
pay fairly.
In Thompson recently the new tax changes on a $1,500 bursary—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, the hon. member for Elk Island and, if there is time,
the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
probably will be time because I intend to be brief.
First I would like to set the record straight for me and, I am
sure, on behalf of my party. I can put some distance between me
and the name calling which the hon. member claimed. It is false
and I disagree with her.
I have many good friends who have an NDP philosophy. We have
many good discussions. In fact some of them have more respect
for me than I deserve. That is wonderful.
One of them said he voted for me because he thought I was worthy
of the vote. I was very honoured by that. There were many NDP
people in my riding who voted for Reform because they believed
that our way of dealing compassionately with people in need is
the better long term solution, and that is to give people
personal integrity, more ability to help themselves and to help
others by having smaller government and reducing taxes.
I challenge the member to try to put rhetoric aside and answer
this question. It is a very serious question. The fact is when
we have so much debt we are really taking all the taxpayers'
money and one-third of the money that we take from them we
transfer to the rich, namely the banks, the investment houses and
so on, in terms of the interest payments on the amount we owe.
Surely she, as an NDP member, must be opposed to that transfer
to the rich. I would like her response to that question.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, there is no question
that the hon. member has just stated my point. The tax system
has traditionally been unfair. It allows the very wealthy,
through numerous loopholes, to not pay their fair share. As a
result the rest of us ordinary Canadians are going to work and,
without any grudge whatsoever, are willing to pay for education
and health care. We are giving our dollars to the government and
we expect it to deal with our dollars fairly.
That does not mean we want to give up education, health care and
social programs. It means that we want this government to be
held accountable. It does not mean we do not want those
programs.
How on earth would Reform expect a country to survive if nobody
but nobody paid for anything whatsoever to help each other?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I noticed there was a bit of a
contrast between the previous two speakers. One member of the
NDP talked about prosperity and how Canada is an enviable
country, and then we heard the doom and gloom.
I want to ask the member a question on a specific item. I do
not want her to go all over the place with her answer.
I am not clear on her comments with respect to overtime. Is it
her position that there should be no overtime?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt, but the parliamentary secretary is on debate.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but it is
Friday afternoon.
I welcome this opportunity to respond to the motion of the hon.
member for Qu'Appelle. The motion urges the government to
introduce measures in the upcoming budget to ensure that every
Canadian has an opportunity to share in new prosperity.
Indeed, creating opportunity for Canadians has been a hallmark
of this government since it took office. Over the last four
years we have worked with Canadians to overcome our nation's
economic challenges and to put in place a strong foundation for
success in the knowledge based economy of the new millennium.
1315
It is clear that when this government first took office the
deficit was hovering around $42 billion.
Mr. Ken Epp: Talk about the debt.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Something had to be done about the
deficit. My colleague across the way wants to talk about the
debt but I am sure he understands that you work on the deficit
first and then on the debt.
Canada is poised to be a leader in this new economy. We have
put our fiscal house in order. Interest rates are at historic
lows and our inflation rate is among the lowest in the
industrialized world. From a trade standpoint, we are one of the
most open economies in the world. We have many improvements to
make in terms of trade. We must get into the details and make
sure the rules of trade are well understood and applied.
We have an opportunity to build upon this economic foundation to
create a knowledge economy for the 21st century. We have the
people and the resources, we have the institutions and we have
research excellence. But having such assets is not enough. We
all understand that. We must mobilize our resources toward a
clear objective of being the best in the world.
When Parliament convened in September, our government set out
its priorities for seizing the opportunities presented by the new
economy. Our priorities focused on setting the conditions to
create jobs and wealth in economic sectors ranging from high
technology to services and primary resources.
One of our key goals is to make Canada the most connected
country in the world and to make sure Canadians have access to
the electronic highway and information economy by the year 2000.
Connecting Canadians is essential for jobs and growth. By being
the most connected nation in the world, we will be helping youth,
workers and firms acquire the skills needed for the knowledge
economy. Improving competitiveness and productivity of Canadian
firms in all sectors of the economy is most important. It is a
real must that we make Canada a choice location for investment
and create new markets and opportunities in a global economy. We
must open these opportunities to our rural areas and the remote
areas of our country. This includes our aboriginal communities.
Connecting Canadians will allow us to build from strength. It
is well recognized that we have the overall best communications
infrastructure among the G-7 nations. We are among the leaders
in terms of penetration, quality, market development and rates.
We have the lowest rates in the G-7.
Connecting Canadians will also redefine how governments provide
services and interact with citizens. It will open new ways for
citizens to express their views in a democracy.
Connecting Canadians has a strong social, cultural and unity
element. It brings citizens together from coast to coast to
coast in either official language. It gives our creative
community a new vehicle for cultural expression.
We have already put in place many of the pieces for the
connecting Canadians agenda. These initiatives embrace our
government's commitment to help all Canadians access the
information highway and develop the skills to use it no matter
where they are.
There is the community access program, better known as CAP. By
the year 2000-01 every Canadian rural community with more than
400 people will be plugged into the Internet. That is over 5,000
communities.
Our community access program is giving people in Canada's remote
areas access to municipal, provincial and federal information
services. It is helping them to learn the skills needed to
compete in an information based economy. It is becoming a focal
point for community partnerships and building on ramps to the
information highway.
1320
Another initiative is SchoolNet. By the year 1999 this joint
program with the provincial governments and the private sector
will make Canada the first country in the world to have all its
schools and libraries connected to the Internet. SchoolNet is
also about content and connecting Canadians.
Our SchoolNet web site includes a collection of Internet based
educational services and resources for both teachers and
students. It includes career guides and university and college
course calendars, information readily available at their homes.
There are thousands of teacher designed projects and lesson plans
and virtual tours of institutions that range from the Louvre to
the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
The SchoolNet digital collections program is also training young
Canadians to provide innovative education material on line. To
date, young Canadians across the country have participated in
projects to digitize some 180 collections of historical and
cultural significance.
Computers for schools is another initiative. Working in
partnership with provincial governments and private sector
partners, including the Telephone Pioneers, we are recycling used
computers in schools and libraries. Later today the Prime
Minister will celebrate the delivery of the 50,000th computer
under this program. We have challenged corporate Canada to help
us reach a target of some 250,000 computers by the year 2000.
This program will allow people from all walks of life to have
access to computers and to be able to learn about computers at a
very young age. This is a must for the future.
The student connection program will hire 2,000 university and
college students to help some 50,000 small and medium size
businesses get connected to the Internet and train them how to
use the Internet for their business. Many of the SMEs are
learning that by being more flexible and being able to use the
Internet they are actually getting into more business and more
exports. The students have the opportunity to earn wages to
defray their education costs while gaining valuable work
experience with a community business.
Another initiative designed to help Canadian youth find jobs is
the national graduate register. This Internet database is
already becoming a valuable way for young people to post their
resumés and for employers to find the skilled young people they
need. It is getting more than 32,000 hits per day. May I repeat
that it is getting 32,000 hits a day.
In the months ahead Canadians can look forward to new
initiatives to expand our agenda for connecting Canadians and to
build on the successes we have achieved and the partnerships we
have forged with the provinces and with private enterprise.
Canada is well on its way to becoming a world-class connected
country. We are accelerating our efforts to be the best in the
world. Connecting Canadians is an integrated package where the
whole is greater than the sum of its components and each element
helps build the capacity of the others.
The agenda will enable Canada to be the recognized and
acknowledged as the most connected country in the world. It will
enable us to create new opportunities for learning and cultural
expression, job creation and economic growth; economic growth by
being aware and being right up to date on trade around the world,
being up to date on technology around the world, and being closely
connected with research being done around the world.
1325
In a knowledge based economy our most important resources are
people. That is why connecting Canadians is very important. It
is about empowering Canadians and enabling them to take full
advantage of all the economic, cultural, social and educational
opportunities that the knowledge economy offers us.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to add a commentary with respect to the comments made by
the previous speaker.
He spoke in detail about connecting Canadians. I would like to
inform him that this morning I connected with some Canadians. I
connected with some Canadians on the grounds outside this House.
They were members of the Ottawa-Carleton Health Coalition.
These people are very concerned about the cuts in health care
and the effect on the medicare system. Their theme was to put
the heart back into medicare. This gathering was intended to
attract members of Parliament, to have them there to hear the
concerns. I did not notice too many members of Parliament but
certainly those of us who were there did hear the concerns of
connecting in a real way with Canadians.
It is all well and good to talk about technology and connecting
Canadians through technology. I note that the hon. member
mentioned 32,000 hits a day. To me that would certainly
illustrate the high degree of unemployment and the high degree of
need out there if 32,000 people a day are trying to contact
people through this computer system.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to
connecting with Canadians in a way that deals with restoring
medicare funding to the provinces to the previous level,
enforcing the provisions of the Canada Health Act and the
elimination of C-91 so as to reduce the cost of prescription
drugs. How does the government intend to connect with Canadians
in that way?
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member
opposite understands when there are 32,000 hits a day those are
not only people looking for jobs, but employers searching the web
to interview people.
That is what is happening today. Employers, whenever they have
time to search the Internet, scan it to get resumés and
information on people who are looking for jobs. It makes it
easier for them. We put it in place so that the people looking
for jobs and the employers who are going to hire the people can
do so very quickly.
On the matter of C-91 we are in a period where information is
required. The regulations have been gazetted. We have another
two weeks to go before the end of the gazetting. I make it very
clear that the C-91 debate was held openly. Almost 200 witnesses
were in attendance. The member's party was absent most of the
time. As far as I am concerned there was very little attendance
by his party.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since I
started to speak, I thought there might have been another motion.
I thought we were going to debate poverty, offer solutions, and see
the government perhaps react to some of the suggestions we made to
it during the debate.
I note that the hon. member across the floor has named several
government programs, and that is exactly what we deplore, the fact
that there have been $42 billion in cuts to provincial transfer
payments for social assistance, health and education. At the same
time, that same government is going to interfere in those same
areas, which are provincial areas of jurisdiction.
We ask the hon. member if it would not be desirable for the
provinces to be given back the amounts taken from them in the
shameful cuts that have been made at the expense of the most
disadvantaged members of the population, and of the population as
a whole.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I see the member wants it
both ways. Get involved but do not get involved.
During the election it was made very clear that 50% would go
against the debt and tax reduction and 50% would be spent on
social programs and targeted programs for the good of Canadians,
and that is the program for the government.
1330
Canadians have said that over and over despite some people not
agreeing with it. Canadians have said get rid of the deficit,
work on the debt, but spend money on social programs and target
programs.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.30 p.m., it is
my duty to indicate to the House that the deliberations on the
motion are now terminated.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
LOUIS RIEL DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
revoke the verdict of “guilty of high treason” pronounced on Louis
Riel on August 1, 1885, and commemorate him by declaring November
16 of each year to be Louis Riel Day throughout Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is to stress the importance of
Louis Riel and his role in the fight for the rights of the Metis,
francophones and westerners in Canada.
It is very much an issue, as the importance of resolving the Louis
Riel issue was recognized in the Statement of Reconciliation between the
federal government and the aboriginal peoples published on January 7.
Indeed, in this statement, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development wrote, and I quote:
No attempt at reconciliation with Aboriginal people can be
complete without reference to the sad events culminating in the
death of Métis leader Louis Riel.
These events cannot be undone; however, we can and will continue to
look for ways of affirming the contributions of Métis people in
Canada and of reflecting Louis Riel's proper place in Canada's
history.
I would like these fine words to be more than just talk for a
change. Ever since coming to this place, I have been making
representations to move the issue along and hopefully resolve the issue
of Louis Riel's unfair conviction by moving, to date, four bills and one
motion.
Each time, the government and the Liberal members of this place
lauded my good intentions but defeated my every initiative. Each time,
they said it was important something be done without ever specifying
what this something should be or when it should be done.
Some even stooped to party politics, urging Metis groups not to
support these initiatives on account of the fact they were put forward
by a Bloc Quebecois member.
They promised them that they would act. I would not play that game and
publicly stated, on television, that I would support any initiative to
fully clear Louis Riel. I also offered to withdraw my private member's
bill as soon as a government bill was introduced.
But the Liberal government would rather continue playing its
hypocritical game. This government claims to be open to all cultures,
boasts about understanding and representing all Canadians, drafts
statements of reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, but at the same
time continues to ignore Metis demands in refusing to pardon and clear
Louis Riel.
1335
All parties in the House, however, say they want to pardon
Louis Riel, and the list of their efforts to do so over the past 15
years is a long one.
In 1983 and 1984, two bills were introduced by the
Conservative member for Edmonton East, Mr. Yurko. In 1984, two
bills were introduced by the NDP member for Regina—Lumsden, Mr.
Benjamin. In November 1985, on the 100th anniversary of Louis
Riel's death by hanging, the Liberal member for Edmonton East, now
the Minister of Canadian Heritage, also called for Louis Riel's
pardon. In 1987, a bill was introduced by the NDP member for
Kamloops, Mr. Riis.
In 1989, the NDP member for Comox—Alberni, Mr. Skelly, introduced
a motion calling for Louis Riel to be recognized as one of the
Fathers of Confederation.
In 1992, the biannual Liberal Party convention passed a
resolution concerning Louis Riel but, in 1997, it voted against a
bill introduced by a Bloc member. On March 9, 1992, the House of
Commons unanimously passed a motion introduced by the then Minister
responsible for Constitutional Affairs, Joe Clark, a Conservative.
Mr. Clark's motion, while highly laudable, was only a first
step towards Louis Riel's pardon. Although the motion recognized
Riel's role as the founder of Manitoba, it referred only briefly to
his death.
Yet Riel led the same fight for the rights of Saskatchewans as
he did for Manitobans.
The only difference between these two struggles was that, in 1884
and 1885, the federal government decided to send in the army rather
than negotiate with the population, thus causing a bloody
confrontation, which culminated in the rigged trial of Riel and his
death by hanging.
The treatment of Louis Riel is a very powerful symbol for the
Métis people. With his death, the Métis lost all their rights, and
recognition of these rights is inextricably linked with restoring
their dignity. For, beyond land and monetary claims, a people's
pride is bound up with their culture and history. Only a full
pardon for Louis Riel will restore his honour and begin the healing
process for the Métis people.
For the benefit of our viewers and of my colleagues who are
new to Parliament, I will provide a brief portrait of Louis Riel so
they may understand why, 113 years after his death and 154 years
after his birth, this man is still the subject of so much talk. By
the way, there is a snow sculpture at the exit just opposite
Parliament of Louis Riel by the artist who did the statue of Louis
Riel that is now behind the Manitoba legislature.
He was born in St. Boniface on October 22, 1844, the son of
Jean-Louis Riel, whose grandmother was a Chipewa, and Julie de
Lagimodière, whose mother was Indian. He was the oldest of a
family of 11 and was sent to school at the Petit Séminaire de
Montréal between 1858 and 1865. He was a gifted student, always
the first in his class. He learned Greek, Latin, French, English
and Cree.
In 1866, he returned to the Red River region and arrived in
St. Boniface in July 1868. On his return, he discovered strong
animosity between the newly arrived English Protestant colonists
wanting to control the colony with the help of the central
government and the Metis, French Catholics and English settlers
already there.
That same year, the federal government bought the rights over
the western territories from the Hudson's Bay Company.
Unfortunately, it did not bother preparing the way for the change
the jurisdiction and waiting for the inhabitants' approval of the
new policy.
At the time, the 10,000 Metis in the Red River region lived as
an independent people. They traded with the States more than they
did with Canada. When their land was handed over to people in the
east without any notice, their national pride was sorely hurt.
The situation was exacerbated by the arrival of the government
surveyors, who imposed the new arrangement arrogantly, dividing up
the lands, keeping the best for themselves or their friends and
intimating that the legitimate owners would soon have to hand over
their farms to the English colonists from the east.
1340
The Métis decided to defend themselves, calling upon 21-year-
old Louis David Riel, whom they trusted, to lead them. Riel took
up the cause of his compatriots, protested against the surveyors'
actions, and made claims against the federal Parliament.
In December 1869, the Hudson's Bay Company ceased to
administer the country. Louis Riel then formed a provisional
government, with Métis, English and French members, which was later
approved by the cabinet in Ottawa. The federal government promised
complete amnesty and compliance with the Métis' demands, but those
promises were never kept.
Strong action on the part of Riel and the Métis and their list
of rights forced the federal government of the day to grant
provincial status to part of this territory, namely the district of
Assiniboine, rather than make the west a mere territory under a
governor appointed by Ottawa.
The 1870 Manitoba Act conferred bilingual status on the
province's laws and courts, a dual denominational school system,
and a legislative council.
In October 1871, supporters of annexation with the U.S.
crossed the border and seized the post of Pembina. Riel recruited
and organized a company of armed horsemen to defend the borders.
In 1872, Riel had a $5,000 price put on his head; he was
accused of the murder of Thomas Scott, who had been sentenced to
death by the provisional government. This forced him into exile in
the United States.
In October 1873, Riel was elected to represent Provencher, and
went to plead his case at Ottawa.
This became impossible because he was under the threat of death or
arrest.
When he was re-elected in February 1874, Riel went to Ottawa.
He entered Parliament on March 30, disguised in a hood and escorted
by the member for Rimouski, Jean-Baptiste-Romuald Fiset, and signed
the register. He was expelled under a motion tabled by the Ontario
Orangemen. In September 1874, he was again re-elected for
Provencher, but was expelled from the House a second time. In
February 1875, Prime Minister Mackenzie granted him amnesty,
provided he went into exile for five years.
In 1876, Riel was committed, first in Montreal and then in
Quebec City, for hallucinations, believing he had been entrusted
with a divine mission to defend the Métis. He returned west in
1878. In 1881, he settled in Montana, where he married Marguerite
Monet and fathered three children.
From 1880 on, the Métis sent numerous petitions to the federal
government, which was delaying the return of titles to their
properties.
The Métis were afraid of losing their lands to Canadian Pacific.
In 1884, the Métis and Indians of Saskatchewan called on Riel
to help them defend their rights, as he had done so well for the
people of Manitoba in 1869. Faced with the Conservative
government's apathy, the Métis decided to take action to end their
economic woes. They created a small republic and launched a
peaceful protest to have it recognized.
On December 16, 1884, representatives of the people of
Saskatchewan sent the federal government a 25-clause petition
setting out their claims and grievances. They requested permission
to sent delegates to Ottawa to defend their rights. These
representatives would be able to conclude an agreement for the
eventual entry of their territory, as a province, into
Confederation.
At that time, Saskatchewan had 60,000 inhabitants, and Manitoba had
12,000 at the time of its entry into Confederation.
The reaction of the central government to the reasonable
claims of Saskatchewans was to send in the army to subdue them, in
order to be able to hand over their lands to the railway companies
and colonists from the east. Since the federal government was
losing interest in their cause, the Métis and Indians rose up and
won a few victories, but the troops sent by Ottawa defeated Riel at
Batoche and regained control of the territory. Riel was taken
prisoner on May 15, 1885.
On November 16, 1885, at the age of 41, Louis David Riel, hero
of the Métis, was hanged, after a trial marked by irregularities.
In December, at the insistence of his family, his body was moved
to Saint-Vital in Manitoba and buried in the cemetery of the
Saint-Boniface cathedral.
Because justice was not fully done in the case of Louis Riel,
I have, since being elected to Parliament, introduced bills and
this motion.
On December 10, 1996, my bill was defeated by a slim majority
of 112 to 103. This remarkable support, despite the party line
imposed by the Liberal government, is a clear indication that there
are a growing number of members in the House who recognize the
validity of Louis Riel's cause.
1345
Even our friends from the Reform Party recently put up a picture of
Louis Riel in their caucus room, because he was a western pioneer.
Canadians and Quebeckers must realize that, had it not been for
Louis Riel, Canada's borders would stop at the border on the west side
of Ontario. Therefore, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make
this motion a votable item.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
for Rimouski—Mitis asking for unanimous consent to make this a
votable motion?
Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
unanimous consent for this to become a votable motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I address Motion No. 108 which would
revoke Louis Riel's conviction and declare a day in his honour.
[Translation]
Over the last two decades, the issue of Louis Riel and the
recognition that he deserves have often been raised in this House. Given
his great involvement in the building of this country, it would
certainly be appropriate to better highlight his role as a builder of
our nation and founder of the Metis movement. Such recognition would go
a long way toward giving Louis Riel a status more in line with his
remarkable achievements.
[English]
Our government continues to expend time and energy to find ways
to heal the unfortunate events of the past while also trying to
find appropriate ways to honour Louis Riel's memory in
contemporary terms.
It is only through positive and progressive measures that we can
truly pay homage to one who warrants such recognition.
[Translation]
Riel was a unique person, who deserves to be remembered for
everything he did for Canada and for the Metis nation.
[English]
Riel was educated in theology and law. He was fluent in
English, French, Greek, Latin and Cree. He was an elegant and
polished statesman who directed the negotiations with the
Government of Canada on the entry of Manitoba and the Northwest
Territories into the Dominion of Canada.
[Translation]
He was a tireless defender of the rights of Metis and of all the
other residents of the territories. It was his hope to see them take
their place in Canadian society and enjoy the same rights and privileges
as all other Canadians.
Under Riel's leadership, the Metis from the Red River adopted, in
1870, a list of rights to be protected—freedom of religion, language
rights, minority rights. They used that list during the negotiations
with the Government of Canada to have Rupert's Land and the Northwest
Territories included in the Dominion.
[English]
The Manitoba Act which Riel was instrumental in negotiating
provided for certain guarantees for Metis people, including
schooling and religious rights as well as recognition of French
and English language rights. The rights of other citizens were
also clearly set out in the list of rights.
This was Riel's vision of a united country with each citizen
participating on an equal footing.
[Translation]
After Manitoba joined the Canadian federation, the constituents of
Provencher, in that same province, elected Riel by acclamation, on three
occasions, as their member of Parliament in the House of Commons.
The Metis also called on him to ensure the respect of their
fundamental rights in the part of the Northwest Territories that later
became Saskatchewan.
Louis Riel dedicated his life to protecting the Metis, and he paid
the ultimate price for leading a movement to have the rights and the
interests of the Metis protected. He understood their concerns, and it
was clear in his mind what place they were entitled to in the Canadian
federation.
[English]
As most in the House would agree, Riel's accomplishments and
contributions to the building of this nation as a free,
independent and united country are many. Given these significant
contributions, governments have over the years honoured Riel in a
number of ways.
In 1970 a postage stamp was issued in his commemoration.
Cultural performances have been funded over the years, including
the back to Batoche days celebrations which Metis view as a
sacred event.
[Translation]
On March 10, 1992, a special resolution was passed in this
House to honour the unique and historical role Riel played as the
founder of Manitoba and his contribution to Confederation.
On May 16, 1996, thanks to a significant financial
contribution by the government, a statue representing Riel as the
statesman he was was unveiled on the site of Manitoba's legislative
assembly.
1350
The member for Rimouski—Mitis even mentioned a more recent
commemoration, at Winterlude, our winter festival here, which is
moving into its second weekend.
People here saw 12 blocks of snow on the grounds in front of
Parliament Hill at the start of the week. Some joked that it was
a winter depiction of the caucus of the member for Rimouski—Mitis,
but it was nothing of the sort. It was the wherewithal for 12
magnificent sculptures representing the provinces and territories.
The statue sculpted to honour Manitoba was a bust of Louis Riel.
I encourage everyone in the national capital region to come
and see these sculptures over the weekend.
These sorts of positive and progressive measures are the way
we honour the memory of Louis Riel. They have the support of all
Canadians and bear true witness to his contribution to the building
of Canada.
[English]
On January 7 of this year the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the Minister of Natural Resources of
Canada unveiled “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action
Plan”. This action plan provides a solid framework through
which we can make greater progress on the serious problems facing
all aboriginal people.
One of the important themes of “Gathering Strength” was
healing and reconciliation. In that regard the federal
government committed to seeking appropriate ways of affirming the
contribution of Metis people in Canada and of reflecting Louis
Riel's place in Canada's history.
[Translation]
It is in these ways that the government will continue to work
closely with the Metis leaders and the descendants of Louis Riel.
The government intends to continue the dialogue it has already
begun with the Metis leaders to find a way to resolve the problem
of the guilty verdict given Louis Riel.
[English]
Louis Riel was an eloquent, articulate defender of Metis rights,
as well as those of all members of the community whether
aboriginal or non-aboriginal, anglophone or francophone.
The Metis people formed a substantial part of the population
then and Louis Riel championed the rights of minority groups.
Riel believed in the Metis having equal rights and participation
within Confederation.
Let us be clear on one thing. He was never an advocate of
separation. He did not want to tear the country apart. Rather
he gave his life trying to build it.
If the real purpose of this measure is to enhance the stature of
Louis Riel in the minds and hearts of Canadians, there are many
positive measures we can and will take. We will find ways to
show Canadians from all walks of life how much we honour the
memory of Louis Riel and recognize and appreciate his
contributions to the development of Canada.
I remind hon. members of the resolution adopted in 1992 by the
House. It recognized the unique and historic role of Louis Riel
as the founder of Manitoba and his contribution to the
development of Confederation. This was an important moment in
the annals of Metis history as the resolution was overwhelmingly
adopted by the House and, equally important, because the
resolution was the product of significant consultation with the
Metis community.
[Translation]
Whatever decision we make on a matter of this importance must
be acceptable to the descendants of Louis Riel and to the Metis
people.
[English]
I believe that by working together with Riel's descendants and
the Metis leadership we will find an appropriate solution to this
important matter.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to thank the member for Rimouski—Mitis for
her persistence and constancy in this matter. One day we
will together all find a way to more fully and faithfully honour
the memory and the legacy of that great individual, Louis Riel.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the motion of the hon. member of the Bloc
Party. The motion calls for the 113 year old verdict on Louis
Riel for being guilty of high treason to be revoked. In
addition, the motion like past ones before it calls for a
commemorative day each year in honour of the man Louis Riel.
Clearly this is an emotional issue for some people on both sides
of the debate. Some say he was a hero who was justified in his
cause. Others argue that he was largely self-serving and he went
too far in pursuing a cause and a personal vision of himself.
Each side quotes facts and data which serve to embellish their
case and wrap them in an emotionally appealing package. This can
be an emotional issue because as Canadians we want to have our
own Canadian heroes. We need them.
1355
Canadians are patriotic. We may not wear it on our sleeves like
our American neighbours, but if one scratches even a bit below
the surface there is a bright red, passionate Canadian heart
beating. Being Canadian means something.
One of my most enjoyable duties as a new member of Parliament of
this great House is to attend citizenship court in my riding.
After the ceremony I embrace our new citizens and ask them what
their citizenship is. I have seen tears of gratitude and hope
well up in their eyes when for the first time they say “I am a
Canadian”. It is a powerful moment.
Part of being a Canadian is that we demand our heroes to be
real, for their stories to have integrity. We intrinsically know
they must be out there, these Canadian heroes, and I believe
there is a desire to know them better, to know their stories.
Somehow I feel their stories have been kept from us. We do not
celebrate them as we could and, I suggest, for the strength of
our nation as we should. All this in spite of the millions we
spend on Canadian culture and heritage.
I understand that some prefer their tax dollars be used to fund
cultural products that appeal to the arts community such as a
recent Canadian movie that documented a fictional tragedy, made
all the more tragic by a subplot of incest and sexual perversion.
Some seem to think this type of art is good for Canada. It is
not my preference.
Instead, I prefer a greater focus on our heritage and culture.
The money of government ministries should go to portraying the
history and positive real life stories of men and women who gave
so much to this country and the world. With this we would all be
inspired and stand a little taller when we say “I am a
Canadian”.
If Louis Riel, why not Jean de Brébeuf whose ability with
languages allowed him to communicate with ease with the Huron
Indians? He assimilated into their culture. Brébeuf composed
the first dictionary and grammar of the Huron language. During a
small pox scourge Brébeuf stayed behind helping the sick Hurons
while an Iroquois war party approached. The few Huron Indians
who escaped witnessed his torturous death and the story of his
courage and service impacted on the lives of thousands of Huron
Indians in years to come.
How about Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve, the founder of Ville
Marie on the island of Montreal in 1642? Maisonneuve was a
revered leader who governed wisely and kept order in a growing
colony for 23 years. Interestingly he ordered brawlers to pay
the medical bills of their victims and slanderers to praise each
other in public. He sounds like a Reformer to me.
Or, more recently, in the early part of this century, Mr.
Georges Vanier. At this time I would like to quote an article by
Mr. George Cowley contained in a forthcoming publication
Canada Portraits of Faith. He records:
Mr. George Vanier was a man that, when the first world war broke
out, felt that his immediate duty was to his country. He took
the leading role in recruiting and organizing a first battalion
to be raised by and of French Canadians: the Royal 22nd Regiment,
the Van Doos. Shortly after, he lost his right leg to a German
shell. After convalescing, he refused evacuation. “I simply
cannot go back to Canada,” he insisted, “while my (Canadian)
comrades are still in the trenches in France”.
(After a very distinguished career, Vanier) retired from
diplomatic service in 1954, hoping to continue serving Canada in
“some modest capacity”. The capacity offered him in 1959, at
age 71, was to become Canada's governor general, the first Quebec
native so honoured.
In early 1967, Vanier's heart showed signs of weakening. His
last official engagement was to address, from his wheelchair, a
delegation of students from the University of Montreal on the
favourite theme of his latter years: the importance of Canadian
unity. Few figures in Canadian history have been better
demonstrated, by words and deeds, the urgency and sacredness of
this cause. “The measure of Canadian unity has been the measure
of our success—if we imagine we can go our separate ways within
our country, if we exaggerate our differences and revel in
contentions—we will only promote our own destruction.
Canada owes it to the world to remain united, for no lesson is
more badly needed than the one our unity can supply: the lesson
that diversity need not be the cause for conflict, but, on the
contrary, may lead to richer and nobler living. I pray to God
that we may go forward hand in hand”.
1400
There are many more Canadian heroes that we all need to know
more about. It would serve to strengthen our passion and resolve
to stand on guard for our great nation.
I am thankful that people like Michael Clarke of Reel to Real
Ministries from Chilliwack, B.C. whose publication I mentioned
earlier “Portraits of Faith” provides accurate insights into
the lives of many Canadian heroes. This publication will
encourage us all to inspire our children.
As for Mr. Louis Riel, he was no doubt a passionate man and
worked to see that the west had an independent voice within
Confederation but his tactics were outside the law. We can
recognize that some good was brought about through his life, as
it is with every human life, but as Canadians we have a great
deal of history to celebrate without having to rewrite it. The
pen that rewrites history will always be driven by today's
biases. It is better not to do it.
My fellow Canadians, we have much to be thankful for. In fact,
we have an obligation to celebrate the strengths of this great
nation.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion.
The history of the Metis treatment by the Canadian government is
appalling. While we generally support the concept of this
motion, and I want to commend the hon. member for bringing forth
a motion concerning the recognition of Louis Riel, we would have
preferred a much stronger and differently worded motion.
This motion specifically addresses the verdict of high treason
pronounced on Louis Riel on August 1, 1885. In effect what this
motion would do by revoking the verdict of guilty of high treason
would be to pardon the federal government for its abominable
treatment of Louis Riel.
Unfortunately what the motion fails to do is to address the
substantive issues which continue to oppress Metis today and
continue to threaten their children tomorrow. This motion would
in effect pardon the federal government by removing the blot on
the government's own record while doing nothing concrete to
change the lives of the Metis.
The First Nations peoples continue to be treated by government
as second class citizens and that would place the Metis families
at an even lower caste in the government's eyes. The federal
government, even after the release of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples report, continues to do its very best to
ignore Metis and place their concerns far on the back burner.
Whether or not Louis Riel day is proclaimed, the government
should commit to several fundamentals.
First and foremost this government should recognize that the
Metis nation is entitled legally, morally and politically to have
access to land bases and land use rights sufficient to fulfil the
Metis nation's legitimate aspirations as aboriginal peoples.
Furthermore as my colleague the hon. member for Churchill River
who himself is Metis would argue, one of the first steps the
government should take is to bring all aboriginal peoples,
including the Metis, under section 91(24) of the Constitution
Act. Such a move on behalf of this government would truly show
to the Metis that the government is sincere in supporting a
bright future for these people instead of trying to deny them
both their history and their future.
Instead of treating the Metis as an afterthought, the government
should negotiate self-government and land claims with the Metis
nation on a nation to nation basis. Furthermore why does the
government not negotiate with the Metis how they will exercise
their aboriginal rights to harvest fish and wildlife? Why has
this government not chosen to ensure the Metis have the benefits
of programs and services which governments now allocate to First
Nations peoples?
As long as this government tries to deny Metis their historic
and moral rights, this government will continue to actively
condemn Metis to poverty and to the back of the legislative bus.
During the negotiation of Manitoba's entry into Confederation, a
grant of 1.4 million acres of land was reserved for the exclusive
use of the Metis. The full creation of a Metis land base was
undermined by systemic government delays and neglect.
The points that I have called for are not new. Indeed it is a
fact that these very proposals sit before this government even as
this government sits silent.
These proposals from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
offer a new dawn. This government chooses not to even have the
dignity to respond to these solutions, but sits quiet.
1405
The Metis are not asking for special status. They are not
seeking some gift from the government, nor are they asking for
anything but what is their historic and moral due. They want to
be treated as the equals they are and negotiate with government
as other natives negotiate.
But what is a people without a land base? If history has shown
us and taught us anything, it is true that a land base with all
the access to resources that accompany it is an absolute,
uncontroversial precondition for nationhood. Where does this
government stand on Metis nationhood?
Who are these people that Louis Riel led at one time? Is the
government afraid to act because it has difficulty identifying
just who among us are these Metis who deserve better treatment
from this government?
The royal commission has made it easy for us. It recommends that
every person who identifies himself or herself as Metis and is
accepted as such by the nation of the Metis should be recognized
by that nation.
While these negotiations go on, the government should work with
the Metis and provincial and territorial governments to enter
into temporary land use agreements with the Metis nation.
Just as no nation can exist without land, no nation can exist
without language and culture. What of Metis education and
culture?
Certainly as the motion indicates, Louis Riel played a crucial
role in Metis culture. But this government has a responsibility
to negotiate with the Metis full-fledged post-secondary
education. Great care must be exercised to assure the development
of Metis culture.
I strongly suggest should Louis Riel day come into force, the
government use that day to examine the following issues laid out
in the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a
report to which the government has yet to respond in any
meaningful way.
First, consultation with Metis elders when educational programs
are planned. Second, establishment and funding of Metis schools
where numbers warrant. Third, assisted access to post-secondary
education in some form. Finally, support for a college or faculty
of Metis study.
The Metis are involved in every facet of our society and
represent an enormously varied cross-section of Canada, whether
economically, geographically, in terms of professions and
education, and certainly in terms of hopes, dreams and support
for family and community. What they do not have is support from
this government for the preservation of their culture and
traditions.
In closing, I would like to once again stress that this motion,
as good as it may be, sets out in effect to pardon the federal
government for its historical error and does not address the
real, substantive and immediate issues crucial to the Metis today
and to their children tomorrow.
However in true democratic spirit, we feel that the members of
this House should decide on the merit of this motion and I would
ask again that we have unanimous consent to have this motion
voted on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Halifax West has asked for unanimous consent to have this motion
made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, if I can
take a moment to draw the attention of the members of the House
to the members of the Métis National Council who are sitting in
the gallery.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members of the
House would like to welcome members of the Métis National
Assembly to the deliberations here. This is not the custom but
because the motion that is being debated speaks directly to the
Metis culture, to your culture, I bid you, on behalf of the
House, welcome.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to Private
Members' Motion M-108 of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, that, in
the opinion of this House, the government should revoke the
verdict of guilty of high treason pronounced on Louis Riel on
August 1, 1885 and commemorate him by declaring November 16 of
each year to be Louis Riel day throughout Canada.
Certainly this is one of the definitive questions in Canadian
history and one which affects the way we identify ourselves as
Canadians.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis has raised two issues. Since the
motion is non-votable, I will deal with one. Should we pardon
Louis Riel.
1410
I have no illusions about the sensitivity of this issue to the
Metis nation and have heard from the Métis National Council members
personally. I also fully understand the struggles of
Conservative leaders from John A. Macdonald who ultimately
allowed the death penalty to be carried out, to Joe Clark who on
March 9, 1992 recognized Louis David Riel as the founder of
Manitoba and a contributor to the development of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to speak from my heart on
this matter. I commend and applaud the member for
Rimouski—Mitis for raising this important issue. Time is past
due that we deal with this piece of Canada's history.
I have been and I still am an avid reader of history. With that
said I would like to go on the record as being appalled by some
of the revisionists and plain bad history that is being written
by so many so-called historians today. History should be
understood in the context that it occurred, analysed and
remembered. History should not be revisionist, whitewashed or
politically correct. History is a record, it is not a judgment.
As much as I disdain the revisionists of this world, I fully
support efforts that lead to a more correct interpretation of
events. In 1650 when Oliver Cromwell told his portrait painter
Peter Lely to paint his portrait warts and all, he was sending a
message to posterity. History is about facts. Historians,
parliamentarians and all Canadians need to be careful of
demonization and cautious of canonisation.
It is because history is objective that I support part of this
motion even though it is not votable. Certainly the government
is able to revoke the verdict of guilty of high treason. The
question is, should we pardon Louis Riel? I say why not. I have
heard criticism that this would lead to a plethora of requests
for other pardons, but I disagree. Louis David Riel is a unique
case. He was elected to the Parliament of Canada three times
but never took his seat and only succeeded in signing the register
of this Parliament once.
His case in all respects is uniquely Canadian. It speaks of the
beginning of the Metis national identity at the battle of Seven
Oaks and the difficulty and unease between the original First
Nations of Canada and the French and English traders and
settlers. Riel speaks from a page of Canadian history that
should be read and understood warts and all by all Canadians.
Louis Riel was born on October 22, 1844 to Jean-Baptiste Riel
and Julie de Lagimodière. At age 14 Riel was sent to Montreal to be
educated at the College of the Suplician Fathers, the oldest college
in Montreal. He became a student at law in the office of the
famous leader Rodolphe Laflamme of the Rouge Party in Quebec. He
met Louis Joseph Papineau of the 1837 rebellion.
Riel was
accepted in Quebec Catholic society but only to a point. He fell
in love with Marie-Julie Guernon, but they broke up in 1866 after her
parents refused to allow her to marry a Metis. In that same year
Riel returned to Manitoba and immediately became a leader in the
Metis community.
It is not my intent to present a history of Louis Riel's life.
It has been well documented. My intent is to portray a unique and
truly Canadian story.
Riel belonged to a new nation, the descendants of French and
Indian and Scots and Indian marriages. There were two groups, the
mainly Protestant Metis supporters of the Hudson Bay Company and
the the mainly Catholic Metis supporters of the North West
Company. I identify these two groups in the House today to
highlight the typically Canadian dichotomy in the Metis nation.
The Metis were not without religious suspicion and a language
barrier. I state this to point out the similarity of the greater
Canadian experience.
In 1869 Riel returned from Montreal and became secretary of the
National Committee of Metis. In December 1869 he became
president of the provisional government. A significant date in
Riel's chronology that would later become a forerunner to his
fate was March 4, 1870.
1415
On that day, Riel as the president of the provisional government
ordered Thomas Scott, an Orangeman and thus a Protestant,
executed for leading a rebellion against Riel's provisional
government. This act would force Riel into exile.
Riel, in exile in the United States and despite a bounty of
$5,000 on his head offered by the province of Ontario, was
elected three times. I repeat this. He was elected three times
in the House of Commons, representing Manitoba. By 1878, he was
back in Manitoba, the province he helped to bring in the
Confederation in 1870. He led the northwest rebellion in 1884
and he was hung for treason in 1885.
This is only a thumbnail sketch of Louis Riel. Like many others
before and since, Louis David Riel was caught in the currents of
history and swept to his death. Eventually his order to execute
Thomas Scott fueled by religious and linguistic intolerance led
to his death.
Sir John A. Macdonald himself agonized over the decision to
execute Riel. In the end he made the decision that he would be
able to carry out damage control in Quebec for, without question,
Quebeckers led by the young Wilfrid Laurier rallied to Riel's
defence. Macdonald, however, had a greater problem and that was
assuaging the Protestant Orange vote in Ontario, who were crying
for retaliation for Riel's execution of Orangeman Thomas Scott.
Sir John A. Macdonald eventually succumbed to that pressure.
It is worth nothing that Riel was only tried by 6 jurors and not
the mandatory 12 established in the Magna Carta. We should note
he was declared insane but refused to admit insanity at his trial
and, therefore, accepted responsibility for his actions.
There were some inconsistencies in the trial of Louis Riel, but
certainly there were also some inconsistencies in the man
himself. In 1870 he had Thomas Scott executed. In 1885 he
ordered one of his own Metis leaders, Charles Nolin, executed but
never carried through with that threat.
It is important to acknowledge the role of the other Metis in
the rebellion and their contribution toward raising the profile
of the Metis people. The military expertise of Gabriel Dumont
played a crucial role in the rebellion, as did the leadership of
Charles Nolin and Louis Schmidt. As well, Chief Poundmaker
exemplified the courage and tenacity of the Metis and the Indian
people.
What Riel accomplished was not without the help of others and
their roles should not be forgotten. Should we pardon Louis
Riel? I say yes, we should. This is not 1885 but 1998. Times
have changed and events once clouded in racial and religious
bigotry can now be seen objectively. Louis David Riel was and is
an important figure in Canadian history and a driving force in
bringing Manitoba into Confederation.
Like most men, he made some mistakes and carried his own baggage
of personal biases and weaknesses. He led an ill fated rebellion
against the government of Canada, but he led it to defend and
represent his people. We in this House and the other place hold
the power to pardon him. A pardon at this time in the history of
our nation would show progress, maturity and reconciliation for
all people. This pardon is not about a judgment. This pardon is
about reconciliation.
One hundred and three years have passed. Let us move on. Let
us move forward. Let us, in this House, pardon Louis Riel.
At this time I also would like to ask for the unanimous consent
of this House to vote yea on the motion before you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have two other
hon. members who have indicated interest in speaking. The first
to advise me was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry and the second was the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in co-operation, as this House
has seen many times, I will shorten my speech to give the hon.
member a chance to also speak.
I rise today to speak to Motion No. 108 to revoke Louis Riel's
conviction of August 1, 1885 and to declare a day in his honour.
1420
In discussing the merits of this motion, there is definitely one
thing on which we can all agree. That is the important
contribution of Louis Riel to the building of this country. In
tribute to this contribution this House on March 9, 1992
overwhelmingly adopted a motion to recognize Louis Riel as a
founder of Manitoba and a contributor in the development of
Confederation. At that time the House was reminded of Riel's
many accomplishments and of his stature within the Metis
community.
There have been other tributes in the recent past to honour Riel
and other Metis leaders in recognition of their contribution to
Canada and the Metis movement. As this House is well aware,
Thelma J. Chalifoux, a Metis woman from Alberta, was recently
summoned to the Senate. Ms. Chalifoux is both the first Metis
person and the first aboriginal woman to sit in the Senate. Her
appointment was in large part due to her unwavering dedication to
Metis issues. Judging from the welcome remarks of her fellow
senators, she is expected to represent well this cause and the
spirit of Riel.
Louis Riel had a vision for this country over 100 years ago.
That vision is alive and well today as articulated by the
thousands of Metis who promote Metis culture and revere his
memory.
Riel was a man of action, a man who looked forward and into the
future. Given my understanding of Riel, I believe that if he
were here today he would counsel this House to look forward, not
backward, in finding ways to recognize and honour his
accomplishments and those of other Metis leaders who contributed
greatly to the development of Canada.
He would be urging us to focus our energies on finding solutions
to our present day problems and building for the future. He
would insist that Metis have an opportunity to participate in the
development of these solutions. With that in mind I will spend a
few minutes talking about what the federal government is doing
today to advance the interests of Metis and off reserve
aboriginal people.
As many are aware, the Minister of Natural Resources has been
assigned by the Prime Minister to fulfil the role of federal
interlocutor for the Metis and off reserve aboriginal peoples. In
that role, the minister acts as a point of first contact and
where necessary as a facilitator between the Metis and off
reserve aboriginal peoples and the appropriate federal ministers
and departments.
In addition to that role he oversees the federal government's
participation in the tripartite self-government process which is
the forum being used to negotiate self-government with Metis and
off reserve aboriginal groups.
On August 10, 1995 the federal government announced its approach
to the implementation of the inherent right and the negotiations
of self-government for aboriginal people including Metis and off
reserve aboriginal people.
The federal approach contemplates various practical ways of
implementing self-government for Metis and off reserve aboriginal
people, including the development of self-government institutions
to provide services, the devolution of programs and services and
forms of public government.
For the past several years the federal government has
participated in bilateral processes with both the Metis National
Council and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The bilateral
process provides a forum for the congress and the council to
discuss issues of utmost importance.
On January 7, 1997 the interlocutor and the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development unveiled “Gathering Strength:
Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”. It is an action plan to renew
our relationship with the aboriginal people who are both on and
off reserve.
Under the theme of healing and reconciliation in “Gathering
strength”, the federal government is seeking appropriate ways to
affirm the contributions of the Metis people and to reflect Louis
Riel's proper place in Canada's history. The work is under way.
It is founded squarely on consultations with the Metis, not
arbitrary partisan actions.
In closing I return to my initial comments. Louis Riel was a
builder. He was working to build a society where his people
could make the important decisions that confront us all in
building a better future. He was not a separatist. He wanted in,
not out. With the spirit of partnership embodied in “Gathering
Strength” we will find appropriate ways to reflect his proper
place in our history as a builder.
1425
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, human history is nothing but a litany of injustices. In
fact, I would venture to say that if there were no injustices
there would be no history. This is what gets written down,
usually by the winners if there is a contest. It is recorded.
This is how we know about things which happen.
If we want to talk about injustice, some of my ancestors were
Highland Scots. They suffered injustices and brutality equal in
every way to those suffered by the Metis people and for more or
less the same reasons. However, I do not lay awake at night
bringing down fire and brimstone on the heads of the wicked
English. It is over. It is done. There is no need to go back
to it.
I have very great problems with people who want to sugar coat
history, who want to rewrite history. What happened, happened.
It will not help Louis Riel or his descendants for this
Parliament to come up with some sort of vacuous proclamation
saying that we really did not mean it. The man was hung. He did
not, when he had the opportunity, grovel. He did not ask for
mercy. He could have taken a plea of insanity and he would have
escaped, but he was a man of principle. He walked to the gallows
quite firmly and strongly. He was not dragged kicking and
screaming. He did not make any particular effort to avoid
capture at the end of the rebellion. He would not have even had
to go to trial. He could have gone to the United States with
Dumont and been scot free, but he chose not to do so.
At this date, if we come forward and say Louis, it was a
terrible thing, we are so sorry, that cheapens the man's memory.
He was a tough man. He was not a cry baby. I do not think we
should, even though I know we have it in our power, say we pardon
him.
Actually, he did not have totally clean hands. He set in motion
a rebellion which cost lives. Because he was not a very good
general he unnecessarily cost the lives of many of his own
people. If he had listened to Gabriel Dumont, the results of the
rebellion might have been far different.
The man, let us face it, had a big ego. He wanted to be in
charge. He did what he chose to do. He refused to stop
Middleton before he got to the Saskatchewan River. He could have
done so with Dumont's strategies.
I do not think that at this late stage it makes any sense at all
for us even to be debating this in the House. We have more
important things to do than to debate gestures. Let us face it,
this would just be a gesture.
My advice to this House is to get on with it. We have some very
real problems in this country which affect not only Metis people
but all of us. Those problems are what we should be dealing
with. We should not be debating what happened 113 years ago.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
under Standing Order 95(2) I am entitled to conclude, and I would
like to take the remaining few minutes in this debate to say that
we have heard some things—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but under Standing Order 95 the time has
expired.
1430
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I seek unanimous consent to allow the member another
three or four minutes to do her wrap up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair needs to
make the point that in Private Members' Business, if time
remains, it is customary that the mover of the motion has five
minutes to wrap up in the absence of any other member rising to
speak.
Therefore, if we are to go beyond that time, we have to ask for
unanimous consent, which the member from Grasslands has so
generously requested and the House is quite happy to oblige.
Those are the rules.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased that we have taken this hour of debate to place the
matter in proper perspective.
I have listened most attentively to the speeches made by my
various colleagues. I acknowledge that the motion merits
improvement. I trust that the Liberal Party, which is in the
process of drafting a bill to settle this problem to everyone's
satisfaction, will be able to take the texts that have been used
today, analyze them thoroughly and try to see how this difficulty
of having such ambiguity still surrounding one of the founders of
this country, Louis Riel, can be truly resolved.
I was somewhat surprised to see that my colleague knew Louis Riel
so intimately as to be able to tell what his feelings were at the time
of his trial, but the fact is that among those who asked that Riel be
tried in Saskatchewan instead of Manitoba and who wrote Minister
Campbell and the Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Macdonald, was the
person who presided the appeal court to which Louis Riel appealed his
sentence. Riel was a very strong and very fair-minded man who realized
he had been treated unfairly. He appealed in spite of the fact that this
person was judge and jury.
I suggest my colleagues read this month's issue of Canadian Lawyer.
They will realize that the government was wrong, that Louis Riel was
wronged.
The historical context must be taken int account of course, but
something can and should be done. Unlike my hon. colleague and his
people, the Métis are no longer recognized as a people and they have
lost a large part of their culture. What they are asking us is to
restore their right to their own way of life and I wish the House would
act on this as soon as possible.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and this item
is dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
It being 2.33 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.33 p.m.)