36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 7
CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 30, 1997
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-219. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-220. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1005
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-221. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-222. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-223. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1010
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Infrastructure
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-220
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1015
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Budget Surplus
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1040
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1045
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1050
1055
1100
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1115
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1120
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1125
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1130
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1135
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1140
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1145
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1200
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1215
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1235
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1240
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1310
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1315
1320
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1335
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1340
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1345
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1400
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGH PERFORMANCE HOCKEY PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL AIDS AWARENESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DORA AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GLOBAL WARMING
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR RIMOUSKI—MITIS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DONKIN MINE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DAY OF OLDER PERSONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1415
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1430
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEWFOUNDLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC CONSULTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIRABEL AIRPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1440
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOMBARDIER
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1445
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILDREN
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAMIL EELAM SOCIETY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1450
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1455
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RADIO-MARINE VCN
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1500
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Stony Reserve
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1505
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Budget Surplus
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
1515
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1520
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1525
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1530
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1545
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1600
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1615
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1635
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1640
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1655
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1710
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1715
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1735
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1740
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1755
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1800
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1805
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1810
1815
1845
(Division 4)
![V](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 7
![](/web/20061116191409im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, September 30, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[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 first report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership and
the associate membership of the standing committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
the first report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or
operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an
offence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private
member's bill. This enactment amends the Criminal Code and
provides that a person is guilty of an indictable offence and
must be sentenced to one year imprisonment if the person operates
or uses a motor vehicle that the person has stolen or knows has
been stolen while committing or attempting to commit an offence
or during flight after committing or attempting to commit an
offence.
The sentence imposed on a person for such an offence shall be
served consecutively to any other punishment that is imposed on
the person.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed the need
for this bill in light of the epidemic of car thefts used to
commit a crime. In some cases this has proven to be fatal.
In Vancouver alone there have been three deaths where
individuals have stolen cars and killed people. This has also
been the case with many young offenders joy riding after stealing
a car and encountering police pursuits. This bill is needed as a
deterrent to those considering these types of actions. I am
pleased to introduce this bill today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-220, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a
crime).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Criminal Code
and the Copyright Act to prohibit a criminal from profiting by
selling or authorizing the story of a crime. If a person is
convicted of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code any
moneys he or she may have made or may make in the future from the
creation of a work based on the crime would be deemed proceeds of
crime, subject to seizure by the crown.
1005
This is the same bill that I introduced in the last Parliament
and which was passed unanimously by the House and sent to the
other place where it was also referred to committee and then
unfortunately died an unnatural death because of the call of the
election.
I am hoping that with co-operation from all sides we can do the
same and get it through the House this time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-221, an act to amend the Canada Business
Corporations Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce my
private member's bill, an act to amend the Canada Business
Corporations Act.
This bill if passed will allow members of the boards of
directors of Canadian corporations the defence of due diligence
in the conduct and performance of their duties and
responsibilities.
Too often very competent individuals decide not to become
members of the boards of corporations because they fear they
could be held liable for their conduct, even if they carry out
their duties and responsibilities in a conscientious and
reasonable way.
For example, a number of months ago we heard about the case of
Canadian Airlines International and its board of directors which
resigned at a time when one could argue easily that it was needed
most.
This bill provides directors with the defence of due diligence
and brings the Canada Business Corporations Act into line with
most provincial statutes.
I am pleased to introduce this bill and I look forward to the
support of my colleagues in the House on this important piece of
legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-222, an act to require that in the advertising
and at the opening of a cultural project supported by public
money a public acknowledgement be made of the grant and
percentage of the total cost that the grant represents.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce by private
member's bill in the House today. This bill would require the
recipients of grants of public funds for cultural projects to
acknowledge that a grant has been made. It would also require
recipients to specify the percentage the total cost of the grant
represents at the time the program is announced or advertised and
open to the public. Non-compliance may result in the recipient's
having to repay the grant.
It is my hope that the members of the House will seriously
consider the bill's intent and purpose.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deduction of interest on mortgage loans).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private
member's bill to the House today, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act, deduction of interest on mortgage loans for first time
homeowners.
The bill provides for the income tax deduction of the interest
paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 on a mortgage loan
secured by the first qualifying home acquired by the taxpayer.
1010
This bill would provide these first time homeowners with a much
needed tax break and would also benefit the Canadian housing
industry. This bill would make home ownership a feasible option
for more families. Recognizing the importance of the family
unit, this would have a positive impact on Canada's social
climate. Some conditions apply to this bill and are outlined in
it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
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, if
the House gives its consent I move that the first report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to present to Parliament a petition signed by 54 people in my
riding of Red Deer, Alberta.
The petitioners and I support a call on Parliament to urge the
federal government to join the provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-220
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
light of the fact that the private member's bill introduced
earlier today by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest had
previously passed all stages in this House and had been referred
to the Senate where it passed all stages, I would like to ask the
unanimous consent of the House to deem it to have passed all
stages again.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in order to give
consideration to the hon. member's request, I need to know which bill is
being referred to. I missed it because the interpreter spoke too
quickly. Before giving consent, I want to know which bill passed all
three stages in this House and was approved by the Senate.
1015
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Scarborough Southwest, seconded by the hon. member for
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, moved for leave to introduce a bill
entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act
(profit from authorship respecting a crime). The hon. member for
North Vancouver has asked that the bill be passed at all stages
by unanimous consent today.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that this request
be made tomorrow. I absolutely want to see the bill, as we were not told
that such a request would be made. Therefore, I would like this issue to
be postponed until tomorrow, if possible. I refuse to give my consent.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unanimous consent
has not been achieved.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the government for
making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses
without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of
government, taxes, and debt, thus threatening to repeat
Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending,
creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high
unemployment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, just so people get the point, let me
re-read the motion. The motion is:
That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50
election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public
debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt,
thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of
irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high
taxes, causing high unemployment.
As somebody very wise once said—who is very well known to you,
Mr. Speaker—this is the public's money. That is the point we
are trying to make. I want to underline it by pointing out that
the government has not consulted with Canadians on this whole
issue, probably the most important economic decision that it will
make during its mandate.
What do we know so far? This flows from the government's
election promise and from its throne speech of last week.
We know that the government reaffirmed its commitment to spend
50 percent of any surpluses, when they occur, on new spending. We know
that. It was in part of the election package and it was also in
the throne speech.
Again, I raise the question of whose money is this?
Second, we know that there was absolutely no acknowledgement in
the throne speech that Canada has a debt of $600 billion. That
is a staggering amount of money.
There was absolutely no acknowledgement in the throne speech
that we have the highest taxes of all of our trading partners,
the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 by a tremendous
amount.
There was no acknowledgement in the throne speech that in the
past the government has been routinely chided, not only by
watchdogs like the Reform Party and the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation, but even by the auditor general on many occasions for
irresponsible spending. There was no acknowledgement of that in
the throne speech. I will say more about that in a moment.
No criteria has been laid down by the government for determining
how any of this surplus should be spent, whether on new programs
or on the side of taxes and debt reduction. Of course there was
one measly lone reference in the throne speech to reducing taxes
and paying down debt.
Absolutely no criteria have been established on how those
decisions are going to be made. The government has not talked
about what the optimal size of debt, taxes and the level of
government would be. There has been no definition anywhere about
what constitutes, for instance, a tax break. What is tax relief
as opposed to a social benefit that is delivered through the
taxation system? That is a very important point. It would not
be nearly as important if people knew that the government could
be counted on to be up front and give them what most people
believe would be a tax break. However, it appears the government
may be intent on playing some games with what constitutes a tax
break.
1020
Also, there is no indication whether the spending announced in
the throne speech will be applied toward the government's 50 percent
spending promise. It is not mentioned anywhere. Therefore, we
really cannot hold the government accountable to its promise
unless we know that for a fact. I think there are many reasons to
be concerned about what we know so far.
We also know, based on a recent poll published in the weekend
Financial Post, that Canadians want tax relief. For
instance, the poll states that 28 percent of Canadians would like to see
a personal income tax cut, 3 percent want to see a business tax cut, and
another 20 percent want to see both personal income taxes and corporate
taxes reduced. That is a plurality of people who want to see tax
relief, at least 51 percent. The people who want to see personal income
tax cuts compared to the people who want to see taxes rise are
outnumbered by a margin of 28:1. Those are the things that we
know based on what has gone on before.
Anyone who is just a little bit logical has to conclude that
what the government is proposing, in the face of the poll that I
have just mentioned and after 27 years of fiscal
irresponsibility, is the return to chequebook politics. We are
returning to the 1970s and the sorts of supposed solutions that
the government at that time brought forward. Rather obviously,
those solutions failed miserably at that time.
The question raised in many people's minds is why are we
repeating the same mistakes that we made in the past? As
somebody once pointed out, if one does not pay careful attention
to history one is bound to repeat all of the mistakes. I seems
that is what the government is doing.
I have talked a little bit about some of the things that the
government did not acknowledge. I talked about the debt, taxes
and irresponsible spending. I want to say a little bit more
about that in a bit more detail.
As members know, the Reform Party has done a tremendous amount
of work on raising these issues not only with the government but
also with the public. We think it is important that the public
be invited to consult on these sorts of issues. As a responsible
party we do our part to ensure, to the degree that we can, that
we provide some background information so that when people give
us feedback on these issues it is informed and that people really
understand all the things that have happened in the past.
I want to make that point by talking about some of the things
that are in our document, Beyond a Balanced Budget. We are going
to be consulting with Canadians over the next three months to
gather their input. By the way, if people want a copy of
this—and I say to my hon. friends that they can certainly come
and get one from me—it is on the Internet at www.reform.ca/babb
so that if people want to pull that down they can.
I want to address specifically the issue of debt. In the throne
speech the government made one reference to the whole problem of
debt. It seems blind to the fact that the debt in this country
is $600 billion. It consumes about 74 percent of the gross domestic
product in the country which is almost without parallel among any
of our trading partners. It is an absolutely astronomical
figure.
I often point out to high school students when I talk to them
that if they stacked up one hundred dollar bills about this high
that would be a million dollars and if they stacked up our debt
in one hundred dollar bills it would be about 1,200 kilometres
high. It is a tremendous amount of money.
1025
But that in itself really is not the problem. The problem with
a debt that big is it has to be serviced. Interest payments on
the debt have grown exponentially. They now consume about $47
billion a year. A third of every tax dollar that Canadians send
to the treasury each year goes toward paying the interest on the
debt.
We point out in our paper, Beyond a Balanced Budget, that since
1993 debt service charges have increased by $7.5 billion a year.
That is only since the government came to power. At the same
time health transfers have fallen by about $7 billion a year.
It has had a profound impact on the ability of the government to
fund the programs that are the most important to Canadians. That
is why the issue of the debt deserves more than one lonely
mention in the government's throne speech. We condemn the
government for not paying more attention to this important issue.
Perhaps this will help bring the issue home for people who have
trouble dealing with an astronomical number like $600 billion or
even $47 billion in interest. The annual interest bill is enough
to run the governments of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta,
with enough left over to repay the entire public debts of
Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is a
tremendous amount of money.
The annual interest bill is enough to pay the annual federal
transfers to the provinces for health, education, welfare,
equalization and old age security. It is by far the single
biggest payment the government makes each and every year. It is
money that could be used for good things but because of the
profligacy of previous governments, the government is paying out
this tremendous amount of money, in many cases to foreign
lenders, and this imperils the future of the country. The country
is that much more vulnerable when the debt is $600 billion.
We argue in our paper that the government must pay attention to
the debt. If government members talked to their constituents
they would discover that people are very concerned about this
massive debt. They are probably disappointed that the government
has not paid more attention to it in the throne speech, which
allegedly is the vision that the government lays out for the next
few years.
It is not just the issue of the debt that we are concerned
about. We are concerned about the government's poor commitment
to the issue of reducing taxes. There is one single mention in
the throne speech. A moment ago I spoke about our personal
income tax burden. I do not know if members realize that
compared to our G-7 trading partners, the personal income tax
burden is 52 percent higher as a per cent of the total economy than in
the U.S., Japan, U.K, France and Italy.
Obviously when you have a tax on production, which is what
income tax is, that is that much higher than our trading
partners, it will have a profound impact on our ability to
compete. In the Financial Post poll on the weekend
business leaders such as Peggy Whip from the Royal Oak Mines
stated that the reason the company moved its operation to the
United States was it could not attract people to Canada because
the personal income tax burden is so high they refused to come.
This is not an academic exercise. It has a profound impact on
jobs. People in the business community have said so. We also
have the situation, and many members across the way are familiar
with this, were we lose some of our brightest and best doctors to
the United States. We produce computer programmers at the
University of Western Ontario and they are lured away to other
countries, primarily the U.S., because of its lower income tax
burden. This is after we have paid for their education.
This is not an academic debate. The tax measures that the
government has put in place over the period of many years has
driven many Canadians out of the country. It has driven many
Canadians out of business. The government has presided over
record bankruptcies. 1995 had record bankruptcies. That was not
good enough. Bankruptcies went up by another 20 percent in 1996 under
this government.
1030
I would argue that in some part it is due to the fact that we
have tremendously high taxes in this country. It makes it very
difficult for businesses to compete. It is not only personal
income tax. We have all kinds of direct taxes, payroll taxes for
instance.
At a time when we have a surplus in the EI account of about $13
billion, we have this government refusing to give Canadians tax
relief. These payroll taxes have a very serious effect on the
ability of businesses to compete because they are not sensitive
to whether or not a business is making a profit.
If businesses are in a loss situation, they have to continue to
make those payments on EI premiums, and at the same time the
government is talking about raising CPP premiums by 73 percent. We
already have legislation introduced into the House that will make
that a reality starting on January 1. They will start to go up
more and more and more. Payroll taxes will claim more and more
and more victims.
It is a horribly serious situation, but what did it merit in the
throne speech? But one mention, one mention, as though all of
these problems do not exist in the country. It is as though the
government has stuck its head in the sand.
Hon. members across the way know this and in a private moment I
think would admit that Canadians out there really do want tax
relief. I do not hear a hue and cry across the country for more
spending. When I go to my riding, people do not say “Come on,
let's spend more”.
I come from Alberta. In that province when people had a chance
to have input into what they wanted to do with any surpluses,
they said they wanted to pay down the debt. We have made
tremendous progress in Alberta toward paying down the debt, but I
think the key point is that the Government of Alberta recognizes
that that money belongs to the Alberta taxpayer. Instead of
arrogantly deciding that the government knew best how to spend
that money, it consulted with the people to whom the money
belonged. I think that is a message that this government should
learn.
I want to touch on the issue of irresponsible spending. Over
the years, I do not know in how many auditor general's reports,
how many reports from interested academics, how many reports from
people who were watch dogs of the government on issues, how many
times the whole issue of irresponsible spending has been brought
up to the government. Why is it that things never seem to
improve?
The auditor general pointed out that the lack of inventory
control at national defence cost the government $1.7 billion. Why
do they repeatedly point out the terrible waste and even
corruption that goes on in Indian affairs and nothing ever seems
to change?
We point out some of the ridiculous grants that are given not
only to special interest groups, arts funding and things that are
beyond the pale, but also to business groups. How many times do
we have to have the chamber of commerce come before the finance
committee and say “We do not want grants for business any
more”. Here is the voice of business saying “We do not want
grants for business”, but what does the government do? It
ignores them and says “We are going to continue to take money
from profitable businesses in the form of taxes and give it to
unprofitable businesses so they can then turn around and compete
against those self-same profitable businesses”. That is
ridiculous. It makes no sense.
We see this government, for reasons that I will never
comprehend, continuing to do this. All the while it is
undermining businesses that are trying to create jobs in this
country. If there is one thing on which I think all parties
agree, it is that we want to have more jobs in this country. So
let us recognize what the government is doing here. It is putting
short term political considerations ahead of what is right for
the country and that should not be tolerated.
I would argue that the government has done a very poor job in
terms of getting its spending priorities in place. Let me touch
on that a little bit more.
When we talk to people around the country, and I am talking of
all members in the House, I think that there is probably a
consensus that the federal government should direct its spending
toward issues that are important to Canadians, issues like health
care.
We know that the government's record is on health care.
The government has cut spending by $6.8 billion, reduced the
transfers by 35 percent. But at the same time—and this speaks to its
priorities—the government has cut departmental spending
marginally. That is despite what the finance minister himself
said on a number of occasions.
1035
In fact we have a quote in our document “Beyond a Balanced
Budget” from a speech the finance minister gave to a Federal
Reserve board meeting in Kansas City, United States in 1995. He
said “We will cut our own departmental spending a lot more than
we will cut the transfers to the provinces”. Sadly that has not
been borne out in what the government has done. We argue it is
time for the government to match its own words with its deeds. We
argue very vigorously that that simply has not happened, and
government members are not paying attention to the priorities of
Canadians.
The Reform Party wants to change that. We want to gather input
from Canadians and that is what we intend on doing. We have sent
out our “Beyond a Balanced Budget” document to hundreds of
people around the country. We have posted it on the Internet. We
are going to be talking to thousands and thousands of people over
the next several months to gather their input. We are going to
do the government's job for the government members because for
reasons that I do not understand they think they have all the
answers.
We believe this money belongs to the Canadian taxpayers and we
are going to acknowledge that by going and talking to them. We
argue that the real answer to creating jobs is not in subsidies
and is not even necessarily training. We argue that it is demand.
We believe that we need to start to lower taxes, we need to
start to pay down debt so that we can get the economy going, so
that we can start to create jobs that Canadians in all parts of
the country need.
In conclusion, I will simply say that we cannot solve the
problems of the 1990s with the solutions of the 1970s. I just
want to urge the government to pay attention to that simple
message and to start to hear what Canadians are saying and
acknowledge that perhaps the government does not have all the
answers and that it is time to hear some of the answers that come
forth from the Canadian public.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get into
questions and comments hon. members, I would ask that the
questions and the responses be kept relatively brief. This will
allow us to have more debate and more interchange.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing how we get this warm fuzzy feeling when we
hear the Reform members talk about their plan for Canada.
I hear the name Peggy Witte of Royal Oak Mines in Yellowknife
and here he is using her as an example of a proud business person
in Canada. Must I remind him that she and she alone was the one
who caused the great mine strike and eventually the death of
those nine miners who were in there.
It was her labour actions and it was her attitude toward the
workforce, those workers in Yellowknife, that caused all this.
What she wants—and this is for the member of the Reform Party to
understand—is for workers to work as low as possible with fewer
health standards and lower working standards than anywhere else
in Canada.
It is amazing to hear him talk of the Reform Party and taxation.
Every time I go by a Bingo hall in my riding I think of Preston
Manning and the Stornoway club. If he wants to set an example,
he should lead by example. The leader of the Reform Party was the
one who indicated that if he moved into Stornoway he would put a
Bingo sign on it. He would put a for sale sign on the car and
would refuse the $49,000 stipend that he receives.
What does he do? Not more than two days afterward, he said he
consulted with the members and Canadians. He never consulted
with us. He should be leading by example if they want to stand
up here and talk about taxes.
As well he said the government should not assist small business
in any way. How does he expect a company in the northern
outreaches of Newfoundland or in the outskirts of Nova Scotia to
compete with those companies in central Canada when their markets
are so far away?
My question to the hon. gentleman from the Reform Party is what
is he going to do to help us in Atlantic Canada because of the
fact that Atlantic Canadians did not even allow them in the door
during this election.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think most of that
tirade scarcely merits an answer. I am going to assume that the
member did not really mean to say that the president of Royal Oak
Mines actually caused the death of those miners. We will give
him the benefit of the doubt.
1040
I will say to my hon. friend that rather obviously he has not
paid very close attention to what happened in the last election
campaign. Not only did the Reform Party dramatically increase
its support, but I would also point out that the whole issue of
taxation and cutting taxes resonated from Canadians coast to
coast.
In fact the Reform Party plan would put a billion dollars back
into the pockets of Atlantic Canadians through tax relief. We
argue that is a new solution that has been untried. I would also
argue that if subsidies and grants work so extraordinarily well,
then why is it that we have staggeringly high unemployment levels
in Atlantic Canada? We have been doing this since the 1970s when
we started to change UI benefits to make them regionally
sensitive. What has happened since then? We have seen
unemployment ratchet up and up and up and up.
When is the hon. member and his party going to learn from the
mistakes of the past? How many people have to be unemployed and
living in poverty before the hon. member and his party get it? Do
they not understand that the solutions of the 1970s are not going
to fix the problems of the 1990s? When is he going to get it?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair would
gently remind hon. members to address other hon. members through
the Chair. Before the next member commences, I would remind hon.
members that they must be at their seats to be recognized by the
Chair.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask
the member this one question again.
Is he saying that the film industry of Nova Scotia should not
get any assistance? Is he saying that 40,000 seasonal workers in
Atlantic Canada should not get any assistance? Is he encouraging
them all to move to Alberta? That is not the agenda of Atlantic
Canadians, sir. They would like to live and work in their own
communities and they would like to work with governments at all
levels to assist them and their families to stay where they are.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, of course the Reform
Party believes that we need to do whatever we can to help
citizens across the country. That is why we believe very strongly
in a program to start to improve the infrastructure in Atlantic
Canada so that we can renew some of the traditional trade ties
that Atlantic Canada had when it came into Confederation which at
that point made it the strongest part of the country. In fact
back when there were a strong set of trade ties with New England
when most of Atlantic Canada came into Confederation, it was by
far the wealthiest part of the country. It did extraordinarily
well.
We need to go back to that and renew infrastructure to make it
happen. In some cases it means providing some training for
people. In other cases it may mean that we will have to lower
taxes. We need to do the sorts of things to make Atlantic Canada
competitive in a modern day environment and in an environment of
globalization.
I do not think we can continue to rely on the solutions of the
past. I hope that the member will come around to that way of
thinking.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Reform Party member.
I believe what is happening is that some people do not understand
what is going on in Atlantic Canada. The federal government even has
trouble recognizing that the Atlantic fisheries are in crisis. How many
times did we hear people say that Atlantic Canadians are lazy and do not
want to work? Even the Prime Minister said he was going to get them out
of their house and prevent them from going to the pub.
This image of the Atlantic provinces is totally unacceptable. It is
not the fault of Atlantic Canadians if the fisheries are in a state of
crisis.
It is not their fault if a moratorium was declared on cod. It is not
their fault if quotas for crab fell from 20,000 to 12,000 metric tons.
It is not their fault if lobster catches are down. It is not their fault
if herring quotas are down.
It is nature's fault. It is because of what is happening in our region.
1045
It is true that, at one time, our region of New Brunswick was a
nice, prosperous place, where people could find work. Then, as a result
of Confederation and other changes, everything went to central and
western Canada.
Let me tell you one thing: if we want a united Canada, if we want
to remain a united country, westerners will have to support easterners.
If westerners support easterners, understand them and help them set up
companies and get into secondary processing in the fishery and forestry
sectors, if they allocate money for mining, then Atlantic Canadians will
have work and will not have to move out west.
So, is the Reform Party member saying that the government should
prevent Atlantic Canadians from getting employment insurance and let
them starve?
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I take issue with one of
the premises raised by the member, that it is nature's fault the
fish are gone. It is the federal government's fault to a large
degree because it is the one that encouraged people to keep
fishing when everyone knew fish stocks were dwindling.
Central Canada was largely strengthened when tariff barriers
went up and the regions paid a huge price. That was the fault of
the government of the day.
The things that are working well now in Atlantic Canada come
from the private sector. The private sector is creating a
tremendous amount of jobs at Voisey's Bay. That should be the
model. There is not a nickel deposit every few miles but we have
to understand that is where the solutions are for Atlantic
Canada.
In some cases people do become dependent on unemployment
insurance. To ignore that or to say it is not true is to put
one's head in the sand. Two successive premiers of Newfoundland
have said that people become dependent on unemployment insurance.
We must start to be aware of that in the types of programs we
design. That is what the government needs to start doing and
that is certainly what the Reform Party would do.
[Translation]
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to
address the House today.
Concerning this motion by the official opposition, it strikes
me as a little bit hypocritical. We are being accused of not having
consulted Canadians adequately before announcing our program to
share the expenditures for programs, tax cuts and debt reduction.
At the same time, the hon. member for Medicine Hat tells us
that they plan to cut taxes.
[English]
They say we have not consulted, but without consulting they have
presented tax cuts which they feel are so important. They have
called for monstrous tax cuts in personal income tax, in business
income tax, and in terms of getting rid of the increase in Canada
pension plan premiums. They cannot have it both ways. Either
they are to go out and consult in some undefined process which
they have not outlined before us, or they are to allow us to set
programs.
No party in the history of Canada has consulted more extensively
with Canadians. Perhaps the greatest process of consultation in
a democratic nation is putting a platform before the electorate.
This is exactly what we did before the last election when
Canadians spoke strongly and decisively.
1050
Perhaps the Reform Party wants some type of electoral reform so
that election results do not really count, so that the expressed
will of Canadians during a federal election is not what really
matters.
Not only did we go through a federal election where this was a
key part of our platform, but it is this House that opened up the
budget making process. It will begin this fall with an economic
statement by the Minister of Finance laying out where we are and
some of the available options. It will then be a task of the
finance committee, of which the member for Medicine Hat was a
very distinguished member and will be again I trust. The
committee will go right across the country and will consult with
Canadians from every sector and every walk of life on their
budget priorities.
This process of consultation could not be one of which I am more
proud because it is open. It has taken the budget making process
out of the back rooms and into the public fora and into
Parliament and has put it into the hands of members of
Parliament. Surely he does not condemn that.
The member has set forth his priorities without consultation as
he seems to say we have done. He wants to get rid of business
subsidies. No program has been cut more than our subsidies to
business. It was because—
An hon. member: Bombardier.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Bombardier. The fund to help Canada's
aerospace industry to continue its ascent into the top ranks
among nations in the world is not a giveaway program. It is
refundable and repayable to the federal government. This was a
result of consultations which our federal finance committee
undertook and suggested and the Minister of Industry adapted. I
am very proud of this program. It means the success of our
aerospace industry goes back to the credit of Canadian taxpayers
through repayments to the federal government.
Is the member saying that he is against what we have done to
protect and secure a dignified and secure retirement for seniors
through our agreement with the provinces on the Canada pension
plan?
He wants to renounce a deal made with the provinces including
the province of Alberta, fine. He can go on record and say that
he would renounce that deal. That is not the way we operate
because we are prepared to operate in consultation and
co-operation with our provincial counterparts.
Is the member prepared to renounce the type of co-operative
arrangement we have worked out with the provinces in terms of the
Canada child tax benefit where the federal government and the
provinces will concentrate on children who are members of working
families in the poorest income bracket? Is this what the member
is talking about?
We believe this is a priority. These children living in the
lowest income brackets need assistance. We are directing it to
them in co-operation with the provinces to break down the welfare
wall.
Does the member condemn our efforts and our tax cuts to help
students by making more of their fees deductible and by giving
greater tax breaks to parents who invest in registered
educational savings plans? Does he condemn the fact that we want
to provide scholarships to help make post-secondary education
accessible to more and more Canadians?
One of our expenditure announcements in the throne speech which
he condemns and which I am happy to stand beside is funding the
Canada Council, giving it more funds to provide for arts and
culture. I am very proud of our commitment to enhance Canada
Council funding. I stand by it completely as do all members on
this side of the House.
1055
Does he condemn our program to help provide entry level jobs for
young Canadians through our public sector internship program? We
are giving work experience to young Canadians who might not
otherwise have access to the workforce. It is a very valuable
entry into the workforce.
These are some of the priorities we have set out. They have
been the subject of consultation through the election. They will
be the subject of ongoing consultation through debates in the
House and through the finance committee.
We have talked about what we have done for young Canadians, what
we are doing for our seniors, and what we are doing for health
care in terms of increasing our funding by over $6 billion in
five years to the provinces to help sustain the principles of the
Canada Health Act.
Does he condemn what we have done in terms of innovation? We
have given tax breaks for research and development in Canada. We
created the innovation foundation to help restore the research
infrastructure of our hospitals and our universities.
Does he condemn SchoolNet? We have helped classrooms to connect
with all libraries and with everyone throughout the country.
Canada will be the most connected nation in the world. It will
have access to expertise and knowledge throughout the country.
I am happy to talk about our priorities for students, for young
Canadians whose parents are among the working poor and who need a
break. I am happy to talk about our steadfast protection of the
Canada Health Act in the face of threats by the Reform Party in
the last parliament which said we needed a two tier medical
system.
We will not give in to their priorities. We will continue to be
a most open government that consults with Canadians when setting
our priorities. We will work to address the true needs of future
Canadians. That does not rule out tax cuts. That does not rule
out paying down the debt. These are priorities we have stated
clearly and strongly.
The throne speech said that we would continue to be the
government of fiscal responsibility. We are the government that
brought the deficit down from $42 billion ahead of the schedule
fixed by the Reform Party which called for a balanced budget by
the year 2000. We will achieve that long before its target.
We will not take a lesson in fiscal responsibility from anyone,
including the official opposition.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch
what the member said. Did he say consult Canadians or insult
Canadians? I cannot remember.
The hon. member raised a lot of different issues. It will be
difficult to touch on them all. I will try to be brief.
I think everyone would agree the member is very naive if he is
suggesting that Canadians voted with one voice on the
government's fiscal platform in the last election campaign.
Surely he acknowledges that people voted on many issues including
primarily, I would argue, national unity. That was a huge issue
in the election campaign.
The government's majority was diminished. What does that say of
the support it has for its programs? It has the barest of
majorities right now.
Instead of simply having an election on their economic approach,
many provinces such as Alberta have consulted their citizens
directly. It is time to go to the people on a fundamental
decision such as that and ask them directly. We should not be
doing it by a committee that travels around once in a while to
ask people what should be in this year's budget.
The optimal size of government, the optimal level of taxes and
the optimal level of debt are extraordinarily important issues. I
am going to ignore most of the rhetoric from my hon. friend and
make that point.
I would conclude by asking—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Willowdale.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's
question.
1100
What is the optimal size of debt and what is the optimal level
of taxes? You have obviously prejudged it. You have called for
major cuts in payroll taxes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member is a
practised and experienced parliamentarian and certainly does not
mean to leave the Chair out of the debate.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. I
thank you for first of all for reminding me and second, for your
excellent presiding over this Chamber.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat is quite at liberty to suggest
that debate is needed on what is the optimal size of government
debt. We are looking forward to hearing his contribution to this
very important debate. We know that, with a federal debt of $600
billion which is 74% of Canada's entire yearly economic output,
we are way beyond where we should be. One-third of every tax
dollar has to go to pay the interest on the debt. That is money
that cannot be spent on tax relief, on debt reduction or new
spending programs to help Canadians. This is why—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask my honourable Liberal colleague, who is also
the minister responsible for financial institutions and who had a
tear in his eye just now for the poor and the sick, which of these
is the right answer: by the end of its mandate, the Liberal
government will have cut either $42 billion from social programs,
or $42 billion from social programs, or $42 billion from social
programs? Which of these three is the right answer?
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we had to cut spending. In
1993-94, our program expenditures amounted to $120 billion. In
subsequent years, these fell by 13 percent to $105 billion.
While cutting spending, we kept the cuts in transfers to the
provinces to a minimum. They were in the order of 8 percent and we
retained equalization, which was really necessary for our vision of
the future of Canada, a Canada in which we can share problems and
opportunities with Canadians regardless of what part of the country
they live in.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the motion introduced this morning by the
Reform Party, for reasons that have to do with what we have just
heard from the other side of the House, namely that the government
acted to improve public finances, with all sorts of figures being
bandied about.
I can tell you that this government has fed us nothing but
twisted information since the start of its first mandate. They
have misled us about the actual state of public finances and the
route it took to reach a zero deficit, a surplus even, this year,
if we are to believe the results of the past three months
announcing unprecedented budget surpluses.
We will support the motion of the Reform Party, not because we
share their philosophy or their approach to improving public
finances, but because this motion calls for a debate on the problem
as a whole. A public debate is now very important because, for the
past four years, they have been feeding us a line. We have been
told that the deficit will exceed $17 billion, $24 billion, and so
on, when they know very well on the other side of the House with
their panoply of specialists and their good judgment, if they have
any, that the budget and deficit figures are very different from
what is being touted.
1105
Last February, you may recall, the Bloc Quebecois made public a
document analyzing the government's budgetary situation, as well as the
deficit. Starting in February, we were forecasting that the deficit for
the year ending March 31, 1997 would not exceed $10 billion and that, by
1997-98, the deficit would be zero. What did the Minister of Finance
tell us back then? He said that we were talking nonsense, that we did
not know how to count, that what we thought did not matter.
The result was that, as of last March—the figures will soon be
out—the federal government's deficit will not exceed $10 billion, and
next year it will drop to zero.
But what did the Minister of Finance do? He fed us a line. Why?
Because he did not want the public to know that the federal government's
finances were in better shape than he was letting on, and this was how
he justified cutting assistance to the most disadvantaged, to the
elderly, the ill, students and those on welfare. This is why a public
debate is so important.
The second reason a public debate is necessary is because we are
not in agreement with the way in which the federal government went about
getting its fiscal house in order. For four years now, the Bloc
Quebecois has been showing that there are other ways to arrive at the
same result, a zero deficit, balanced budgets, without making the most
disadvantaged members of society suffer.
There needs to be debate. If the government is to continue its
efforts to put its fiscal house in order, and we agree it should, there
has to be debate, since the past four years have shown us only too
clearly how completely lacking in compassion this government is.
It has gone about reducing the deficit in four ways. First of all,
each year the Minister of Finance has brought in a budget cutting
funding for provincially run social programs by $4.5 billion, including
a $1.3 billion annual reduction in funding to the Government of Quebec
for social assistance, postsecondary education and health.
Quebeckers must realize that 93 cents out of every dollar cut in health
care in Quebec results from cuts made by the federal government, not by
the Quebec government; that is right, 93 cents out of every dollar.
Second, this government has used taxation in an utterly unfair
fashion. After solemnly saying income tax had to be reduced, they turned
around and increased taxes four years in a row. By not indexing tax
tables among other things, they took $23 billion out of taxpayers'
pockets, while talking about reducing taxes. With this $23 billion, the
federal government is making taxpayers pay for its deficit reduction
efforts in a sneaky, underhand, roundabout way. That is why there should
be a public debate.
There is another important source of income. The Minister of
Finance has dipped into the unemployment insurance fund surplus.
Here again there should be a debate because the federal government has
not been putting a cent into this fund for years, yet merrily helps
itself to premiums paid by employers and employees, hence the need for
a real public debate.
There are other ways to continue putting our fiscal house in order.
At the moment, it is going so well in terms of objectives being met and
deficit reduction targets surpassed that, if it really wants to fight
poverty and underemployment, the federal government should meet our
demands. It should give back what it has stolen from the provinces. It
should immediately stop implementing its planned budget cuts, as set out
in the 1996 budget.
It should give back to the provinces the $4.5 billion it has taken
from them every year. That is the first thing it ought to do. Second, it
must stop using the unemployment insurance fund surplus.
It is important. UI premiums are job killers. Any payroll tax is a job
killer. If the Minister of Finance is really committed to job creation,
he must heed another suggestion made by the Bloc Quebecois and lower the
rates of contribution to the unemployment insurance fund by 35 cents on every
$100 of insurable earnings.
Another 35 cents should be used to pay back the benefits stolen from the
unemployed, last January, through the employment insurance reform.
1110
If he really cares about fighting child poverty, he should increase
the child tax credit from $850 million to $2 billion, as suggested by
the Bloc Quebecois, that is if he cares about it, but he does not seem
to. There does not seem to be any government member across the way who
cares. What they care about is the Canadian flag, federalist propaganda.
To these people, that is more important than making sure children eat
every day.
Third, the federal government should pay up the $2 billion owed to
Quebec for harmonizing the GST.
Surpluses will still be generated by the end of next year, since
the forecast is better than anticipated as far as reducing the deficit
and running budget surpluses is concerned.
There are other ways to put our fiscal house in order. We are among
those who want the effort to be pursued. Last year, we suggested three
possible approaches. As you may recall, we released two papers: one on
corporate tax reform and the other on personal income tax reform.
If it took its responsibilities seriously, the federal government
might reform personal income tax to make it more equitable. There are
individuals who pay very high taxes, while other do not pay any because
of all the loopholes in our tax system, which has not undergone a
complete overhaul in 30 years.
It is the same thing with corporate tax. The government should stop
favouring millionaires and billionaires, and turn instead to small and
medium businesses, which are the ones creating jobs. That is the road
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to continue putting our fiscal house in
order as well as to help create jobs through targeted reductions in
corporate tax.
If the Minister of Finance agreed to hold a real debate on the way
ahead, looking at future means of putting our fiscal house in order and
the ruthless ones he has taken these past four years and plans to keep
using during this mandate, I think that would take care of a real
concern people have: they want to be told the truth, where we are headed
and who will pay.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I
would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. It was far
more detailed and more balanced than the one we heard a few minutes
ago from the representative of the Reform Party, which expressed
almost universal radicalism. In fact, they engage in radicalism on
the constitutional level, by attempting to provoke all regions of
the country.
I feel obliged to remind them that all of us here are
representatives of different regions of the country, co-owners of
all that we have. With all that we have at stake, we are going to
proceed cautiously.
It is exactly the same thing on the economic level, totally
unacceptable radicalism. There is absolutely no compassion for the
most disadvantaged. Our colleague has just referred to the great
difficulties now faced by the near-majority of Canadian families,
whose children go to school without breakfast.
My colleague is absolutely right.
One of the things the present government voted against was
adoption of the GST legislation. The ultimate purpose of the
GST—and I take advantage of the occasion to ask the question of
my colleague—was to arrive at an effective fiscal reform as far
as income and other taxes are concerned. Such was the purpose of
the GST.
He is right as well in his reference to the ruse of this
government in using the battle against the deficit to its
advantage, when we know very well it was the result of free trade
and the revenues from the GST. As well, they are forgetting that,
over the same ten year period, 1974 to 1984, they increased the
national debt tenfold, while we doubled it during our time in
office, because our structural measures such as free trade and the
GST had not yet been adopted.
I am therefore pleased to congratulate my colleague and I
would like to hear what he has to say on these questions.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Chicoutimi for praising the Bloc Quebecois. It is not often that we get
praise from Conservative members and political opponents, so I am
accepting it on behalf of my party.
My colleague was right when he spoke about improving the
effectiveness of our tax system.
1115
In fact, if the Conservative Party deserves praise—but let us
not forget that criticism may follow quickly—it is for implementing
at least a major part of the tax reform, as the member pointed out, by
introducing the GST.
At the time, and this is another point raised by the hon. member,
those provinces interested in implementing the GST were told to
harmonize their provincial sales tax at their own expense, but that they
would benefit from a much greater efficiency in the five or ten years
that would follow, thanks to a more modern and fairer tax system.
At the time, the Quebec government, which was the only one to
harmonize its tax with the federal GST, was not told that, a few years
later, the federal government would give $1 billion to the maritime
provinces to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the GST. It is
totally unfair to treat Quebec like this and the federal government owes
us $2 billion. The hon. member was absolutely right when he raised this
issue.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
congratulate my dear friend and colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on
his election. Three days before the federal election, we had a lively
debate, and I feel I am once again at the Taverne Magnan. Those who are
from Quebec will know that, in Montreal, the Taverne Magnan is almost
like the agora, except that alcoholic beverages are served.
Whenever someone speaks on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, it feels
like I am listening over and over to the same cassette. The only thing
different is the name of the person speaking. Otherwise, it is always
the same baloney.
I am impressed to see that many outraged members across the floor.
We hear them whine, if I can put it that way, and it is terrible to see
them continually say the same thing.
When we took over, our country was going bankrupt.
We inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. But we made the right
decisions and now the deficit has almost been eliminated. The member
spoke about health programs. We are giving $1.5 billion back to the
provinces for these programs. By harmonizing its sales tax with the GST,
Quebec made money.
How can the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot make such statements
when he knows full well that the facts do not match the content of his
cassette and cliches?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of cassettes, I
wouldn't go on about that too much, because they have one that is
pretty long and rather out of date.
We in Quebec are not the only ones who think that the federal
government stole $2 billion from us. The Canadian premiers
unanimously supported Quebec's request at St. Andrews, because they
considered it unfair to Quebec that it got no similar compensation
when $1 billion was given to the maritimes to harmonize the GST
with the provincial sales taxes.
If my colleague from Bourassa were more concerned about the
interests of Quebec, he would encourage the Minister of Finance to
give Quebec its due and would stop saying just any old thing.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
If I recall correctly, I was reprimanded last week for having
used the word “steal”. Earlier, my colleague in the Bloc Quebecois
used the word twice. He has just used it a third or fourth time.
I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, whether there are two sets of rules
in the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With the greatest
respect, hon. members, it is not just the word, it is the context
of the word and whether the word is directed to an individual.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
1120
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great honour to once again rise in this House and say a few
words. I was not here for the last four years.
I want to first thank the voters of Qu'Appelle for electing me
as their member of Parliament. Despite the fact that I was an MP
for 25 years for Yorkton—Melville, this is the first chance I
have had to represent my hometown of Wynyard in the House of
Commons. I am really pleased to do that.
I also want to take a half a moment to pay tribute to my two
predecessors in what is now the Qu'Appelle riding. Simon de Jong
was a member of Parliament from 1979 to 1997 in the old riding of
Regina—Qu'Appelle, and Vic Althouse was the member of Parliament
from 1980 to 1997 in the old riding of Mackenzie. They both
served their constituents and their country well and I think
deserve the applause and the commendation of all members of
Parliament.
In rising to say a few words in this debate today, I would first
like to agree with the Reform Party that we obviously do need a
public debate on the direction this country should go in terms of
its public finances and spending. However, I disagree profoundly
with the emphasis it places on where we should go. It condemns
the 27 years of spending by the federal government in the past.
It condemns the size of government.
The Reform Party, and this is why I will not support the motion,
is really a throwback to the past. Its members are the Fred
Flintstones of Canadian politics. It is a party that is
basically anti-government. It is a party that does not really
believe that the government's role in this country is to help
create the equality of conditions for our citizens. It wants to
go back to the past. It is a very right wing conservative party.
For that reason we cannot support this motion before us today.
The Reform Party is spreading all kinds of myths, for example
that government programs are the cause of large deficits in this
country. It is spreading some mistruths in this country, that
social programs are a big problem in terms of deficit and debt
and unemployment. These things just are not true. It is about
time the Reform Party was taken on.
Back in 1992 Statistics Canada issued a report which stated that
the debt in this country, some 50 percent, was created by high interest
rates; 44 percent of the debt from tax breaks and only 6 percent by government
programs. Of that 6 percent only half of that is from social programs.
Yet we have the Reform Party saying that the government has
spent too much, there are too many social programs, we need to be
cut back and that is the cause of high taxes and high
unemployment. That is not true. Statistics Canada said that the
biggest cause of debt in this country was high interest rates.
Who brought in high interest rates? Right wing conservatives
like the Reform Party. Its friends like Brian Mulroney brought
in high interest rates in Canada.
We saw the exact same thing in Saskatchewan with Grant Devine
and the Conservatives there. Again, this is the right wing
politics of the Reform Party. That is the biggest cause in this
country of the debt and deficit.
The other cause is tax breaks primarily to wealthy people and
large corporations. Again, those are the kinds of breaks that
are defended by the Reform Party in Canada. For those reasons we
cannot support today's motion of non-confidence in the
government.
What we need in this country are decent social programs and a
tax system that is fair for each and every ordinary Canadian. We
do not need to go back to the past like the Reform Party that
would have us privatize a lot of our social programs, have us set
up two tier medical care in this country where we would have one
system for the rich and one for the poor, where we only have tax
breaks for the wealthy, where we get rid of the public pension
plans like the Canada pension plan and turn everything into
private pensions or RRSPs that favour wealthy people because they
believe they can look after their own future better than anybody
else. That is back to the past, the Archie Bunkers of Canada.
That is the direction we should not be going in.
That being said, let us take a look once again at the Reform
Party. Where does it want to do some cutbacks? It wants to cut
back, for example, corporate income tax. It wants cutbacks in
payroll taxes. When we look at the different options we have,
one thing we have to weigh when we do have government expenditure
is how many jobs are created because we have a major unemployment
problem all across Canada.
1125
I have here some figures about the different options if we had a
government expenditure of $1 billion. First of all, the
multiplier the formula applied here affects the expenditures in a
different way.
If we spend $1 billion in direct hiring, it creates 56,000 jobs.
Spending $1 billion on goods and services creates about 28,000
jobs. Spending $1 billion on infrastructure creates some 26,000
jobs. That is one factor taken into consideration when we talk
about how we spend government money in Canada.
The most effective way to create jobs, if we want to cut taxes,
is to start cutting back on the GST. In the campaign of the New
Democratic Party we advocated the elimination of the GST on books
and magazines. We advocated the elimination of the GST on
children's clothing, which is exempt in most of the provinces now
from provincial sales tax, certainly in my province of
Saskatchewan.
We also advocated the increase in the GST tax credit for adults
and children by 30 percent. It would cost $1.2 billion for those three
items and create 20,400 jobs in this country.
On the other hand, if we were to have a $1 billion cutback in
the GST, we would create some 17,000 jobs. But if there were a $1
billion cutback in corporate taxes, there would only be 14,000
jobs created. If there were a $1 billion cutback on personal
income tax across the board, there would be 12,000 jobs created.
If there was a $1 billion cutback in the payroll tax, there would
be about 9,000 jobs created.
We have choices. The question is where do we spend taxpayer
money. What are the programs that have the most impact and the
most effect in terms of job creation in this country?
I think what we have to do in terms of expending money on behalf
of the Canadian taxpayers is to invest more in health and in
education, those areas that need more spending, bringing people
up to a greater standard of equality of condition. Those are
also areas that would create jobs at the same time as investing
money in education and health.
If we are going to cut taxes, the place to start is with the
GST. I think that would help stimulate the economy more than
cutting taxes in other areas, and the statistics tend to bear
that out.
We have a debate in this country over where we are going to go
in terms of the direction of Canada. On one hand there is the
Reform Party, basically anti-government and anti-public
institution, a party that wants to privatize and deregulate and
scale back and get rid of government in almost every respect and
aspect.
That is what it stands for. It is a stroll back to the past.
It misleads the people of this country. It propagates myths
around Canada. A big problem we have is government spending.
Another problem we have is spending on social programs.
Statistics Canada showed us in 1992 that 6 percent of the debt is
caused by government spending in Canada and only half of that is
spending on social programs. Fifty per cent of the debt is
caused by the high interest rates that we saw during the Brian
Mulroney years, another version of a very conservative party in
Canada. Another 44 percent of the debt is caused by tax expenditures,
tax loopholes and tax giveaways to the large corporations that
are the friends of the Reform Party.
For those reasons we cannot support this motion before the House
today.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
found the speech by the hon. member to have some very creative
accounting. It was quite interesting.
If government spending created jobs, if it created all these
wonderful jobs, the government has overspent $600 billion at the
federal level in the past 25 to 30 years. If we add the
overspending of the provinces to that, in total it overspent
maybe $1 trillion. If throwing government money at problems
could fix them, how come this $1 trillion that has been spent has
not bought three jobs for everyone of us throughout the country?
That is the first question.
The hon. member talks about the medical care system and
how he would like to see jobs created in medical care.
I would like to ask him whether he realizes that about $2 billion
crosses the border into the United States every year with wealthy
Canadians who buy medical services in the United States. Would
it not be a good idea since he supports jobs in the medical care
system to try to bring that money back into Canada in some way,
to provide an alternative choice for those people who are already
spending $2 billion across the border? Let them spend it here and
certainly put rules in place so that doctors cannot run into that
special new program. Let people spend it here so that new jobs
will be created in the medical care system.
1130
If the member would look at examples in other countries which
have done this, such as Britain, Sweden and New Zealand, he would
see that the medical services jobs almost doubled as a result of
introducing such plans.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say
that I appreciate the frankness of the member of the Reform Party
in advocating two tier medical care in the country. I certainly
do not support what he is saying. He is advocating one system of
medical care for the rich and one for the rest of us.
Maybe he does not know what ordinary people are like. Come to
my riding in the inner city of Regina. How many of those people
can afford a medical care system when they have to pay extra for
it? They are very poor people and are living hand to mouth. The
Reform Party is advocating two tier medicare which we have fought
against in this country for many, many years and which the NDP
will continue to fight against.
In terms of jobs, if the member of the Reform Party would unplug
his ears and listen, he would find out that the greatest
expenditure in the country has been on the interest on the
national debt, approximately 35 cents out of every dollar. Another
great expenditure in the country are the tax giveaways to
multinational corporations, to the wealthy in Canada. If the
member wants to look at an example of fiscal responsibility, look
at the Government of Saskatchewan with a balanced budget and the
lowest unemployment anywhere in the country at 5.6 percent.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome your appointment to the Chair. I am sure you
will do fine work on behalf of all of us in the House.
I welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. We all
know that he is anything but a new member. He spent about 25
distinguished years in the House and I am delighted that the
voters in Qu'Appelle have decided to send him back to the House.
I think he has made an enormous contribution to the debate that
is taking place. I look forward to more interventions from him.
Now that we have five official parties in the House, this
Parliament will work better and all regions of Canada will be
better represented in the 36th Parliament.
Let me say that I too welcome the debate on what the government
is going to do with greater revenues as a result of a growing
economy. I welcome the suggestions made by the member for
Qu'Appelle. However let me say that I think Canadians are a
balanced people, are pragmatic and believe in balanced
approaches. This is the reason why the government and the
Liberal Party said in the election campaign in May that we
propose to spend half of any surplus or extra revenues on tax
reduction and debt reduction and the other half on the
development of social and economic programs. I believe that is a
balanced approach and something that Canadians support.
I would like to hear the member for Qu'Appelle comment on that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be
a division between new programs, enhancing existing programs and
tax cuts and paying down the national debt. The debate will be
what new programs we will look at and what enhanced spending
there should be. I believe it should be in the fields of health
and education. When we get the tax cuts the debate will be over
where they should take place. I believe we should start with the
GST, reduce it. That is the fairest way to go about doing it. It
is also the way to create jobs in this country.
That is the real debate: what kinds of tax cuts, what kinds of
expenditures and what kinds of enhancement to existing programs.
1135
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, may
I first thank the people of Madawaska—Restigouche who expressed
their confidence in me on June 2.
In its speech from the throne, the government repeated its
promise to apply any budget surplus equally to new program spending
and to reducing the debt and taxes.
This promise left me very sceptical, naturally. In the
Atlantic region, we are used to fine promises from the Liberals.
That is probably why so we elected so few.
I was all the more sceptical of the Reform Party's wanting to
talk about financial management. Until very recently, they were still
loath to set specific figures and objectives for their financial
management plan.
The reality is that, if this government can point to a balanced
budget today, it is because it has made deep cuts to social programs and
abandoned its responsibilities to the provinces.
Now the government is peering into its crystal ball and talking
about better days ahead. This is small comfort to those who have paid
the price for its lack of planning and vision over the past four years.
In my own riding, close to 50 percent of the population is unemployed or
receiving income support. The changes to employment insurance brought
in by the Liberal government have had a devastating impact.
The situation is so bad that it is a rare day in my riding office
that I do not hear tales of despair from my constituents.
You may think I am trying to be melodramatic in this august place,
but this is the sad reality our constituents live with.
I will be the first to admit that there are no easy solutions, but
I will also be the first to say that solutions there are. They can work
if the government takes the trouble to listen to people, to think, to
give some thought to the long term, and to show some compassion, while
behaving in a financially responsible manner.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the smaller deficit is
largely the result of an increase in revenue, low interest rates and
reduced payments to other levels of government. During their first term
of office, the Liberals preferred to shift the burden of the deficit to
others, rather than cut back on their own spending.
The government has forgotten that it is the average Canadian who is
footing the bill for its decision; not the provincial, federal or
municipal levels of government. In Canada, there is only one taxpayer.
And despite the recent propaganda about good financial management,
Canadian workers and those on small incomes will always be stuck with
the bill. As proof, I point to The Fiscal Monitor, a Department of
Finance publication. In July, the minister was boasting about a $1.4
billion surplus in May 1997. This was due in part to an increase in
employment insurance premium revenues (up $0.3 billion) attributable to
the acceleration of monthly payments.
[English]
We have often pleaded with the government to reduce employment
insurance premiums. To use what was once designed as an
insurance to provide temporary income as a deficit cutting
measure is unacceptable. This government has no mandate to
impose an outright payroll tax. It is just plain wrong.
I have argued that reducing employment insurance premiums by 70
cents
per $100 of income would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It
would stimulate the economy and give Canadians the much needed
tax relief they deserve. But then again, why would the king of
Bay Street listen to me, a young Conservative MP from rural New
Brunswick?
The Minister of Finance may not want to listen to me or my
colleagues, but maybe he will listen to the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and
other organizations which agree that reducing employment
insurance premiums by 60 cents for example would create 170,000 new
jobs.
Those are the kinds of measures Canadians need, not just empty
words and promises.
1140
[Translation]
With this motion, the Reform Party wants to convince us that
it has the monopoly on reason where proper financial management is
concerned. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
The Reform motion clearly demonstrates their lack of concrete
ideas on the question. They are very much like the Liberals in
this, full of vague promises and no set objectives. Why does the
Reform party want to waste its time debating something that is so
simple? Taxes are quite simply too high. The problem must be
addressed, now or never. Why wait for the near, or more distant,
future? The Reform solution is to reduce taxes only when a budget
surplus has been attained.
That means that Canadians will notice no difference from the
Liberals, where their pocket books are concerned.
The Progressive Conservative Party is the only party willing
to act today. We are the only ones who want to give Canadians a
reduction in their tax burden starting right now. The budget
surplus we are about to have is built on the sacrifices of all
Canadians, and they all deserve to reap the consequences.
[English]
Even though we speak of tax cuts for Canadians, our approach to
managing the fiscal dividend is responsible. The leader of our
party, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, has warned that the tax
and cut government of the Liberals' first term has been replaced
by the tax and spend government in the second. Unfortunately I
think he may be right.
We are pleased there is a balanced budget on the horizon but the
Liberals must be held accountable. This short term performance
is not a permit to open the floodgates of government spending. If
this government truly believes in its performance, it will have
no problem committing publicly to it. Specific benchmarks must
be established now.
[Translation]
This means that, first of all, we must have legislation
calling for a balanced budget; second, objectives must be set for
reducing the debt, based on a specific debt to GDP ratio; and
third, there must be specific stipulation of the amount to be put
into reducing the debt. Employment insurance premiums are far too
high and constitute a direct tax on jobs. The government must,
with no further ado, reduce employment insurance to $2.20 per $100
of insurable earnings.
Those are some concrete proposals aimed at putting more money
back into Canadians' pockets and at putting this country's affairs
in order.
I am setting the Liberal government the challenge to listen to
reason and to implement our proposals, for the sake of our
country's future.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, just a couple of comments on members who have already
spoken.
The hon. member for Willowdale who spoke on behalf of the
Liberal Party stated that one of the things he was proud of was
Canada Council grants provided by the Liberal government. I would
have liked to have asked him had the opportunity existed, and
perhaps the hon. member who just spoke can comment on it, if he
is really proud of the latest expenditure by the Canada Council.
It is a $42,000 study, $42,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money being
used to study the social origins of medieval Latin lyrical song.
I also would have liked to have asked the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle when he speaks so eloquently of how proud he is of the
Saskatchewan government with regard to all the things it does in
particular with medicare, whether or not he is proud that it had
to shut 50 hospitals and whether or not the $2 billion that is
spent across the line might be better spent trying to keep some
of those open.
Finally, I would like to ask this of the hon. member who just
spoke. We know from past experience that the Conservative
government tried to balance the budget and in fact started to
bring the deficit down and suddenly it turned around and became
one of the biggest deficits we ever had. Does the hon. member
have any special points that he might like to offer to the
Liberals so that they do not end up doing the same thing? They
have followed them so many other times in the past.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, first of all our party has
priorities. Our priority is to create jobs.
We will continue to do so and we will tell the House how we will
do it. I cannot comment because it is not a priority for our
party and I do not think it is a priority for the House.
1145
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with considerable interest to the new member for
Madawaska—Restigouche who, I might say, speaks an exemplary
French.
However, in his speech, he mentioned our government's
accumulated deficits, and I would like to give him a little
background quickly. Prior to 1970, the federal government had
little deficit but, year in year out, the deficit accumulated.
With the arrival of the philosopher Pierre Elliott Trudeau at
the helm of the government, the deficit began to grow.
However, on his arrival, Brian, the hon. member's spiritual leader,
whom he obviously dare not name, threw himself into lavish spending
so that, in its final year in government, the Conservative Party
had a deficit of $44 billion and an accumulated debt of $600
billion.
Obviously shameful. However, the word also applies to the
party currently forming the government if not more than to the
preceding government, when it draws an annual surplus of between $6
billion and $9 billion out of the pockets of the impoverished
workers by unduly increasing the employment insurance premium,
while cutting benefits, shortening the period of eligibility for
employment insurance and tightening the requirements.
On this point, I support my colleague from
Madawaska—Restigouche, but when he talks about the spending of
the current federal government, I suggest he look in his own back
yard to see what the Conservative Party did during its nine years
in government. It spent extravagantly too.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague very much
concerning my ability to speak French.
My colleague talks a lot about the deficit. Yes, I did look in my
own back yard, and in fact we are now reaping what we had sown by the
previous Conservative government.
The Conservative Party inherited a debt of more than $200 billion
with an interest rate of more than 21 percent. We implemented free trade. Our
friends opposite voted against the GST. We implemented it. They were
supposed to scrap it. They did not scrap it, it is still there.
It is our measures that put the country back on track. I can tell
you, I guarantee it. It is certainly not what the Liberals did, because
they did not do anything concrete, absolutely nothing at all.
We will be able to say thanks to the previous Conservative government,
I guarantee it.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion of the member
for Medicine Hat which bears repeating:
That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50
election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public
debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt,
thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of
irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high
taxes, causing high unemployment.
This is an important motion because it goes to the heart of what
caused our debt in the first place. It is not surprising to hear
the NDP say that it is opposed to our motion today, considering
that it was part of the coalition that started this whole spiral
back in the late sixties to begin with.
The country needs a good debate about what should be the size of
the federal government. It is all about priorities.
How big of a government do we really want? Are we willing to pay
the taxes it takes to run a government of that size? Can we not,
with a smaller government and lower taxes, create a far greater
prosperity for our citizens? This is the debate the country
needs. It is the debate that is currently taking place in
Alberta which has two surplus budgets.
1150
Since this is my first time speaking in 36th Parliament, I would
like to thank the people who elected me in my riding of Peace
River for returning me to the House of Commons. I hope I can
continue to show that I am working on their behalf and respect
that they have put their faith in me. I would also like to
congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair.
I am especially pleased to have been reappointed international
trade critic because it is critical to Canada. It is also
critical to my riding of Peace River and its economy.
Our export industries are oil, natural gas, agriculture and
forestry. Nationally one out of every three jobs is related to
exports. In my riding almost everything we produce in a basic
industry line is exported and is vitally important.
Therefore I am always concerned about giving our Canadian
businesses the best opportunities to take part in the global
economy. Trade and investment deals open a lot of doors, but
what happens if our companies cannot take advantage of these
deals and conditions at home do not allow them to survive and
grow? I am keenly aware that trade starts at home with sound
domestic policies.
I congratulate the member for York West on becoming the Minister
of International Trade. His ministry has an important role to
play in securing Canada's place as we move into the 21st century.
His job will not always be easy as there will be voices trying to
hold Canada back. These voices will urge him to protect our
industries from the cut and thrust of foreign competition. At
the same time his department will urge him to resist these pleas
for protectionism. I wish him vision and resolve to stay the
course of trade liberalization which has meant so much to Canada
in the last 10 years. I want to serve notice that I will be
watching.
We heard the Speech from the Throne on last Tuesday. It touched
briefly on the importance of trade to the Canadian economy. One
in every three Canadian jobs now depends on trade. These jobs
were not created as a result of team Canada trade missions. I
admit that many business people make important contacts on these
trade missions. I would even admit that there are some countries
where high level government presence is critical. However, these
multimillion dollar trade deals do not happen just because the
prime minister touched down in a jet with his entourage in tow.
On the contrary, while it opened some initial doors, it is
interesting to find that our trade, especially our exports to
countries like China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Chile,
Argentina and Uruguay just to mention a few, went down in
subsequent years after the initial trade missions.
There is a lot of bragging on the other side about the
importance of the prime minister opening these doors. I suggest
he has to do some work at home to look after some problems that
restrict the ability of Canadian businesses to take advantage of
the trade deals.
In light of these stunning failures I wonder whether the
government will continue pinning all its trade hopes on a five
day dog and pony show.
For all the government's talk of trade successes it just so
happens that most Canadian companies do not export. In fact 80 percent
of our trade is done by 100 companies. Literally thousands of
companies have never sent a representative outside our borders or
even sold a single widget or service to a customer in a province
west or east of them. Is this because they lack the imagination
or lack the courage to leave their own backyard? No, certainly
not.
In many cases borders between our provinces have been more
daunting than the Himalaya mountains. After being in power for
three and a half years the last time and being in power a long
time before that, it is outrageous the Liberal government has
done nothing to dismantle hundreds of trade barriers that exist
between our provinces.
In the subcommittee on the special import measures act last year
members heard that in many cases it was easier to export from the
American states to our provinces than it is from provinces like
Ontario. This is absolutely absurd. We even heard from a
Canadian company that actually left Ontario in disgust to move to
Michigan. The company could not do business in Canada from
Ontario, but once they located in Michigan they could trade into
Canadian provinces. We have an absolutely ludicrous situation
that has to be corrected. They are not showing the vision on the
other side to resolve the problem.
1155
The problem of internal trade barriers is one that will take
imagination and courage to overcome. I submit the government has
neither the imagination nor courage. Otherwise it would have
tackled it long ago.
The federal government has the power to demolish these internal
trade barriers. Doing so will do more to create jobs and exports
in the country than hundreds of team Canada trade missions. In
fact it has been suggested that internal trade barriers may be
costing Canadians up to $8 billion per year.
The Speech from the Throne also mentions making Canada the
location of choice for global investment. It is a worthy
objective. Canada is a wonderful location, but I wonder sometimes
if the government has actually examined some of the existing
problems.
Has it examined payroll taxes? They are a killer and they are
going up, not down. Canadian pension plan premiums are going up
by 77 percent over 1996 levels. On top of that, the employment
insurance fund will run a surplus of almost $13 billion by the
end of the year. What is this for? It is obviously to help the
finance minister bring down his deficit, but it will be done on
the backs of workers and employers.
Does the government honestly believe foreign investors will come
to Canada to have their pockets picked? Why on earth would high
level executives want to direct foreign investment from their
country into Canada after examining our personal income tax
levels? These are over 50 percent higher than income taxes paid by our
six G-7 partners.
Now blue skies and nice folks are important, but I suggest they
are not the only reason that companies invest in Canada. They
look at business dollars as savvy executives. Good business
conditions is what they are looking for.
We desperately need to dismantle our internal trade barriers and
lower payroll and other taxes. We also need to remove some of
the red tape on regulation that keeps our business people from
concentrating on the product or the service they are selling.
In conclusion, trade and investment start at home. If the
conditions are right foreign investments and exports will follow.
My riding of Peace River in Alberta is located in the lowest
taxed province in the country. It is not surprising that our
exports flow directly south where many of our trade barriers have
already been dismantled.
The Liberal government should take a major initiative. Instead
of taking a team Canada trade mission to Latin America this year,
perhaps it should concentrate right at home and correct some of
the problems it has the power to look after.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last
point the hon. member put forward with respect to internal trade
barriers.
The hon. member should acknowledge that the government
introduced a measure to eliminate internal trade barriers. I had
the opportunity of sitting with one of his colleagues who
contributed to that discussion quite effectively.
If the member wants to have an impact on internal trade barriers
I encourage him to continue his dialogue. At the same time he
should make sure he speaks to the provinces that are standing in
the way of eliminating trade barriers that contribute to $6
billion or $7 billion of GDP. This is very important for the
country and the jobs that need to be created.
The federal government is not standing in the way of internal
trade barriers. I encourage the member to be very clear when he
communicates with the constituents of his riding and other
Canadians across the country. I am sure he supports the
initiative, as do I and other members of the government.
However I want to make the point that the provinces are standing
in the way. I certainly welcome any support he could provide in
that instance.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Stoney Creek for his comment and question.
I certainly agree with him that initiatives are being made.
There is an effort to try to dismantle interprovincial trade
barriers. That initiative has been going nowhere. There are
provinces, especially those led by NDP governments, that are
resisting very vigorously.
Failing being able to resolve this issue by consultation,
section 93 of the Canadian Constitution clearly states that there
shall be no restrictions or barriers to trade across
interprovincial borders. Clearly the federal government has the
authority to make the change.
While a Reform government would devolve many powers to the
provinces where they can be administered better by either the
provinces or the municipalities, this is one area in which the
federal government has to show strong leadership, and it is not
currently doing so.
1200
To show how ludicrous some of these interprovincial trade
barriers are, a constituent of mine in the Peace River riding had
a contract to do some gravel work using some of his trucks up in
an area seven miles from the British Columbia border in Alberta.
When the day was done and they had finished their work, they
wanted to drive those same trucks into Dawson Creek, which was
the nearest community, to stay in the hotels there overnight and
eat in the restaurants. But they were restricted from doing so
because the axle spacing on their trucks does not meet B.C.
requirements. It would have cost them thousands of dollars to
meet that specification. Those are the kind of silly rules we
have in Canada.
We have more barriers to trade within our provincial borders
than all of the European Community members combined. It is
ridiculous. Seventeen 17 countries in Europe have been able to
come up with standards so that trucks can roll across the
borders, do not have to present papers and do not have special
restrictions based on country of origin. Canada has negotiated
better trade agreements outside our country than it has been able
to negotiate inside Canada.
I suggest that when the member says that we need consultation
and to put pressure on, the government clearly has the authority
to make the changes and bring Canada into the 21st century.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. The job looks good
on you.
I would like to thank the voters of Battlefords—Lloydminster
for their support. I speak today on their behalf in support of
the motion to condemn the government for its empty promises.
My riding is a large rural riding with a very active and diverse
agricultural sector and a thriving resource industry. I would
like to say that my constituents were very disappointed when
there was no mention of their issues and concerns in last week's
throne speech.
As a matter of fact, we are obviously not alone if we judge by
the comments that came out of British Columbia last week. To my
knowledge no one in Saskatchewan is entertaining the notion of
separation, but we can certainly sympathize with the frustration
that is contained in that expression. Even if much of that
frustration is based on perception rather than reality, it still
grows as Canadians beyond this central region see their concerns
ignored and in some cases brushed off as insignificant.
On the prairies today grain piles up in the elevators, trains
sit idle on their sidings and government monopolies continue to
tell farmers what to do with the products of their labour.
Back in Ottawa the government announces new spending initiatives
to satisfy a few narrow interests as it claims a balanced budget
will soon arrive and perhaps then it will take a look at letting
Canadians keep more of their own money.
Has the government ever really asked what is the number one
concern of all Canadians? If it did, the answer from the left
and from the right of the political spectrum would be jobs, long
term sustainable jobs.
When an individual has a secure job, all the other facets of
their life fall into place. They can make plans, develop skills,
raise families and put their wages into the marketplace to the
benefit of their fellow citizens. When people feel secure they
can more easily turn their attention to the wider concerns of a
regional or national scale.
Reformers believe that Canadians are generous and compassionate
and given the chance will make decisions with their money that
will benefit their fellow citizens everywhere.
We believe that if governments create the conditions that offer
opportunity and security in the economy, then prosperity will
alleviate many of the social concerns we are struggling to deal
with here in this place.
For example, if the government would create the conditions that
encourage business people to hire workers, then the benefits to
everyone would be obvious. If someone is lifted from a social
program, becomes a taxpayer and is given the opportunity to make
decisions, it will help their fellow Canadian.
That is where we run into trouble. Some people still believe in
the grand schemes that call for massive amounts of tax dollars
and assume that a handful of bureaucrats making decisions in
central offices are somehow superior to the choices made by
ordinary Canadians.
Reformers and people with different perspectives from many
countries have shown over and over that this philosophy is both
wasteful and ineffective.
1205
Taxpayers do not need more grand schemes. We need to let
Canadians, including Canadians who choose to invest in their
future, create businesses and hire their neighbours, to make
their own choices.
I am not going to stand here and say that average Canadians have
all the answers. When we consider the risks involved, the
headaches and the aggravation of owning a small or medium size
business, we have to wonder if wise choices are being made out
there. There was a joke going around a few years ago which asked:
How do you make $1 million in Canadian business? First you
start with $2 million.
When we consider the number of obstacles which stand in the way
of a Canadian entrepreneur, the regulations and red tape, taxes,
fees, licences at three levels of government, including all the
agencies and commissions, the regulations and fees of the banks,
the suppliers and the competition, it obviously takes a special
breed of people to want to have their own business.
To be fair, we are not unique in the world for this. There are
just as many regulations meant to protect as there are to
interfere. However, when we consider that there are nearly one
million businesses with paid employees in Canada, of which 97 percent
have less than 50 workers, and 1.1 million Canadians who describe
themselves as self-employed, surely there are a few basic things
that can be done to encourage those people.
Consider that 75 percent of all businesses in Canada have less than
five employees. By convincing even half of these employers to
hire one more worker on average, we would see 360,000 jobs
created in a relatively short period of time.
The question becomes: What would it take to convince someone to
hire that new worker? Quite simply, companies will hire only if
it is in the interest of their profitability to do so. It is
naive to think otherwise.
We often hear in the House that the measure of a country is how
it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Where the debate goes
off track is when some of our colleagues assume that the only
measure of how we treat these citizens is how much money the
government spends to deal with them. We forget entirely that
citizens can help each other and that the choices of our fellow
citizens must be part of this measurement.
Governments can better increase the profitability of businesses
by reducing their costs, rather than by subsidizing certain
activities. Labour is one of these costs and government can have
a negative influence on this by, for example, keeping employment
insurance rates higher than are necessary or by jacking up
premiums on pension plans to compensate for 30 years of
mismanagement.
Taxes of all kinds can also have a negative impact. Nobody has
yet found a way to run a country without them, but it is the
rates established in Canada that need serious adjustment. Taxing
capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income ignores the
element of risk that an investor or entrepreneur brings to
business, without which our economy would be stagnant. Taxes
drive up the cost of nearly everything, and by so doing suppress
purchasing and pass the costs on to the people least able to
afford them.
We can see that potential entrepreneurs in this country are hit
with a triple whammy. Government raises the cost of supplies and
products without consultation, thereby affecting sales. If they
succeed they are then hit with premiums, levies and taxes on the
employees they try to hire to help them produce more.
Finally, if the struggling businesses manage to overcome all of
this and show a profit, the government again comes looking for a
share. There is of course the small business tax deduction, but
it has not been adjusted since it was introduced in 1982.
Governments have compensated for inflation by increasing their
tax take, but have done nothing to protect the people who
generate those taxes. I do not wish to be dramatic. Clearly
Canadians are creating businesses and, though not very often, are
even pocketing some money and prospering.
The question that we have before us is this. How can we make
more people more prosperous? The Reform Party discussion paper
Beyond a Balanced Budget provides a great deal of statistical
information and arguments on why we must address the issues of
tax burdens and entrepreneurship in Canada. We invite informed
discussion from all Canadians on the future direction of this
country.
We stand at a threshold, as we did in 1970 when the government
last had a surplus budget. What we decide to do in this House
will not only affect ourselves and our children, it will affect
Canadians for generations to come. I trust we can be much more
prudent and thoughtful than our predecessors.
1210
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest
to the member's maiden speech. I would advise him to do a little
better research. He should look at what has been done with the
Canadian Business Development Bank, for instance. Its mandate
has been expanded and it is certainly helping tourism in Canada.
He should also take a look at the Farm Credit Corporation
because its mandate has been expanded. Not only does it deal
with farmers, but it is now dealing with value added product
which is helping the agriculture industry.
He talked in his speech about things that he had not heard the
government say. One of the things I noticed was that he did not
talk about health care. I would like to get his opinion on
health care and what it should be into the third millennium.
One-third of Canada's population, 9.8 million people, are now
turning 50. There will be 500,000 a year turning 50 each year
for the next 20 years.
The health care system is going to be used at a very high rate
as this segment of the population ages. I would like to hear
what his opinion would be on how we pro-actively answer that
problem.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
questions. He mentioned the Canadian Business Development Bank
and Farm Credit Corporation. Certainly we welcome any positive
conditions that they will introduce to further business in
Canada. However, the one thing that usually flies in the face of
anything that happens through developments like this is that they
never really consult the people that they purport to serve.
I know in my instance, the Farm Credit Corporation having just
gone through a major shake-up and a major reorganization in my
area, has not really seen any dramatic growth or have I heard
people saying “You are doing a much better job”. We just do
not see that out there.
Regarding health care in my province of Saskatchewan, we have
seen hospitals closed at a record rate. The line-ups are
definitely longer. People are waiting longer and longer for less
health care. It is unfortunate.
Of course I do not have all the options and answers. We are here
in this House to discuss them. I think of some of the things
that we are going to have to do. We need a much more preventive
medicine situation out there. We are going to have to allow some
alternative treatments and so on like that.
We need to assure that people have the right to basic health
care and make sure that we can sustain that into the next
millennium.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the comments of the hon.
member. As the Reform is prone to do, he has addressed in his
comments specifically the financial end of his impression of the
throne speech pointing out the inadequacies, making thoughtful
suggestions on where improvements could be made.
My observations of Reform and the comments of its members seem
to indicate that they are very regionally based and focused. In
the Conservative Party six provinces are represented, including a
great proportion from Atlantic Canada.
My question for the hon. member is specifically, what does the
Reform have in mind. What is its approach to addressing some of
the difficulties that Atlantic Canadians are facing, keeping in
mind that those problems are national problems as well?
I have yet to hear anything too insightful or thoughtful on the
part of the Reform on how to address the problems of Atlantic
Canadians.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from
my esteemed colleague. He talked specifically of help to
Atlantic Canada. In our election platform and again here in the
House we talk about equality of opportunity for everyone.
The member for Medicine Hat earlier today stated that cutting
taxes helps people at all ends of the country. It creates jobs,
lets small business become the small engine of the economy that
we know it to be.
Subsidies and grants have proven not effective over the last
number of years. There are too few dollars for too many people.
We would also like to see a review of the infrastructure system
in Atlantic Canada to help it facilitate the worldwide market
that we are finding more and more out there.
Those types of things will have to be addressed.
1215
There is a fisheries crisis in Atlantic Canada. He talked about
us being regional. We have an agriculture crisis in the
prairies. We are not alone in coming to this House with regional
viewpoints. That is much of the reason for the make-up of the
House as it is. People are sending us here to address issues
that are common to them.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past June nearly 13 million
Canadians voted in the federal election which established this
36th Parliament and our government, and that is a fact. It is
one of those facts that today's opposition motion strangely
ignores.
In that election our government looked to the day when, thanks
to the foundation we put in place with four years of consistent
effort and tough decisions, the federal government will no longer
need deficit financing. That will be the day when we do not have
to borrow to cover the cost of federal spending and debt charges.
The prospect of that tremendous turnaround raised an obvious
issue. What should the federal government do when tax revenues
begin to exceed our costs? As the prime minister said, and he
proposed a very clear and concrete answer, one-half of the
surplus should go to a combination of reducing taxes and national
debt. He proposed that the other half be invested in addressing
the social and economic needs of Canadians.
That proposal was made in the first week of the campaign. It
allowed for weeks of debate and discussion by candidates and by
commentators. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and other members
of this House were out there debating at local debates in your
constituencies. Most important, this issue was debated by
Canadians themselves. The single largest group of Canadians said
that is the approach they want.
Yet today the hon. member for Medicine Hat seeks to condemn this
government for making that 50:50 pledge without adequate debate.
Did he not engage in that debate during the campaign? Where was
he during that debate in his campaign? I am sure the issue came
up. I am sure he debated with other candidates who were seeking
election. I am at a loss to explain why he now seeks to condemn
the government for this proposal.
Perhaps he did not read our platform. Maybe that was it, I am
not sure. Perhaps he just did not want to debate it. Maybe that
is it. Perhaps he only has ears for his own rhetoric, but I have
a higher regard for Canadian voters.
Our government has been addressing these issues, the size of
government, taxes, debt, from the first day that we came to
office. That is why we have cut the size of government and
federal program spending by more than any other government in 50
years. That is in absolute terms, real bottom line dollars. That
is why we have not increased tax rates in three consecutive
budgets, because we know the tax burden Canadians carry is too
high. That is also why we have lowered employment insurance
contributions in each of our four budgets, and that is why we
have introduced selective tax measures for those most in need, to
help disadvantaged children and to assist charities.
And then there is the debt, a topic that has not escaped the
notice of this House and our government no matter what the
opposition would like Canadians to believe. We have made clear
in budget after budget that deficit elimination is not the end of
our fiscal journey. We also have to bring down Canada's debt as
a share of our economy. We had to deal with the deficit. We
have dealt with the deficit as we have said we would. We will be
balancing the budget in 1998-99. The debt is still much too
large as a percentage of GDP and we will continue to bring down
Canada's debt as a share of our economy.
These actions and positions are a matter of record, just the
fiscal turnaround we have worked so hard to put in place. They
have been analysed, debated and critiqued for four years. After
all that, Canadian voters decided last June that this record of
achievement and commitment deserved a new mandate, the mandate
they gave to this government.
This motion should fool no one. It is not about adequate
debate. It is not about how the 50:50 pledge should be applied.
It is not even about irresponsible spending. Instead it is
really an attack on a concept of balanced government. It is an
attack on the idea that government does have a role to play in
investing in a stronger, more innovative economy, and it is an
attack on the belief that government does have an obligation to
help those in need and at risk.
1220
We know that market forces alone will not do the job. There was
reference earlier by previous speakers about the fact that
Alberta is now out there consulting with Albertans on what to do.
The Reform Party should also acknowledge that for the first time
Premier Klein is actually saying that there is a role for
government and that government needs to invest in the future of
Albertans, in his particular case. We as a government have
always believed and will continue to believe that we need to
invest in the future of Canadians and ensure that the investments
pay dividends.
We have made clear that our government will reduce taxes when it
is affordable, when a fiscal surplus is certain and secure,
because we will never jeopardize the progress that we have made
on the deficit. We will not jeopardize the rewards that this
progress is delivering and the achievements that we have made
over the last number of years.
One of those benefits is the low interest rates, the lowest
rates in 30 years. It is as a result of the fact that this
government has been successful in reducing the deficit and
gaining a handle on the fiscal management of this country.
Clearly that is not good enough for the opposition. The motion
obviously implies that any new spending is bad spending. It
raises the spectre of the return to surging deficits, a
staggering debt and renewed taxation. Let me say that this
reform motion is wrong and it is misguided.
The official opposition may worship at the altar of
laissez-faire, but we and the majority of Canadians know that
laissez-faire economics can too often become the let them suffer
public policy.
We are not prepared to nor do we accept that proposition by the
opposition. That is why we have set out in the last budget,
during the election and in last week's Speech from the Throne
concrete priorities where a share of the fiscal dividend should
go.
Members of the opposition say that is why we have such a big
problem in this country. Members of the opposition can continue
along that track and can continue to keep their heads buried in
the sand and talk about the way it was. We are talking about the
way it is going to be. The progress that we have made, the
benefits that progress is bringing to this country and how we are
going to bring this country into the next millennium, that is the
discussion we will have.
There is ample opportunity for discussion in this House and
there will be ample opportunity for continued discussion outside
of this House, as every member of the government will be out in
their constituencies consulting with their constituents,
consulting with Canadians about the priorities and whether we
have these priorities right and what we should be doing with our
fiscal dividend when that dividend appears.
We established concrete priorities in the throne speech last
week to children through further increasing the child tax
benefit. Our goal here is working with the provinces to allow
low income families to get off the welfare trap that creates a
disincentive for work and that punishes children most of all.
On investing in quality health care and good health, our health
care system has become a vital part of our national fabric,
providing the security that represents both a social and an
economic benefit.
We pledged to invest in measures to help Canadians respond to
the expanding need for home care and community care and to
improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and
delivery.
We have placed the priority on creating opportunities for young
Canadians.
We have placed the priority and are demonstrating that priority
through investing in knowledge and creativity.
1225
It reflects the fundamental fact that in today's fast evolving,
global economy there are initiatives that must be taken on a
national scale. It is incumbent on a national government to take
on that role. We cannot rely only on pockets of success in the
face of tidal waves of international competition. We have to
mobilize on a Canada-wide basis, drawing on all the stakeholders,
the private sector, governments and community groups. We need to
engage and we are engaging Canadians at all levels in ensuring
we mobilize together.
An example of that is the Canada foundation for innovation. It
is an $800 million investment that has been applauded right
across this country. We have been able to make that investment
because of the fiscal progress that we have made in this country.
It is about having a vision. It is about investing in Canadians
in ensuring that the future of Canadians is bright. That is the
role of the government.
More recently the prime minister has pledged the scholarship
initiative, an even greater investment in what is the ultimate
natural resource in this country, our young people. This is just
one initiative, the scholarship fund, but there are many others
that we have engaged in through the ministers of human resources
and finance who have put forward a youth strategy to assist the
youth of this country. It is not just members of the government.
It is members across the floor as well. Youth are an issue that
is important to every Canadian and every member of this House.
By working with members across, with Canadians, with the private
sector and with all levels of government, we are beginning to
deal with the issue. It has not been solved. It is still an
issue. Unemployment for young people in this country is still
too high. Canadians have said that to members across and to
members of government. We know that but we are making progress
and are taking initiatives to deal with the youth unemployment
issue.
We will continue to do that and as the government continues to
improve and balance the budget and as funds become available for
strategic investments, one of the priorities we have set forth is
youth and we will continue to deal with that issue.
I go back to today's opposition motion. It essentially implies
that such investments in youth and in the Canada foundation for
innovation will be a threat to our nation's fiscal future and
long term economic prosperity. I disagree. The Canada
foundation for innovation will add to the long term economic
prosperity for this country. Investment in youth strategy and
youth initiatives will add to the long term economic prosperity
of this country.
I do not think we will find Canadians anywhere who will disagree
with investing in youth, investing in innovation and ensuring we
are equipped to move into the next millennium, ensuring this
country is equipped and able to compete with companies and other
countries around the world. I am confident that the majority of
Canadians will see them as vital investments in our national
growth and security.
We have worked hard for four years to bring Canada's finances to
the point where we can begin to plan new initiatives. We will
never jeopardize that achievement and the benefits that it has
brought, low interest rates, impressive economic growth, hundreds
of thousands of new jobs.
As the throne speech stated, we will continue to be vigilant and
responsible about keeping the financial affairs of the country in
order. We will implement tax reductions and lower the debt.
However we have never lost sight of the companion obligation to
use the resources that we do have in intelligent and effective
ways to strengthen our society and advance our economy.
1230
It reflects what Canadians across the country continue to
support. I submit that a balanced approach is the best approach.
It is the approach that Canadians have consistently said they
support and will continue to support. That is why the House must
reject this motion and the philosophy that it represents.
In the remaining moments I have, it would be incumbent on me to
address some of the points that were made earlier today by the
member for Medicine Hat. He stated that the government is
playing games. Let us talk about the games the government is
playing.
We have announced that we will balance the budget in 1998-99.
The debt is on a downward track. We are committed to reducing
the debt to GDP ratio. The economy is growing and we are leading
the G-7. I submit that we are winning this game. To use the
words of the hon. member for Medicine Hat that the government is
playing games, we are winning the game. The member should read
again what we accomplished in our past mandate and what we intend
to do in the future.
The core issue which is raised continually is that there is no
consultation with Canadians. Let me also say that Reform has no
monopoly on consultation. For Reform to make that statement and
think that other members of the House are not speaking with
Canadians I submit is unfair. We all speak with our constituents
and consult with Canadians. I do not understand it.
We began prebudget consultations back in 1993. And we are not
speaking to Canadians? Was he in the same place he was during
the election campaign? Did he miss out on what was going on or
is this just an opportunity to put something forward without any
real thought?
The member talked about irresponsible spending. What about our
priorities on health care, education, youth and children? This
is not irresponsible spending. These are the priorities of
Canadians. They want to see a strong national government making
investments in priorities. However, the Reform Party apparently
disagrees.
Reform members disagree with the fact that there has been $1.5
billion put back into the Canada health and social transfers.
They disagree with that reinvestment in the health care system
and with investments in scholarships for young Canadians. I am
at a loss. They apparently disagree with the concept of youth
internship and lifelong learning.
Let me close by saying that as the fiscal situation has allowed,
the government has pursued new spending initiatives in priority
areas, health initiatives, R and D support, tourism. It is the
essence of good management. The bottom line is that Canada is now
on a track toward eliminating the deficit with a smaller and
better government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for recognizing me immediately after my distinguished Liberal
colleague from the beautiful riding of Stoney Creek finished his speech.
In his 20 minute speech, he raised a few points which may be worth
looking at again.
1235
First, he said interest rates are currently the lowest this country
had ever seen. I would submit to him that, conversely, I experienced the
highest rates at a time when I had a substantial mortgage. As it
happens, his leader was sitting in the finance minister's seat, or very
close to him, at the time. I have paid rates as high as 22 percent at a time
when this same Liberal Party was running the country.
The debt is now $620 billion, or thereabouts. I will remind my
distinguished colleague that the Liberal Party, which ran the country
from 1970 to 1984, except for the nine months of Joe Clark's government,
managed to make the accumulated deficit grow to $250 billion.
The Conservatives made it grow twofold from 1984 to 1993. Since 1993,
the Liberals have been at it again and, as a result, it has now reached
$620 billion.
The GST. His leader had promised to kill it. The ruse he found to
lull some Atlantic provinces was the harmonization that Quebec had
already carried out in 1991-92 and that should bring in to Quebec about
as much as was offered to the three provinces that agreed to harmonize
their taxes. He therefore owes the people of Quebec some $2 billion.
He talked about jobs. I find it shameful for a government to take
between $6 billion and $9 billion a year out of the employment insurance
surplus to finance the deficit reduction effort. I fin it shameful for
the government to come and boast in this House about working for the
unemployed, for youth, for our students who are looking for work and
training in their field.
It is shameful and I am convinced that his constituents are not proud of
the speech their member has just delivered.
I urge my hon. colleague, whom I had the pleasure to meet more
often when we were sitting together on the environment committee, to try
to raise awareness in cabinet and in the party to which he belongs, to
make them more responsive to the demands of the working class.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the one point I would like
to make is a point which I made during my speech.
We have an opportunity in the House to debate where we are going
in this country based on the mandate we were given in June by
Canadians. The hon. member however seems to want to continue to
live in the past with the highest interest rates in history.
Today we have the lowest interest rates in 30 years. Canadians
are benefiting because of lower interest rates. The economy is
benefiting because of low interest rates. The debt is on a
downward track and the government has made a commitment to reduce
the debt as a ratio to the GDP.
If we want to start talking about the past, the member is
certainly able to do that. However I would like to continue to
demonstrate that this government has made commitments, has
established priorities and will continue to meet those
priorities.
With respect to the harmonization of the GST, Quebec has
benefited from that. There has been no reduction in revenue to
the provincial government as a result of harmonization of the
GST. The member knows that yet he continues to stand in the
House claiming that the government owes Quebeckers a payment. I
disagree. The member should clarify his remarks. I look forward
to the continuing debate.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Stoney Creek
for his speech. I have appreciated working with him in
committee.
He has an ability to put the best possible face on a sorry
situation and I want to congratulate him for that.
1240
It is interesting that he talks about the benefit of lower
interest rates as though the Liberal government has brought them
down on its own when in fact the government is capitalizing and
taking advantage of the interest rates on a worldwide basis.
He talks about an attitude of let them suffer. This is an
attitude which I have a great deal of difficulty with as I travel
throughout my constituency.
I think of an elderly woman whose husband died last year. She
has a total combined income of about $13,000 a year. Now with
the clawbacks of her old age pension she is having a great deal
of difficulty and is finding it impossible to pay the taxes on
the house that she owns. She is desperate to know what to do in
light of these government policies.
I think of the small business people who have been established
for years and are floundering under the weight of the regulations
and rules of three levels of government and finding it impossible
to pay for having to prove daily that they are keeping these
rules. Comments about the new Canada pension plan startle me
because they say that many of them are not going to be able to
continue to operate and to pay these taxes.
I find it interesting that the member talks about the $1 billion
scholarship fund when the students themselves are scoffing at it.
I would like to ask this member if he believes that the Canadian
people are demanding higher and higher taxes for the level of
service they are receiving which is putting them in such jeopardy
in their established day to day lives.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank
the member for his comments and for the time I was able to spend
in working with the member on the industry committee. There was
a lot of good work that we were able to put forward through that
committee. It was through the interventions of the hon. member
that some of that work was possible. I am thankful for that
experience.
With respect to the comments that the hon. member has made, we
said before and continue to say that certainly the retirement
income system of this country is an issue which we are very
committed to improving. We know that through the new seniors
benefit, when that proposal comes to the House, nine out of ten
elderly women will be better off. The hon. member made reference
to an elderly lady in his constituency. We know lower income
Canadians will be better off through the proposed seniors
benefit. Therefore there is commitment by this government to
deal with the retirement income system. I am sure that the hon.
member will be able to participate in that debate and add very
articulately to it.
With respect to small business, there are many members on this
side of the House who are certainly very committed to the small
business sector and believe that the small business sector is the
engine of growth in the Canadian economy. I myself have had the
opportunity to work on a number of task forces supporting members
of the small business community and ensuring that their voice is
heard with respect to ministers responsible for that portfolio.
Regarding higher taxes, there is no question, and the Minister
of Finance has said it before, that this government will deal
with the burden of taxes for low and middle income Canadians. We
have said it before and we will continue to say it. We stand
behind that commitment. As I said in my speech, Canadians want a
balanced approach. That approach means dealing with the debt,
dealing with taxes, dealing with opportunities to invest in the
future of Canadians. That is the approach we are going to take.
With respect to letting them suffer, that was a reference to the
laissez-faire approach the Reform Party seems to be adhering to.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my intention to share my time with my colleague
from Langley—Abbotsford.
1245
It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and to speak to the
motion put forward by my colleague from Medicine Hat, that this
House condemn the government for making its 50:50 election
promise on future surpluses without adequate public debate as to
the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus threatening
to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of deficit spending,
creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high
unemployment.
Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your
appointment. I look forward to the deliberations under your care
and control. I would also like to thank the members of my
constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin for participating in the
democratic process of the June election, in particular those who
worked to support my candidacy and my election. I am honoured to
represent the views of Cariboo—Chilcotin and it is my intention
to represent my constituents to the best of my ability.
The people of Cariboo—Chilcotin voted for Reform during the
last election because, like many Canadians, they wanted three
things. First, they want equality to be the guiding principle in
the national unity debate. Second, they want accountability from
the government, its department and agencies. This has been
diluted more and more over the past years. Accountability has
been taken from the House of Commons and put in the hands of the
cabinet, with order in council administration, and in the hands
of bureaucrats. This should be restored to the House of Commons.
Third, they want fiscal responsibility to be the watch word of
the government and every future government which holds power in
this country.
It is the third point on fiscal responsibility which I will
focus on. Specifically, I will do two things. First, I will
outline where massive government over spending has led our
country. Second, I will describe a plan that will save us from
forever following that destructive and empty path.
Political pundits and financial analysts say that Canada is at a
critical moment in its financial history. I am sure that we can
all agree with this. Over the past 30 years we have seen
successive Liberal and Conservative politicians repeat the same
destructive pattern in government, irresponsible spending which
has caused chronic deficits and spiralling debt financed by
escalating taxes. Thanks largely to tax increases there is a
huge and growing surplus in the employment insurance fund,
subdued growth in public debt charges and cuts in provincial
transfers for health, education and welfare. Also because of
pressure from the Reform Party, the public and the financial
markets, we are on the brink of resolving the second of the four
problems, deficit spending.
Following our present course, Canada is at most two years away
from a balanced budget and this is good news for all Canadians.
This brings us to a critical point in our history. Reformers have
circulated a discussion paper, “Beyond a Balanced Budget”, to
seek the will of the Canadian people. This paper is not a policy
paper, it is a discussion paper. It is a discussion paper
seeking Canadian opinion. We will find this discussion not only
in homes and offices but also on the Internet and in town hall
meetings and we will find Reformers listening carefully to what
Canadians are saying.
There is a real need for this national discourse. The last time
the federal government was in a similar situation was in 1969-70
when Canada recorded a $139 million surplus. After that time,
the road the government chose was one of massive overspending and
mortgaging our future to borrow the money. It chose to run
deficits year after year. Where did this course take us as a
country? How can we ever avoid going that way again?
1250
The result of consistent overspending and borrowing over the last
30 years gave Canada a debt that grew from $20 billion in 1970 to
approximately $600 billion today.
Allow me to outline the magnitude of this debt. Our $600
billion debt works out to over $19,600 for every man, woman and
child in Canada. For a family of four that comes to almost
$80,000. I calculate it as $78,400. Canada's $600 billion debt
is one of the highest debt burdens among industrialized
countries. It is 74 percent of gross domestic product. As a percentage
of GDP our net foreign debt is the worst of any of the world's
major economies. Canada owes 25.3 percent of its debt to foreigners.
A recent study by the Fraser Institute puts total Canadian debt,
all of our Canadian liabilities, at closer to three and a half
trillion dollars after accounting for federal, provincial, local
marketable debt, government business enterprise debt and debt
guarantees, QPP, CPP, unfounded liabilities, hospital sector debt
and total unfunded liabilities of the medicare system. Three and
a half trillion dollars we are in hock.
To describe the size of our debt more graphically, a financial
analyst in the 1995 Grant's Interest Rate Observer said
that 8 percent of Canada's land mass is covered in water while the other
92 percent is covered in debt. That is how one financial analyst
started to tell investors around the world about Canada. If the
net public debt were converted to $5 bills and laid end to end it
would circle the earth 1,448 times. I did not make that
calculation, I only report it.
I have just described the legacy of 30 years of chronic
overspending by successive Liberal and Tory governments. This is
what federal government after federal government gave our country
again and again to serve their own short term political ends at
the cost of nearly bankrupting our nation. We could say so what,
and many people do say that. So what if our debt is one of the
biggest in the world? So what if government keeps borrowing?
Just as we cannot rack up personal debt and expect there to be
no consequences, neither can the country. Let me outline for the
House the major consequences of massive government debt that
haunt and will continue to haunt future generations of Canadians.
First, interest charges. The federal government spends $46
billion a year to service the debt. That is about 33 cents of
interest charges for every dollar in revenue raised by
government. It is Ottawa's largest single expenditure, more than
twice the size of the next expenditures on seniors and transfers
to provinces. These interest charges mount by $5.3 million an
hour and chew up $1 in every $3 in budgetary revenues. Think
about that. We pay bankers $46 billion a year. We pay Bay
Street, Wall Street, Hong Kong, bond bankers for money borrowed
to finance yesterday's programs. We owe $46 billion to buy
virtually nothing of value for Canadian citizens today.
The annual interest bill would be enough to run each and every
hospital in Canada for two years. The interest for one year would
pay tuition for four million Canadian youths to finish a four
year degree at university.
There is a means of handling this situation. What should a
balanced budget look like? What would we do? There should be
legislation to prevent a government from increasing the deficit.
Over a three year period a government should be required to
balance its books or call an election. The first three year
period would commence three years from the passage of the measure
except for certain crises such as recession, severe flood,
earthquake or war.
They must be dealt with as they arise. These would be a release
valve.
1255
However, a balanced budget law would be an important first step
in reassuring Canadians from coast to coast that the painful tax
increases and reductions in the social safety net that were made
necessary by previous governments will never occur again.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House, my second
time, for this 36th Parliament.
I would like to start off by thanking those people in Langley
and Abbotsford who re-elected me with a fairly sizeable margin, I
am happy to say, over my opponents in the Liberal Party. For all
those people in my riding, whether they voted Reform or whatever
party, they may be absolutely certain that we will be looking out
for their affairs as equal individuals participating in our
communities.
I represent communities such as Langley, Abbotsford and
Aldergrove in British Columbia. They are communities with strong
commitments to justice and very strong commitments to family and
community values. They are also communities with great concerns
about government, the size of government, the expenditures
governments have and about their taxes and how they affect their
disposable incomes.
I want to spend a good deal of time on this. The motion the
Reform Party put to this House today, I believe, speaks well for
the concerns of the individuals who live in my riding. For a
government today to be talking about a potential surplus and to
be fast off the mark suggesting that if we get that real fast it
should find a way to spend it, I think it is quite appalling that
we are back into that kind of spending mentality.
I want to relate some of the expenditures of the past Liberal
government and why those kinds of spending habits are of concern
to the average Canadian. I always use a litmus test. I always
say that if somebody comes to my door and asks for money to spend
on some government project, if it comes out of my pocket would I
allow it. I guess that is the same as the government asking for
money.
Let us look at some of the expenditures coming from the pails of
the tax trough, which I used in the last Parliament as well. I
think it emphasizes the problems most people have today with the
kind of mentality this government has. For instance, $33,800 was
granted to examine major league baseball in Detroit. I can think
of a lot of people in my community who would say that is nice,
but do we really want our disposable income reduced by that kind
of expenditure. Is it really the prerogative of government to
make that kind of decision? If you come to my home and to my
family and ask me for some money to examine major league baseball
in Detroit, I would not give it to you.
I and a lot of people across this country are asking if I
would not give it to you why does the government. Does it not
represent us in Ottawa? Is that not the question?
I heard some responses to this kind of critique of the
government the other day during the throne speech. I was really
quite surprised that some of the hon. members across the way
would say such things as they do not agree with all the
expenditures, some slipped by. They are not supposed to slip by
this government or any government. These are legitimate
concerns.
I think it is really quite appalling when one can reach into
virtually any document today and find this sort of thing.
When the government says to the people of Canada that it may one
day reach a surplus situation and that it is going to spend half
of it, panic sets in. If this is an example of how the
government spends its money, we have reason to believe that the
government is going to blow it out the door once again.
1300
It spent $19,400 for a study for policing the boundaries of male
sexuality from 1880 to 1930. I suppose that may interest some in
the country. How does this improve our economy? How does this
help the person with less disposable income in our communities
today? Are these people even going to get to read this sort of
study? Where is the value and where does government get off
presuming that it is the wisest expenditure of our money?
If the government was really wise, it would make a suggestion
that it will spend perhaps 50% of the savings made by cutting out
these ridiculous expenditures. There would likely be no critique
from this side of the House on that. Instead it basically says
“We will ignore this kind of situation and we will spend more
over and above that.” I ask the House, does that make any sense
whatsoever? I think not.
Well, let us blow $105,000 on career markers and personal
performance strategy development of expert and novice symphony
orchestra conductors and provincial ice hockey coaches. Let me
ask members, if someone came to my door and asked me for a
portion of this $105,000 or any other hard working income earner
in this country, would they get the money? If not, why did the
government presume to spend it on behalf of these people who
would not give it?
I suppose we might as well blow another $49,249 on a cross
cultural study of semiotic management and transformation of
facial features in the makeup and masks of performers or $20,000
to examine the ecclesiastical courts of 19th century England or
$35,000 for a study on craft industries in post-medieval Iran. I
could go on but the list kind of makes me just as sick as it does
the folks at home watching this.
The message I am trying to get through to some of those who do
not listen well on the other side is that this kind of stuff is
not going to go away. For the next four years we are going to
drill it and drill it and drill it again until the public finally
gets enough and says that it is time the Liberals were put out of
office. It is time that they thought the 50:50 split on the
surplus should have gone to something called taxes, to lower
taxes. I know it is difficult for members over there to
understand. It should go to lower debt payments which will lower
taxes.
I am not the only accountant in the House. This is economics
101. It is so basic, yet it is so hard to understand why the
government in its throne speech can talk about spending more and
not talk about trying to spend what it had a lot more wisely.
I have a few notes here. This is rather interesting. If the
annual interest bill was converted to $100 bills and stacked the
pile would be 118 kilometres high, a pile 214 times higher than
the CN Tower. That is a great stack for a government. I know
some of this was created by the previous government, but we
cannot always blame it for everything.
The fact is that this government overspent in the previous four
years and added to the debt well over $100 billion. These folks
have borrowed one hundred thousand million dollars in the last
four years.
1305
It is too bad that the message has not come through yet, but the
Canadian public can look forward to us telling them over the next
four years what a terrible job the government has done and what a
terrible thing it is about to do, spending more money when it
could be saving the dollars it has. It is shameful.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with some interest to the comments made by the hon.
member. He talked about the performance of the government with
respect to the debt. It is important to again state very clearly
for the record that it is because of the actions of the
government that the debt is on a downward track. The government
is committed to reducing the debt to GDP ratio. It will
eliminate the deficit in 1998-99.
The member is speaking as if the government has just put the
country into a big black hole. We are moving out. We are moving
into the next century, but the member wants to continue to talk
about the misspending of the government.
I want to draw an analogy on which I invite the hon. member to
comment. If a person pays off a mortgage but never fixes the
plumbing or the roof, I am not sure that person will have a house
to live in at the end of 25 years. It is the same with a
country. We need to reinvest in the priorities. We have set what
those priorities are and we will continue to adhere to our plan.
I want the member to acknowledge that we are on a more
prosperous track.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I sense that the hon.
member does not know a heck of a lot about what he is saying. The
fact is that the deficit is on a downward track.
I would like to educate the hon. member on the difference
between a debt and a deficit. A deficit is the amount of money
the government blows more of every year over and above the amount
of money the government takes in. That is a deficit. Debt, on
the other hand, is something like a mortgage on which you have to
pay interest. That is a bit of education for some people who do
not understand it.
The other point is that it is a matter of the kind of house one
builds in this country. When a house is rather old and needs to
have the plumbing replaced, perhaps it can be replaced with new
plastic plumbing. However, at the same time one does not put in
stained glass windows or a brick driveway instead of a black-top
driveway. It is a matter of how one rebuilds one's house.
The message here is that if one wants to build one's house, do
we build a castle or get a refurbished house?
1310
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say that I listened enviously to the remarks by the
Reform Party member on the list of government expenses. I will of
course get myself a copy of the document he mentioned.
I am in the same boat as the Reform member. We are a bit
frustrated at having a bunch of expenses like that and being unable
to do anything about it.
I would like to ask the member his position on the several
hundreds of thousands of dollars his leader spent on Stornoway.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, my answer would be that
we will also be prepared to take over 24 Sussex Drive and they
better get that right, too.
[Translation]
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to be in this House a third time.
I would take this opportunity to thank those who re-elected me
a third time with a majority of over 50 percent.
[English]
I am honoured to have been able to represent them for almost
nine years now and I shall continue to work hard for them.
I want to say a few words about my riding. It is a reflection of
what Canada is all about.
[Translation]
There is a large anglophone majority of approximately 80 percent and
a significant francophone minority of nearly 20 percent.
[English]
It is made up of Canadians from virtually every single country
in the world and, as well, our first Canadians, including the
Metis.
I am fortunate to be able to represent a riding that is as
diverse, as rich and as meaningful to Canada. These various
people in my riding have learned to work and celebrate together.
It is a lesson that we can share with other Canadians. Who
knows? Perhaps that is the legacy that Canada can leave to the
world, of having people of different tastes, different cultures,
different languages working and celebrating together in harmony
for the benefit of all.
I want to extend my best wishes and my congratulations as well—
[Translation]
—and to my colleagues of every political persuasion. I wish
them good luck.
[English]
I want to get to the very heart and soul of this debate by
sharing with my colleagues the motion that is before us for
discussion this afternoon.
[Translation]
The opposition motion reads as follows, and I want to be
absolutely sure to read it correctly.
September 29, 1997—Mr. Solberg (Medicine Hat) moved that this
House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election
promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate
as to the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus
threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of
irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high
taxes, causing high unemployment.
[English]
When I read such a motion I have to ask the following questions:
Did my colleague listen to the Speech from the Throne? Did my
colleague take the time to read it? Did my colleague not hear
what the journalists from television, radio and print had to say?
Not some partisan petty little shot in order to score political
points, but people who are out there to critique.
[Translation]
Yes, my dear colleagues, those whose job it is to try to tell
the truth as they see it, rather than the members of the
opposition, who are here to try to embarrass the government and to
try to do you know what. I see a big grin.
Obviously, you know what they do.
[English]
He did not listen to the speech. He did not read the speech. He
did not listen to what the journalists had to say on radio and
television or in print. If he had, he would not have made that
motion. Of all the motions he could have selected, of every
single possibility, to show that they were indeed a responsible
opposition, an opposition that saw the whole country, an
opposition that was not prepared to play petty little politics at
the beginning of the parliamentary session, of all the
possibilities, he picked this one. He did not see the key
themes.
1315
Let me share with the House the key themes. We will balance the
budget no later than fiscal year 1998-99, the first time in three
decades. We will strive to split our budgetary surpluses on a
50:50 basis over the course of our second mandate. Half will go
to a combination of tax reductions and debt repayment. Half will
go to strategic investments in our children, our youth, our
health, our communities, our knowledge and our creativity.
Those are some of the key points the hon. member who made the
motion forgot to read. He also forgot there are several others
worth emphasizing: investing in our children, investir de façon
importante dans nos enfants.
We all know that investments in the well-being of today's
children improve the long term health of the nation. I wish that
would have been acknowledged by my colleagues.
We have important new initiatives. We will establish centres of
excellence to deepen our understanding of children's development.
We will expand the aboriginal head start program.
Are those the kinds of programs that my colleague is condemning?
If so, let him stand and say so. Let him not hide behind some
opposition motion brought forth to try to embarrass the
government.
Did he see the one on investing in quality care and good health?
[Translation]
It is my impression that my colleague did not see the part
about investing in good health and quality care. For some reason,
he missed that. He did not take the time to listen to or read it.
[English]
We will be preserving and enhancing medicare. Canadians want
that. We will be responding with expanded needs for home and
community care and a national drug plan. Is that what he wants
us to eliminate?
[Translation]
If that is what he wants, let him stand up and declare it to
everybody, including his constituents.
[English]
We will be promoting health and new initiatives to address
tuberculosis and diabetes in aboriginal communities. We will be
renewing the national AIDS strategy. Are those the programs he
wants eliminated too?
[Translation]
Are those the programs he wants eliminated, rejected and put
aside? Does he think there are no needs in these areas, that we
should not be investing in children, in health?
[English]
If he had read a bit more he would have seen that we want and
are committed to building safer communities.
[Translation]
Building safer communities is one of the government's key
objectives. There is no magic solution, despite what the political
background of my colleague who has just advanced this proposal
claims. It is hard work, it is complex. Progress must be made a
step at a time, with healthy programs. That is what we intend to
do.
[English]
We will continue with our safe homes and safe streets agenda
which has helped us make solid gains in enhancing public safety.
I hope my colleague does not want that program eliminated as
well.
What about creating opportunities for young Canadians? Was that
one of the ones he would have liked simply thrown out?
[Translation]
Creating opportunities for young Canadians is, to my mind, a
huge priority. This has been referred to already several times
since the start of the 36th Parliament. Surely he does not want to
do away with these programs for our young people, push them aside,
put them out of existence? That is surely not the case.
[English]
We will secure the future of our young people. We have
important priorities to make sure the young generation makes a
successful transition to the world of work.
We know how difficult it is in usual times, and these are
unusual times. It is particularly difficult to ensure that young
people who want to continue to learn have access to education.
That is a critical priority for the welfare of all. It is
difficult to be absolutely certain young people who found it
difficult getting started in the workplace have a second chance
when necessary. They often need that second chance.
Is that what my colleague pretends is foolish, inappropriate,
insensitive, wasteful spending?
[Translation]
Is that what he intends? Another program he wants to see
eliminated?
[English]
Here is another theme that we have heard nothing about.
[Translation]
We must invest in knowledge and creativity.
1320
[English]
Does he not believe that investing in knowledge and creativity
is important for the nation and the welfare of all citizens? Is
that what he wants eliminated? Let him stand and say so.
We are increasingly an important part of a global village in a
global economy. In this new economy, knowledge, innovation and
creativity are the keys to preserving and enhancing prosperity.
We want to continue partnerships between private and public
sectors. We want to devise targeted growth strategies that focus
on knowledge intensive sectors. We want to have small and medium
size businesses develop and commercialize new technology.
Because I have additional responsibilities in this area, I want
to say a few words about science, innovation and technology. We
as a nation have a decision to make. We will invest in a wise,
sensitive, significant way in science, innovation and technology
to continue to be leaders of nations, and if we do not we will
follow. We have made some important investments.
[Translation]
We have made some very substantial investments and I will give you
just a few examples.
[English]
To the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to enhance the
structure of our universities and our hospitals when research is
conducted, $800 million over five years. It has been applauded
by most Canadians.
I have not heard one person say that was wasteful spending as
the member and his party suggest. Perhaps he is not speaking for
his party. Perhaps they will stand and denounce this kind of
irresponsibility.
We have stabilized with funding to the centres d'excellence.
[Translation]
This is a great program to ensure that universities work with the
private sector and that the best projects are funded, so that we are at
the forefront, that we are the leaders. Perhaps the hon. member does not
enjoy being first. Perhaps third, fourth or tenth is good enough for
him. But not for us.
[English]
Has he heard about the technology partnership programs where we
assist businesses that want to be on the leading edge of the
development of technology?
Has he heard about IRAP which has several people out there
advising and assisting people who want to develop new programs
and projects? Are these the kinds of programs that he thinks are
wasteful and ought to be eliminated?
Has he heard about the prime minister's advisory committee on
science and technology, a group of particularly talented
Canadians who advise wisely on science, innovation and technology
so that we can make the very best decisions possible in terms of
policy options and in terms of pursuing strategic initiatives and
additional partnerships? Does he want to cut that too? Does he
consider that wasteful? Is that an insensitive way to spend
money? I am surprised he did not talk about that.
I want to talk a bit about another key theme that I suspect
might have been discussed by the Reform Party: expanding
opportunities in aboriginal communities.
[Translation]
We know we must improve opportunities for aboriginal communities.
We all know that, in the vast majority of cases, their financial
situation is extremely difficult. While Canadians may take
infrastructures for granted, such infrastructures are non-existent on a
number of reserves.
So, is this the type of programs the hon. member feels we should
eliminate to further reduce the deficit and the debt? Is this what he
wants to do? I hope not. I hope his colleagues do not share such unsound
goals—
[English]
We on this side of the House want to see aboriginal communities
become stronger and healthier.
We are working to further their progress toward achieving
self-government. We believe it will provide additional
well-being and economic independence. That is what they want and
what most Canadians want for their aboriginal brothers and
sisters.
1325
We are ready and willing to work with all interested parties to
develop a long term comprehensive plan of action and partnership
with aboriginal leaders and people throughout Canada.
We all realize opposition members are here to oppose, and I
suppose some would say to criticize. I hope it would be to
critique insightfully and sensitively a document such as the
Speech from the Throne and say “Here are the initiatives we
think are pretty sound. Here are other initiatives the
government may want to consider. Here is how to improve them”.
No, we do not hear a positive word from any one of them. Why is
that? Why? I hear from the opposition ranks that it is because
they are the opposition.
If my colleagues want to say some positive things about the
Speech from the Throne, about the prime minister or about my
colleagues on this side of the House, we will not ask them to sit
down because they happen to be in the opposition. I give them an
iron clad guarantee. I have not checked with my colleagues but I
suspect I could get unanimous approval.
An hon. member: We are here to oppose.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: One colleagues has just said
that they are here to oppose. They are here to say whatever it
is that comes to mind whether it makes any sense or not. I
suppose that is the basic assumption.
Another notion is that the government is there to protect no
matter what. Let us deal with what is being said about some of
the things we have done. I do not know if these people have any
political affiliation. Let me put on my glasses because I would
not want to misquote and thereby cause some real serious
disruption on the opposition side.
On the Speech from the Throne Tim Reid, president of the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:
We applaud the achievement of getting to a balanced budget, but
the risk is that we underplay the threat of the massive debt. The
government really should be setting targets to reduce the debt to
GDP ratio.
William Leggett, president of Queen's University, said the
following on the scholarship fund:
We have not heard a whole lot about that. It is a marvellous
submission for the next millennium. They should have stood and
applauded, not congratulated the government if that made them
feel a little queasy. They could have congratulated one another
for standing up unanimously in support of a program that will be
good for young Canadians today, tomorrow and for a long time.
What were some of the headlines following the Speech from the
Throne? “Federal Liberals to create scholarship fund, a good
initiative” was one in the Globe and Mail. “A billion
dollars for brains” was another in the Ottawa Sun on
September 25, 1997.
[Translation]
In the Journal de Montréal of September 25, one could read this:
“Chrétien on the front line” and “Ottawa to create large scholarship
fund”. There are several such headlines because it is seen as quite a
creative initiative.
[English]
“A $1 billion scholarship fund to help low income students”
was in the Ottawa Citizen. Again it is mentioned. It has
been mentioned time and time again, and there has not been one
positive comment from members of the opposition. I say shame on
the opposition.
That is not all that has been said. I go on to quote Tom
Brzustowksi, president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council:
We should be doing all that we can to attract the best and the
brightest of graduate studies in science and engineering, because
the future prosperity and well-being of Canadians will depend to
a very large extent on their efforts.
An hon. member: Bingo.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: I heard somebody say “bingo”.
I hope that person will jump up and include that as part of his
speech. Finally somebody over there is agreeing with a
government initiative.
I go on very briefly. I want to share another quote. It is
from Toronto Star columnist David Crane and reads:
It will take more than government programs to build an innovation
culture in Canada. But government can provide strong leadership
and encouragement by providing funding—and incentives—to
stimulate and encourage the innovation process.
These people who are not in opposition or in government are able
to say positive things about the government and what it has done.
1330
What does the opposition do? The first opportunity it gets to
show that it could be comprehensive, sensitive and respond as a
totally responsible opposition it tries to pretend that the
government has been irresponsible. It tries to pretend that the
spending is not appropriate.
I would love to send this over to my opposition colleagues. It
is a compilation of selected quotes on Liberal fiscal policy
which I have collected: “Martin has accomplished several
important things. He showed that the Liberals are able to
balance a chequebook”. They go on to discuss the budget. This
is so good and I am terribly sorry I do not have the time to read
it.
The other is a compilation of selected quotes on Reform's fiscal
policies and this is even better. “The package, fresh start, is
infuriatingly vague on identifying specific spending cuts and
their timing. Like Bob Dole, Manning runs the risk of a
credibility gap on the deficit”. I have several others and I am
terribly sorry that I have to stop my remarks now.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
congratulations to you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.
I would like to congratulate my hon. opponent from across the
way. He is a great speaker. He creates beautiful word pictures.
There is in this country a program called technology
partnerships Canada. Its predecessor was called DIPP. This son
of DIP took about $150 million of the money that had been
allocated under DIPP, so the original purpose of TPC could not be
met on those grounds alone.
I wonder whether the hon. member could tell us how much of the
moneys that were handed out under DIPP have been repaid, at what
rate and what is the interest that has been repaid to the
government. One of the conditions under that program was that
some of the money was to be returned. That is fiscal
responsibility. Could he tell us?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, if my colleague
had given me notice of the question ahead of time, I could have
been very specific. I will get the information for him.
I know that a substantial portion has been repaid. I know that
there have been in some instances rather interesting interest
rates. However, I will get the specific details for him. I hope
that my colleague is not saying that if it was not all repaid
that it was a total failure. What is my colleague saying? That is
what I am trying to get at.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you and my other colleagues are very
much interested in what is behind the question. If the hon.
member really wanted to know those interest rates and if he
really wanted to know the exact portion—and he is a very clever
colleague—he would have given that question to me in writing and
he would have known that I would have had the answer for him.
My suspicion is that there is something behind it. I think he
is trying to say that the Reform Party does not agree that the
government ought to have such a program; that the Reform Party
does not believe we ought to be assisting high tech companies,
small and medium size companies to go forth and produce products
which can be sold in Canada and throughout the world. That is
what I think is happening.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
congratulations on your appointment to the Chair.
I was interested in the comments which the member made regarding
aboriginal people. I wonder if the member is aware of the
situation which is taking place on the Stony reserve in my riding
and the headlines that are being made regarding various bands
throughout Alberta taking over administrative buildings and
making a plea for help.
I have watched the people on this reserve for 30 years. They
have gone from a lucrative, active bunch of people to living in
conditions today which are absolutely deplorable. Yet we hear
the member going on and on about the wonderful things his
government has done for aboriginal people.
1335
I wonder if he is aware of the deplorable conditions on this
reserve in my riding. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that
the average level of education for these people is about grade
six. I wonder if he is aware of the 70 percent to 90 percent unemployment. Is
he aware of the high alcohol and drug addiction problems? Is he
aware of any of these things as he continually stands in his
place and brags about the wonderful things they have accomplished
for the aboriginals as things steadily get worse? These people
are asking for help through demonstrations and other measures and
they are getting no answers.
Is the member aware of the fact that unless we make it possible
for the aboriginal people to sustain themselves, we cannot talk
about them being independent? How can we talk about them being
independent when we do not give them any opportunities? When is
this government going to explain to me how it can possibly spend
$116,000 for a committee on seniors and sexuality and do nothing
for these people? What is he talking about?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I will not make
comment about seniors and sexuality because that could be
particularly sensitive, but I will talk about what I said.
I said that one of the initiatives we mentioned in the Speech
from the Throne is the expansion of opportunities in aboriginal
communities. The point I was making and which I found
surprising, in spite of a number of comments from journalists in
television, radio and print, not one of those things was
mentioned by one of my colleagues in the opposition. That is the
point I was making.
Of course we recognize there are problems but unlike the Reform
Party, we are not into magic or simple solutions that will go
forth and resolve complex problems. That is why I said that we
want to see aboriginal communities become stronger and healthier.
We are working to further their progress toward achieving
self-government, well-being and economic independence. We are
ready and willing to work with all interested parties to develop
a long term comprehensive plan of action in partnership with
aboriginal leaders and people.
That member must not for one moment suggest that his party has
even close to the amount of support and credibility that we have
with the aboriginal people. It is not perfect but we have gone a
long way. I would hope that my colleague would join us in trying
to help as opposed to trying to solely embarrass the government.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the member for Saint Boniface for exposing to this
House the confusion that reigns on the other side. I also want
to thank him very much for coming to visit the school children in
my riding in his capacity as secretary of state.
I want to ask the member to share with this House in his
capacity as secretary of state what he feels are the major
priorities for himself in that capacity and what he wants to do
for the people of Canada.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
question. I mentioned before and I will stress again that it is
generally recognized that unless Canadians invest substantially
in science, innovation and technology, we cannot continue to be
leaders. We will automatically become followers. It is also
accepted that while there are a number of Canadians who are
sympathetic, appreciative and understanding of what science,
innovation and technology can do, there are many many others who
do not. I will try to explain.
[Translation]
Science, innovation and technology can help improve the quality of
life of Canadians everywhere in Canada.
If we look at—
An hon. member: Not everywhere in Canada.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Yes, including Quebec. We have a
different vision. For me, Canada is also Quebec, dear colleague.
In addition, what I would like to do, with help, I hope, from a few
colleagues, even from my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, is to talk
frankly about what we can do together to ensure that science, innovation
and technology can help us meet the great challenges facing our society.
If, for example, we look at the challenges facing Canada today, we
see no magic answers coming from science and technology, but we see some
answers, whether with respect to poverty or improving the health care
system.
I would like us to be able to debate serious issues such as that one,
and there are others.
1340
Another thing I would like to do, and this is in reply to my
colleague, is to ensure that we get our fair share of budget spending.
[English]
I want to make sure that research, science and innovation get
their fair share of the budget. This is one of the soundest
investments that we can make for job creation and for our young
people who are graduating. We have any number of programs that
are there to ensure that young Canadians who graduate from any
number of disciplines can have internships that will permit them
to hold and refine the skills they have polished over the years.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great honour to address you in this House for the first
time. I have listened closely to the throne speech and the
various statements from the members of this House. My most
recent experience was that of an average Canadian rather than
that of a lifelong politician. I am encouraged by the process,
the skill and the passion of members of this House in exercising
their duties to their constituents and our fellow Canadians.
I was pleased to see in the throne speech that there was some
recognition given to the impact which the technological
revolution and the information age is having on our society and
the world. These pressures are pervasive in all walks of life.
The impact of these new technologies is changing the way we
relate to one another.
Time and distance restrictions to communication have been almost
eliminated. Information and entertainment choices are exploding.
Ideas and opportunities fill the information highway and they are
constantly increasing. This creativity is pushing the highway to
new limits in a demand driven expansion.
Canadians understand that this is a global phenomenon. It is a
pervasive backdrop constantly present as we enter the 21st
century. No effective barrier can be erected to separate oneself
from its impact, not on a personal level, not provincially and
most certainly not nationally.
The information and communication explosion can only be embraced
and allowed to shape itself in a manner which meets the needs of
Canadians in order to realize the great potential that it offers.
The shaping and application of these information technologies
will best serve Canadians if we each have input into the process
through an open, and to use an oft repeated word from the throne
speech, and innovative marketplace.
A government attempting to package and overmanage how Canadians
participate in a global information explosion will at best
deliver very costly, mediocre results. In the throne speech
there seemed to be some recognition of the need to allow
Canadians to participate more fully in a global information age.
As the Leader of the Official Opposition might say, there seemed
to be some bone there.
Unfortunately when I look at the actions of this government
there appears to be a cancer in this particular bone. It is the
cancer of the heavily bureaucratic and excessive control tactics
of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission, the CRTC. Here is another government body whose
actions have the exact opposite effect to the fine sounding words
of the throne speech. Say one thing, do another, that is what it
looks like to me.
The throne speech calls for innovation and stimulation of the
entrepreneurial spirit in Canada. Meanwhile that commission, the
CRTC, has an implied stated agenda to create large players and
protect these large players from competition. Those
entrepreneurial innovators who have the intestinal fortitude to
apply for a licence or approval will be forced to play in a game
where the rules are frequently changed. But you only find that
out after you have lost.
The entrepreneurs the government says it wants to help have been
required to spend up to $1 million to complete this regulatory
marathon and submit literally thousands of pages demanded by the
application process. Then they are told “We do not think your
ideas will work, so you will not get a chance to try them”.
After being kicked in the stomach a few times like this, the
smart players say “No more, thanks”.
The CRTC does this in pursuit of what it calls sustainable
competition.
The innovators dragged through this process have come to
recognize that sustainable competition really means
market control through government selection and restriction.
1345
I wonder what is meant by the new term creative partnerships.
Those chosen as partners will be the blessed ones and the
entrepreneurial interests of others will be left at a competitive
disadvantage. This does not serve the best interests of Canadian
consumers.
The approach of the CRTC scares away quality entrepreneurs and
risk takers which this government states it wants to attract. The
result of this approach is that government selected information
networks and broadcasters appear to be chosen more because of
lobby efforts and who you know instead of the energy and
innovation they bring to the marketplace.
The throne speech makes reference to the government's intention
to promote trade in Canadian culture and support Canadian culture
at home. Again, it is difficult to believe this when due to the
inaction of regulatory delays over the past years, 300,000
Canadians who wanted direct to home satellite service chose to
access the only service available at the time via the grey
market. Now it seems that the CRTC culture police want to treat
them as criminals even before the courts have made a final
ruling.
This government says it wants to support Canadian culture. Its
commission approves a Playboy channel and disallows a faith
channel which was clearly desired by a number of Canadians. All
of this while publicly demanding Canadian content and diversity
in programming. It seems like more of the say one thing, do
another approach of this government.
I do not think Canadians want the CRTC making these decisions
for us based on the CRTC's own political and ideological biases.
The cultural engineering approach of the CRTC selects winners and
losers rather than allowing Canadian consumers to have the
benefit of a truly competitive marketplace. Such a marketplace
would provide the information products Canadians want with the
best service for the least cost.
Just as leisure suits and lava lamps have had their day, and I
got rid of mine, their contemporary, the CRTC, must also be
re-examined for its relevance and desirability. It is now doing
more harm than good.
We see that the actions of the CRTC and its cultural police
conflict with the stated goals of this government to facilitate
innovation and entrepreneurship. We see that the costs to
business, consumers and taxpayers are excessive and unnecessary.
We see that under the guise of protecting Canadian culture, it is
attempting to define and impose it. In addition, it pours
regulatory cold water on the information highway's
entrepreneurial flame.
We see that with the reality of today, the current CRTC is
obsolete. It costs far too much and delivers far too little. The
time is long overdue to move away from protectionist policies and
toward those that allow Canadian products to compete in the
global market. We only protect what is weak. That which is
strong can be promoted. In the right regulatory and business
environment, Canadians have no need to fear global competition.
Control and manipulation by government is what we should fear.
I ask the government to listen to industry and consumers and
remove excessive bureaucracy and the regulatory quagmire within
the communications industry so that Canadians can set the
standard for the world during the communications century.
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is ironic that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is asking the
House to condemn the government for an election promise when that
is what it was and indeed the people of Canada saw fit to elect
the government on that basis.
The people of Canada have rewarded the Liberal record and have
chosen to reaffirm their trust.
1350
It was very clearly stated in the platform. We are moving
toward the time when the budget will finally be balanced, the
debt to GDP ratio will be declining and the government will have
a fiscal surplus.
When we reach that time we will allocate every billion dollars
of fiscal dividend so that one half will go to a combination of
reducing taxes and reducing the national debt, and one half will
address social and economic needs through program expenditures.
It was very clear to me door to door, coffee party after coffee
party and all-candidate meeting after all-candidate meeting that
the specifics of the plan, a 50:50 division of any future
surpluses, were hugely reassuring to Canadians, particularly those
of us in Ontario where the savage government cuts and an
unaffordable tax cut are negatively affecting people every day.
The people of Canada have clearly demonstrated that they
respected and trusted the commitments of the finance minister,
continued prudent management and staying the course on restoring
Canada's fiscal health. They were eloquently stated by the
finance minister in the February budget and then reinforced again
and again throughout the election campaign. The people of Canada
have been consulted.
The people of Canada spoke loudly on June 2 and now we as a
government must get on and do what we said we would do. The
Liberal government has said that we would meet or exceed deficit
targets, and we will. We would impose no new taxes and no new
spending cuts, and we will not. We promised that we would address
economic and social priorities through selected tax cuts, and we
will honour that promise.
Thankfully, and with the support of Canadians, that is not all
that is on our agenda, unlike the honourable opposition. We
promised to create conditions favourable for private sector job
creation and to invest for immediate jobs in growth, in
infrastructure, trade, youth employment, labour market training,
payroll tax deduction, tourism, rural Canada and small business.
We have already begun on a number of these.
Canadians are counting on us to continue our investment in
higher education and skills development and to proceed with our
investment in technological innovation through the proposed
Canada foundation for innovation which John Polanyi endorsed
totally in his remarks to the Nobel laureates on Sunday night.
Canadians understood that the tough decision had to be made in
the first Liberal mandate in order to get our fiscal house back
in order. They understood that as long as interest payments were
a significant amount in each budget, it was impossible for
government to provide to the people of Canada value for their tax
dollars. We could not afford the deficit and the ballooning
effect on the debt.
After this Canadian miracle, as economists around the world
refer to this unprecedented success, it is totally insulting and
inexcusable that the member for Medicine Hat can pretend it never
happened.
How can he ignore the miraculous turnaround of an economy that
had been called an economic basket case? This is a great
Canadian success story, the record and commitments to decrease
the debt, decrease taxes and reduce unemployment. I believe this
Liberal government will honour those commitments.
It is also clear that the people of Canada voted to reinvest in
building a stronger society, an increased ability to look after
those less fortunate. That government can and should play a
positive role in the lives of Canadians. They voted for improved
health care delivery, they voted for support for children's
health programs, they voted to increase the child tax benefit.
They voted for new and better support for the disabled and they
voted for increasing support for charitable giving. They voted
and knew they were voting for 50 percent of every future surplus going
back into strategic reinvestments and programs.
We know there will be a need to seek more input. I expect it
and Canadians expect it. This government is no stranger to
consultation. I need only point out the unprecedented work of
the Minister of Finance and his department in the annual
prebudget consultations. They were wide ranging and inclusive
and provided Canadians the opportunity to have input into the
priorities of this government.
We will continue to consult in the manner that Canadians have
come to expect and appreciate from this Liberal government. We
will seek input on where targeted reinvestments should be and how
to divide between tax relief and debt retirement.
Some suggestions may indeed be hard to assign. For example,
does a child tax credit go under the tax relief column or the
children's program column? This example also serves to point out
the kind of narrow anti-government argument Reform members are
prepared to engage in rather than the substantive of where should
government be involved in bettering the lives and prospects of
our children.
The optimal size of government cannot be arbitrarily determined.
We must see what partnerships are possible and then see what we
can do to be the catalyst to help get the job done.
1355
Canadian values are inherently those articulated by the Minister
of Finance in his 1997 budget address. Let us never come to
believe there is such a thing as a tolerable level of child
poverty or that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is
ever acceptable. Let us never forget the debt we owe to our
seniors and that there be no stone unturned in the quest for
jobs.
I believe Canadians just want us to get on and do the right
thing. We are at an exciting time. Corporations are learning
that social marketing is good for business. The third sector is
coming on line to help better determine the gaps and duplications
and become more accountable. The unions are joining in projects
and partnerships that are tremendous examples of what can be
done.
When the government has a vision shared by Canadians, when we
are convinced that we have the right things to do, only then can
we set the goals and then go about achieving them with innovation
and partnerships to ensure they happen.
SchoolNet is an excellent example. We know it is imperative
that all schools and Canadian school children be on line by the
year 2000. By setting this goal and enlisting the co-operation
of the pioneers, those wonderful retired telephone workers who
have already refurbished cast-off computers from government and
the private sector, today we have placed over 40,000 computers
into the classrooms of Canada.
Today's motion is just another rather transparent attempt to
camouflage the meanspirited, survival of the fittest Reform
ideology.
We know this type of consultation being sought by the Reform
Party needs to meet only with the Canadian taxpayers federation
and its leader in waiting, Stephen Harper, to be told that the
total surplus should be put into arbitrary tax reductions with
nothing being invested into Canada and into the types of programs
Canadians want and deserve.
There is no vision in the Reform Party's narrow agenda. Rhetoric
about taxation levels without regard for the inclusion of the
best health care system in the world is dishonest.
Canadians understand that Americans pay less tax but they also
understand that 30 percent of Americans cannot afford to go to the
doctor. My patients, when they go to the United States,
understand too when asked to write a cheque for $10,000 for their
health care insurance.
The protection of our health care system is imperative for all
Canadians. Confidence in high quality health care is paramount.
On June 2 Canadians chose the balanced Liberal approach. They
were offered an immediate tax cut and they declined. They were
offered two tier medicine and they declined.
The hon. member in his remarks scolded the government for not
taking responsibility for the debt. I suggest that the people of
Canada recognized and rewarded the Liberal plan of achieving a
balanced budget before considering irresponsible tax cuts that
could risk increasing the deficit and the debt.
Voters preferred our more responsible approach and saw through
the Reform Party's irresponsible tax cut promise before the
budget was balanced. It is totally irresponsible for a
government to artificially determine optimal government size and
taxation levels and then, in order to achieve it, drop the ball
and allow those least able to fend for themselves to try and get
by.
We have seen those results in Ontario. The arbitrary welfare
cuts have Harris hookers on the streets. Reckless cuts to
hospitals are now being documented in the Ivy School of Business
as a serious loss of quality, all to pay for their arbitrary 30 percent
tax cut. They have no vision.
As John Wright from Angus Reid has said, the tax cutter
bus has ended up an express bus with no destination. I believe
the people of Canada expect from this government continued
prudent fiscal management. I believe they expect us to do
what we said we would do, to put the GDP to debt ratio on a
permanent downward trend—
The Speaker: Colleague, forgive me for interrupting you.
You will have eleven minutes left when we come back.
As it is 2 o'clock, I would like to proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a great deal of honour that I rise to address this House for
the first time, to rise from the seat that belongs to the
citizens of the constituency of Lethbridge.
I have pledged to be accountable to them and to bring their
ideas and concerns to this House and to hear their pleas for
economic relief. I have pledged to make this government
accountable to them.
1400
Whether it is hardworking families in the agricultural sector or
industrious entrepreneurs in large and small businesses in
cities, towns and rural districts, or families struggling to make
ends meet raising their children, or the disadvantaged who are
desperately seeking a better life, one common thread that ties
them all together is the continuing erosion of their after tax
income.
I reassert my pledge to work hard as a member of the official
opposition to press the government to bring much needed and long
overdue tax relief to these and all citizens of Canada.
* * *
HIGH PERFORMANCE HOCKEY PROGRAM
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to acknowledge the full sponsorship of Horizons
North of the NWT High Performance Hockey Program. Congratulations
to the athletes, six of whom are from my constituency, and their
coaches, for striving to be the first ever hockey team from the
NWT to participate in the 1999 Canada Winter Games in
Cornerbrook, Newfoundland.
I would also like to congratulate 19 of my constituents from
Nunavut, 14 athletes and 5 coaches, who participated in the 1997
Canada Summer Games in Brandon, setting our highest participation
rate ever.
I have seen the positive impact of sports on young people's
lives, teaching many skills such as teamwork, determination and
commitment. Canadians from across the country were impressed
with the calibre of our athletes.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
I urge all the youth of Nunavut and the rest of Canada to
participate in sports either as athletes or as volunteers.
* * *
NATIONAL AIDS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recent
reports from Health Canada confirm the increase of HIV infections
among young people, women, native people and injection drug
users. AIDS continues to exact an enormous toll on those
inflicted with the disease and on their loved ones.
The theme for this year's National AIDS Awareness Week is the
changing face of HIV-AIDS. From September 29 to October 5 many
community groups fighting AIDS will be organizing various events
to promote the awareness of HIV-AIDS.
I rise to congratulate the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian
Public Health Association and the Hemophelia Society for their
ongoing dedication to increasing public awareness of HIV-AIDS.
* * *
DORA AWARDS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last night the 18th annual Dora Awards ceremony was held at the
Winter Garden Theatre in Toronto. The Doras are named after the
late Dora Mava Moore, a teacher and director who devoted her long
life to creating theatre and theatre companies in Toronto. A
recipient of many awards and honours, including the Order of
Canada, she was truly one of the key founders of professional
theatre in Canada.
I would like to congratulate all of last night's winners and
nominees and make particular mention of two of my constituents.
Fiona Reid was nominated for outstanding performance by a female
for her performance in the Canadian Stage Company's production of
“Arcadia”. Vinetta Stromgbergs was nominated for outstanding
direction in Native Earth Performing Arts' production of “Sixty
Below”.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the French
President, Jacques Chirac, said and I quote “France will accompany
Quebec, whatever route it chooses to follow.”
That was enough to get the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
into a panic. Trying to appropriate the words of the French President,
the minister asked himself: “Is anyone not willing to accompany Quebec?”
Yes, and none other than him and his government. Among other
things, he refuses to accept the democratic rule of 50 percent plus one; he
wants to draft the referendum question himself; he argues that all
Canadians should have their say in the future of the Quebec people; and
finally he tries to use the justices of the Supreme Court by having them
declare the democratic choice of Quebeckers illegal.
Rather that making a fool of himself, the infallible minister
should react calmly and take note of the willingness of France to
recognize a sovereign Quebec.
* * *
[English]
GLOBAL WARMING
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
December in Kyoto, Japan, Canada will be signing an international
legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
signing of this agreement is only two months away, yet the
government refuses to divulge the standards to which Canada will
agree.
1405
President Clinton and Vice-President Gore have been front and
centre consulting Americans on global warming issues. European
leaders are actively debating global warming strategies. However,
in Canada we have heard nothing from the Prime Minister yet alone
the environment minister, despite the fact that the economic and
environmental implications regarding this treaty are substantial.
The provinces, whose responsibility it is to administer emission
reductions, are not on side. Ordinary Canadians are still
waiting to be consulted.
Before the government agrees to any reductions in greenhouse gas
levels, ordinary Canadians and the provinces must be in
agreement. This agreement must come before the treaty is signed,
not after.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
liberal member for Bourassa gave another very subtle analysis of the
national question and its impact on the economy.
With his well known sensitivity, he explained to us that the
economic renewal is the work of the federal government while the
economic problems can all be blamed on the Bouchard government.
Clearly, the hon. member for Bourassa completed his Ph.D. in economic
demagogy at the Federal Liberal University.
As to the declaration of the President of the Conseil du
patronat français, who said that “French economic circles are
not worried” by Quebec sovereignty, the hon. member considered
that it should go unnoticed in the antisovereigntist paranoia.
Yet, this is more than words since the French firm GEM PLUS
announced a $20 million investment in a research center in Montreal. It
is a sad observation, but the good news for Quebec do not rejoice
Liberal members when they do not serve Liberal propaganda.
* * *
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Ms. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I support the
government's priorities outlined in last Tuesday's throne speech.
[English]
Two issues I find in the Speech from the Throne are of
particular importance to me: children and crime prevention.
I am very proud that the government is committed to helping
children at risk. We recognize that parents, governments, the
private sector and community based organizations must work
together to ensure that our children develop properly.
I also believe that investing $32 million in community based
crime prevention programs is a big step in the right direction.
The initiatives will help decrease incarceration rates and render
our streets safer.
Crime in costing Canadians $46 billion a year.
[Translation]
We must ensure that the government's priorities and commitments
outlined in the throne speech become reality. We must work together so
that each and every Canadian can lead a safe and full life.
I will work on behalf of my constituents—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon.
member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.
* * *
[English]
GUN LEGISLATION
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Morris Bodnar, Georgette Sheridan, Bernie Collins,
Gordon Kirkby, Marlene Cowling, Jon Gerrard, Elijah Harper, Glen
McKinnon. That is not a list of Canada's most wanted. It is a
list of Manitoba and Saskatchewan Liberal MPs who are no longer
with us thanks to the Liberals' draconian gun bill.
People in my part of Canada are still seething over that
legislation. Talk of civil disobedience is rampant. So much anger
in central Canada about a government policy would have this
regionally oriented government scurrying to make amends. But of
course to Liberals anything west of Ontario is extraterritorial.
We prairie people are Canadians too. Our devotion to individual
freedom is our unique characteristic. In the name of national
unity this government should readdress its wrong headed firearms
legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR RIMOUSKI—MITIS
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
difficult for me to find the right words to express, fully but calmly,
my outrage at what the Bloc member for Rimouski—Mitis had to say.
This separatist member, who is well known for putting her foot in
her mouth, said last week, and I quote “As a French Canadian, I am a
second class citizen”.
1410
If we accept the member's logic, this means that Quebeckers who are
against Quebec separating are second class citizens. This arrogant
attitude is an insult for all the Quebeckers who prefer to remain
Canadians.
This is yet another sign of the member's exclusionist mentality,
and to add insult to injury, these statements are being made supposedly
on behalf of francophones.
* * *
[English]
DONKIN MINE
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
just months prior to the last federal election the former Liberal
member for Cape Breton—East Richmond authorized a $300,000 fund
to be given to a private group to study the privatization of the
Donkin mine in Cape Breton.
The people directly affected by this, the mining communities of
Cape Breton, voted against this proposal and maintain their
belief that the mine should be developed under the auspices of
the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Indeed, just last week the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia and
the former Conservative premier of Nova Scotia both acknowledged
that Donkin is the future of Devco.
The United Mine Workers of America, District 26, has called for
Devco to develop the Donkin mine.
I call on this House and this government to initiate a full,
open and federally funded study of the feasibility of developing
Donkin as part of a three mine Devco operation prior to any
privatization of the site.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard
uses Quebeckers' priorities in a shameless manner, in order to further
his own interests, his partitionist interests.
Under the guise of an economic mission, he is promoting Canada's
partition. Once again he is putting his own interests before those of
the Quebec people.
Quebeckers want their politicians to devote themselves to job
creation and the economic recovery. Therefore, I call upon Lucien
Bouchard to adequately represent all Quebeckers.
Mr. Bouchard, it is not too late to transform this political
mission aimed at promoting partition into a genuine economic mission.
* * *
[English]
PORT POLICE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada is on a mission to eliminate the Canada
port police. During the last Parliament it sought authority to
disband the Canada port police through Bill C-44. However, the
bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called.
Despite this, the government has gone ahead and proceeded with
the changes anyway.
These highly specialized forces focus on extremely important
security issues for Canada, such as illegal immigration, illicit
drug trading, exportation of stolen goods and security for
foreign vessels.
Already this policy is resulting in inconsistencies in port
policing from harbour to harbour, as ad hoc deals are made
replacing the uniform federal system.
The government must provide the funds to ensure consistent, well
trained police forces at every port and not allow a hodge-podge
of enforcement arrangements all over the country which will make
Canada the country of choice for illegal immigration and drugs.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with appreciation and admiration that I pay
tribute to the millions of Canadians celebrating the
international day of older persons.
We set aside October 1 to increase public awareness of the
tremendous contributions older Canadians continue to make to
Canadian society. By caring for our elders we can teach our
youth to be compassionate and caring.
The international day of older persons reminds us that every
Canadian, regardless of age, has a right to participate fully in
community life. They have a right to live fulfilling,
independent lives and to travel about freely. In all cases, they
have the right to be treated with dignity.
I encourage all of my colleagues to work toward achieving these
goals, not just on October 1, but each and every day of the year.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH STRATEGY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government,
together with the Quebec Community Futures Development Corporations, has
launched an important program with an initial budget of six million
dollars, aimed at people 35 years old and younger in communities served
by all 54 CFDCs.
1415
The Youth Strategy has three components: a fund for young
entrepreneurs, a program for hiring youth advisors in the CFDCs and the
extension of the Summer Employment Program for students.
The fund for young entrepreneurs is used to secure loans for
projects in sectors identified as priorities in the investment plan of
each CFDC. It will not only dispense some financial help, it will also
provide support to the entrepreneurs in all of their endeavours.
Our government has determined that youth employment should be a
priority. All stakeholders recognize that we must curtail the migration
of young people from their native communities to major centres.
This Youth Strategy—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Tommy G. Thompson,
Governor of the State of Wisconsin.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the disturbing things about the government's
approach to national unity is that it always seems to be lagging
rather than leading public opinion.
Prior to the last referendum the government seriously misread
the discontent and the demand for change in Quebec. Recently it
demonstrated a dangerous misreading of public opinion in British
Columbia.
Why is the Prime Minister lagging rather than leading public
opinion on the national unity issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, national unity is a very important issue for Canada.
Some people will always raise some regional frustrations that
exists in parts of Canada, but it is important to look at the
whole situation.
We had some problems this summer, for example, with the treaty
on fisheries. I was frustrated too. The President of the United
States was very frustrated because he had to have the consent of
35 people before he could agree to a deal. This is a treaty that
was signed when the party of Senator Carney was in power.
Of course we are trying to find a solution but it is not easy.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister missed the point.
Last week Premier Bouchard dared the prime minister to consult
Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration. We urged the federal
government to mail a letter containing that declaration to every
Quebecker. Again the prime minister dragged his feet.
What is so hard about mailing a letter? You get the envelope,
you get the letter and you put the letter together.
Will the prime minister become proactive on the unity issue,
starting with a firm commitment today to mail the Calgary
declaration to every household in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remember that in January 1996 we sent a statement to
the people of Quebec explaining what had been done in the House
of Commons. The Reform Party complained that we were spending
money.
If he wants us to send something we will consider it, but before
sending it I would like to see exactly what is happening in the
provinces as they consult before deciding.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister is doing it again. He is hedging, he
is lagging, he is dragging his feet just like before the last
referendum.
Brian Mulroney damaged the national unity effort by his
arrogance. This prime minister hurts the cause by his apathy.
If it is that hard to make a decision to mail a letter to
Quebec, how can Canadians expect him to make the hard decisions
required to unite this country?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made a lot of decisions with respect to national
unity. A lot of the grievances were cured after the statement in
the Speech from the Throne of 1996.
We got out of mining. We got out of forestry. We got out of
tourism. We offered to get out of social housing. We settled
the manpower training program and many others.
The member wants us to mail a letter tomorrow. If his way to
solve the problems of the nation is by mailing a letter, we
better not have a post office strike.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government has known for months that Lucien Bouchard was going to
France to get support for Quebec sovereignty.
The government is always a step behind. It refuses to be
proactive. Has the Prime Minister even talked to President
Chirac in the last 24 hours? If so, what did the president say?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I looked at the statement made by the official spokesman
of the Government of France. The lady said that there was no
intervention and no intention of intervening and that the
question was purely hypothetical.
Today there was a statement by Prime Minister Jospin that was
very clear. I have discussed the problem many times with
President Chirac. He knows it is a Canadian problem that will be
solved by the Canadian people and not by the French government.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that just
proves the point we are trying to make. The government is not
prepared to deal with the Canadian unity battle.
A foreign leader rolls out the red carpet and the government
does nothing. Why is the government always dropping the ball
when it comes to the future of our country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made my views very clear. I can cite for the hon.
member what Prime Minister Jospin said today:
It depends on developments that may or may not occur and that
are subject to the free decision of Quebeckers, their political
authorities, and the appraisal of Canada, its political
authorities, whether France will be asking this type of question.
They recognize that it is a Canadian problem and that they will
have to respect the views of the Canadian government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the
Canadian government could have made the same remarks as France
regarding Quebec's sovereignty.
Can the Prime Minister tell us today whether he shares his
minister's opinion, and are we to understand from this remark
that the federal government would also respect a democratic vote
by the Quebec people in favour of sovereignty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebeckers have already voted democratically on two occasions and
decided to remain in Canada.
When will the Bloc Quebecois respect the voice of democracy,
even in response to an unclear question? What we want is a
debate about a clear question, not a winning question, but a
question that is truthful. When Quebeckers know that, by voting
for sovereignty, they will be leaving Canada, they change their
minds.
All we are asking is that the question be clear, and we will take
steps to see that it is.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to know whether the Prime Minister has just told us he
intends to bypass the National Assembly, when there has been a unanimous
and clear resolution by the National Assembly that the Quebec people
should be able to decide on its own future itself? And this resolution
was supported not just by sovereignists, but also by the federalists in
Quebec's Liberal Party, including the member for Bourassa, who is in the
House today.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, when asked by a journalist: “Would France
bypass the Canadian government and recognize Quebec as being
independent?”, the premier replied: “That is a detail”. This
detail is the key to the whole question.
1425
And to this question, the French Prime Minister, yesterday and
this morning, replied: “France is not indifferent, but does not
wish to interfere. If Quebec is allowed freedom of expression,
then Canada must also have the freedom to make up its mind.
These questions must be asked in Quebec, and more broadly in
Canada”. He even added: “A simple majority is not a principle,
but democracy is”.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs is trying to play down the significance of the
statements made by the President and the Prime Minister of France, who
very clearly indicated they would respect whatever decision Quebecers
made.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Are
we to understand that he would expect France to sit back and act as if
nothing had happened should the federal government arbitrarily reject
the result of a democratic vote held in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the root of the problem is that a provincial government does not have
the authority to proclaim itself the government of a sovereign state.
That has never been done. States have always recognized that the
government of the existing state had its say in the matter.
If I had more time, but I know you would interrupt me, I would give
you a whole list of statements made by the French government in other
circumstances involving other parts of the world. Here is one, for
example, about Chechnya, which says: “This is an internal affair that
concerns the Russian Federation, of which Chechnya is an integral part
under international law”. Regarding the Comoros: “France strongly
believes in respecting the territorial integrity of any and all African
states”.
And the list goes on.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand from what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has said
that, as far as he is concerned, Ottawa is home to the international
standard of democracy and, therefore, every country in the world should
consider that democracy in Ottawa is better than democracy in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is getting annoying. One cannot have a special set of rules for
Canada that do not apply to other countries.
Canada is an independent state, recognized as such by the United
Nations, and it has the same rights as other countries. I can quote, for
instance, the Helsinki declaration, which states that “Participating
states shall respect the principle of the equality in law of peoples and
their right to self-determination, by acting at any given time in
accordance with the goals and objectives of the Charter of the United
Nations”.
This means that the right to secede exists only in a colonial
context. Secession is not a right within a democracy.
* * *
[English]
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Tuition fees for students have skyrocketed and are now higher in
Canada than in the U.S.A. The average debt load for graduating
students is predicted to be $25,000. Students are graduating
into poverty. The government's new fund will not help 90 percent
of the students who need financial assistance.
When will the government sit down with students and others to
find real solutions to lead us to an accessible post-secondary
educational system?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's question is
very important. We as a government are very concerned with the
situation of student tuition fees and debt.
We are working with the provinces, students and lenders. There
were some measures in the finance minister's budget last year
which provided for improvement to RRSPs and savings that parents
could do for their children. In the Speech from the Throne we
have again committed the government to continuing to reduce the
barriers to post-secondary education.
We are doing it with the provinces and with the lenders as well
as we can.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government clearly does not understand the depth of the problem.
What is needed is a real solution to ensure that tuition fees no
longer exclude students without deep pockets.
Will the government commit to working with the provinces to make
accessibility a new national standard for higher education?
1430
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not up to me to
determine the tuition fees in the provinces. The government of
Canada is already meeting about 60 percent to 65 percent of the
cost of students in the universities and colleges through the
transfer payments in this country. We are already going a long
way to do what we can.
As far as the debt is concerned, we are working with the
provinces and the lenders to find solutions that will be adequate
as soon as possible to assist the students because we are very
concerned about the debt situation right now.
* * *
NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
throne speech set out the government's agenda for this session of
Parliament. In it the government claims to be committed to
“developing the brains and skills of our people to ensure that
no Canadian is left behind as the country moves forward.
Education and training are key to this new economy and job
opportunities”.
My question is for the minister of human resources. How are
Newfoundlanders expected to participate in this new economy when
his department in Newfoundland is completely devoid of any funds
for the rest of this fiscal year? Will the minister find the
additional funds required to make sure that Newfoundlanders have
equal and fair access to training and that they will not be left
behind?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is very
committed to all Canadians' having a fair opportunity.
I do not accept the claim that Newfoundland will be left behind
by this government which has been standing very well for all
regions of the country. We are investing a lot more money in
transitional job funds in Newfoundland than anything that was
done before. We are doing a lot more in Newfoundland through the
transfer payments as well. We are the ones who are fighting very
hard to maintain an equilibrium in this country in favour of
Newfoundland and the other maritime provinces.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister's answer is simply not good enough.
In Newfoundland we have the highest level of unemployment and
therefore the highest requirement for training. If the minister
cannot find additional funds in his department, which he refused
to answer, will he then access the $12.8 billion in workers funds
in the EI surplus account? Does the minister not find it
embarrassing to have to tell so many citizens who have so much
need that they cannot access training programs simply because of
a shortage of money while he is sitting on $12.8 billion of their
money.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know very well that the
Tories cannot understand that the EI account can have a surplus.
It is something they never had and can not understand.
We managed the situation in this country quite differently and
we are fiscally responsible and we corrected the mess their
administration had made. From the EI fund we are putting quite a
lot of money into transitional job funding which is quite high in
the regions where the levels of unemployment are higher. We
invest more money in our youth programs as well.
* * *
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Alberta moved into a surplus position the first thing it did was
survey the public in Alberta to find out what it wanted to do.
The people said pay down the debt. But not this government. It
will consult people about what to put on the $2 coin but not on
how to spend the 75 billion $2 coins that taxpayers have to send
in every year.
If Alberta is not afraid of going to the people to find out what
they want to do with the surplus, why is this government afraid
to do that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the hon. member that if he is a part of the finance
committee then he will be going across the country consulting
with the people on that very question.
Even more to the point, the government went to the people, who
spoke in the last election.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Alberta consulted the people, got their message and
then went to the people in an election and got a bigger mandate.
This government actually had its mandate diminished. I think the
minister could find a stronger point to hang his argument on.
One line in the throne speech on debt reduction and tax relief
and 20 pages on spending increases and no consultation. Why will
the minister not admit that the real reason he will not consult
is that he is not sure he will get the answer he wants?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is we did consult during the election
campaign. We actually think that an election campaign is when
Canadians should be consulted.
The second thing is that there will be be extensive
consultations by the finance committee and I hope the hon. member
is part of it. The prime minister and the government have set
out the rules of thumb on how it thinks the surplus should be
dealt with.
1435
What is important is that as a result of this government, for
the first time in over 25 years there is going to be a surplus.
* * *
[Translation]
MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Quebec Provincial Police was supposed to take over security
at Mirabel airport tomorrow, October 1. However, we learned this
morning that its services are no longer required at Mirabel and
that the RCMP will remain in charge of security at that airport.
What is behind this political decision by the minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Michel Guimond:—given that, on April 16, the Solicitor
General announced in a press release that—
The Speaker: The Minister of Transport has the floor.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I explained to the hon. member that, given the
changes taking place at Montreal's airports, that is to say
Dorval and Mirabel, and the major renovations under way at
Dorval, the federal government had decided to leave the RCMP in
charge.
I believe it is a decision that makes sense.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all this is very suspicious. The minister has known
since February 1996 that international flights would be
transferred from Mirabel to Dorval. He knows that there have been
two international airports in Montreal since 1975.
I ask again: What is behind this political decision?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the hon. member is so angry.
What we are saying is there is an operational need to keep the
RCMP at Mirabel and Dorval. I have given the reasons.
We on this side of the House are most concerned about security
at Canada's airports. We feel this can be best served in this
instance by keeping the RCMP at the two airports.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister is willing to ignore the privacy commissioner when he
condones his officials' going after the private and protected
file of a former employee.
Since privacy rules are not important to this minister could he
let the House know what guidelines he gives his bureaucrats?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the privacy commissioner has not been involved in this matter
except that a complaint has been made and an investigation will
be carried out. We will find out in due course what the privacy
commissioner thinks.
In the meantime, last Friday the officials involved made clear
what their purpose was and that it was in accordance with a
perfectly acceptable departmental purpose that the file was
looked for. That explanation has been made in full.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister seems willing to accept this feeble excuse that the file
was accessed to go after federal court document information. It
is interesting that kind of information is public, open and
available to all. Guess where it is available? It is available
from the justice department. Amazing.
Will the minister admit here in this House today that this
protected file was accessed in an attempt to discredit the
reputation of this scientist because she is an irritant to his
department?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I could not do that because it would not be true. It is simply
remarkable and it says a great deal about the health policy of
the Reform Party that in this day and age, with the complexity of
the issues we face and the challenges we face as a country in
preserving and strengthening health care, the hon. member has to
take his turn in the House of Commons to ask a question like
that.
We know what is relevant on this side of the House and we are
going to preserve medicare.
* * *
[Translation]
ALGERIA
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Minister, the ceasefire called for—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you must always address the Chair.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Minister—
An hon. member: No, this is not the way.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1440
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
The ceasefire called for recently by the Islamic Salvation Army did
not materialize. In fact, it was not respected at all by the Armed
Islamic Group, also known as the GIA, which continues to slaughter women
and children.
Does the minister intend to pursue the suggestion made by a French
group, Médecins du monde, asking that the United Nations intervene in
order to put an end to this Algerian crisis that is costing the lives of
many men, women and children?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for asking
his first question in this House. It is indeed his first question.
I can assure him that I expressed his concerns with regard to what
is going on in Algeria at a meeting held this week at the Department of
Foreign Affairs.
* * *
[English]
BOMBARDIER
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bombardier
retains its cosy relationship with the current Liberal
government. In an unprecedented move the prime minister sent a
letter to the president of Mexico complaining about political
interference causing Bombardier to lose a contract.
How does the prime minister justify this action and will he
table the letter in this House?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not unprecedented for a prime
minister who cares about Canada's trade promotion, which creates
jobs both at home and abroad, to send such letters.
The letter was simply to affirm that we are not looking for a
special deal, we simply want transparency and a fair deal.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why
will the letter not be tabled?
I wonder if the prime minister should not be more concerned
about political interference in Canada than about political
interference in Mexico.
Is he aware that Bombardier and the Cormorant helicopter group
have just hired as a lobbyist the ex-executive assistant to the
minister of defence?
The prime minister sent a letter to Mexico. Will he now send a
letter to his minister of defence complaining about political—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what does the Reform Party have against
successful Canadian companies?
This is a high tech firm that is number five in the aircraft
business in the world. It employs Canadians.
This individual runs down a Canadian company. That is not our
style and that is why he is on that side.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday, the minister said in the House that the government
would prefer to negotiate rather than resort to legislation to
settle the issue of pay equity.
Twenty years after the Employment Equity Act was passed, three
rulings in favour of the workers and two election campaign promises
later, does the Minister recognize that the time has finally come
to open the public purse and quickly settle the issue of pay
equity?
1445
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government continues to meet its obligations in terms of pay
equity.
These last few years, the government paid out $1 billion to
meet its pay equity obligations. At present, a number of persons
have lodged a complaint before the human rights tribunal. The union
is clearly waiting for its decision to know what the amount will
be, what the methodology will be, what will have to be paid. The
government has no unpaid debt at the present time. On the contrary,
we offered, during these negotiations, over $1.3 billion.
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the
member for Waterloo—Wellington has the floor.
* * *
[English]
CHILDREN
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the seventh anniversary of the United Nations summit
on children. At that summit the heads of government promised an
all-out effort to improve the quality of life for children.
My question is for the Minister of Health. What steps has the
government taken to reduce child poverty and to lower the infant
death rate?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will know that one of the key priorities this
government has chosen in its mandate is to work with provincial
partners and others to create a coherent national children's
agenda to improve the plight of children across the country. We
are determined to do that.
I am working with my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development and with provincial ministers through a large program
such as the community action program for children to take the
head start program on to reserves so that aboriginal children can
benefit from it, to ensure that centres of excellence for
children are created across the country, to combine research with
programming—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
* * *
TAMIL EELAM SOCIETY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Tamil Eelam Society has received funding from the
multiculturalism department. Numerous reports have linked them
with a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka.
Has the minister ensured that the funds that were paid out on
behalf of the Canadian taxpayer to this Canadian organization did
not find their way to the terrorist organization in Sri Lanka?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the funding of
any group, we always have clear criteria. We evaluate and we
ensure always that the funds spent are spent for the things they
were in fact asked for.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the last time I looked, money is money. Money in an organization
may be used in many different ways. The topping up of the money
by the Canadian taxpayer in this particular instance is the
question.
Are we giving money to an organization, where there have been
published reports of connections to a terrorist organization in
Sri Lanka, without doing an audit to ensure that organization in
no way is funding with any of its money the terrorist
organization in Sri Lanka? A simple yes or no.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any organization as I said
before that is funded by multiculturalism programs is insured. We
evaluate them to ensure the money is spent on the programs that
they specifically are funded for and nothing else.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans. When asked to have a judicial inquiry into the current
and past practices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, his
response was that an inquiry would be a waste of time and money.
If he fails to hold an inquiry, his portfolio will soon be
reduced to the minister of oceans. This government promised
written agreements to maintain the income supplement known as
TAGS until May 1999, but without consultation it ripped up this
agreement which will now expire one year earlier in May 1998.
Will the minister please tell the House that he has recommitted
to maintain the TAGS program to its promised contractual date of
May 1999?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preamble of the hon. member's
question, in my view an inquiry would serve very little in terms
of advancing the interests of fishermen on either coast. It
would be costly, it would take a lot of time, and it would mean
that resources would be devoted to an inquiry and legal costs
instead of to science in the fisheries itself.
I should point out that there have already been two studies done
and I believe the auditor general will comment as well. The
reasons given are overfishing, overestimating stock size, fishing
abuses such as high grading and discards, changes in the marine
ecosystem and finally, failures of the then political—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern
Shore.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans has difficulty with this question. The question once
again is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Will he
recommit to this House today the contractual agreement that this
government signed with the fishers of Atlantic Canada and Quebec
to maintain the TAGS program until May 1999?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's knowledge of history of
the TAGS program is defective. There was a change in it which
changed it from a five-year to a four-year program. I should
remind him that this was done with the agreement of the
individuals concerned.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Her predecessor, the current Minister of International Trade,
committed Canada to the protection of endangered species that
crossed international borders. To date, the minister has refused
to make the same commitment.
Before she attends tomorrow's meeting with her provincial
counterparts, will the minister guarantee to this House that her
government will demonstrate federal leadership in protecting
endangered species that range or migrate across interprovincial
or international borders?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague refers to our government's
endangered species protection legislation. We have a commitment
to reintroduce that legislation into the House. Our government
has a strong commitment to endangered species and is in fact
making progress. At my meeting tomorrow with my provincial
counterparts, hopefully we will bring this agenda forward. I hope
my hon. colleague will help us when that legislation is
reintroduced into the House.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
government has already declared it will fail to meet its targets
on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is now backing
away from an earlier promise to protect endangered species that
range or migrate across international boundaries, such as the
swift fox and the eastern cougar.
In the face of serious backroom pressure from her provincial
colleagues on Wednesday in Newfoundland, will the minister now
pledge to Canadians that she will safeguard the federal role to
protect Canada's precious endangered species?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the federal government has an
important leadership role to play in our country with regard to
protecting endangered species. However, we cannot do this alone.
I have to work collaboratively with my provincial colleagues and
with representatives of other sectors across our country. I have
been listening to them and will continue to do so. Hopefully the
meeting tomorrow with my provincial colleagues will help us to
iron out some of the difficulties around protecting endangered
species.
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board with regard
to the concerns raised in the most recent report by the access to
information commissioner.
Too often, requests for information are not responded to in a
timely manner. Given the government's commitment to openness and
transparency, what will the minister do to respond to what the
commissioner has called a festering silent scandal?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government of course remains committed to the principles of
openness and accountability that are inherent in the Access to
Information Act. We recognize that there is a need for amendments
to the act. It is up to the departments to apply the act and we
will support these amendments as soon as they come forward.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the solicitor general.
Kevin Machell is the prime suspect in a double murder in
Summerland, British Columbia. Machell was on day parole at the
time of the murders. Officials at the solicitor general's
department failed to take action for some 24 hours after Machell
did not report to his halfway house even though the minister's
own policy is to report within the hour.
1455
Can the minister tell me, does he condone his department's
decision to wait some 24 hours to report that Machell did not
report to his halfway house?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I am aware of his
interest in this and I share his sympathy for the family.
I would like to reiterate as we pointed out in the throne speech
that public safety is a priority of the government. In hindsight
everybody would like to have seen a different decision given the
benefit of the information that the minister has. The fact of
the matter is that Canada has the second highest rate of
incarceration in the western world. The National Parole Board and
Correctional Service Canada—
* * *
[Translation]
RADIO-MARINE VCN
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
During the weekend, hundreds of residents of the Magdalen Islands
expressed their opposition to the closure of the Magdalen Islands marine
radio station, which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is about to
announce.
Is the minister aware of the security risks the closure of
Radio-Marine VCN on the Magdalen Islands could create?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in attempting to use the best technology
possible and at the same time achieve a system which is
economical to the Canadian taxpayer, changes have been made to
the radio system in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I can assure the hon. member that safety is a primary
consideration of the department and no changes will be made if it
reduces the safety levels.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
We in the NDP find it ironic that while we debate sovereignty in
the House, whether it be Quebec sovereignty or Canadian
sovereignty, the government may be negotiating away our
sovereignty in Paris, as we speak, in the multilateral agreement
on investment.
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade, will he
commit now to public hearings on the multilateral agreement on
investment so that the many Canadians who are concerned about
this can have input as to what the government should and should
not be doing at those negotiations?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate my hon. friend on being
appointed the critic for international trade for the NDP.
Second, we are doing no such thing in terms of undermining
Canadian sovereignty. On the contrary if there has ever been a
government in the last number of years that has always stood up
for Canada, it is this one.
I have written the member and the other trade critics. I have
told them that among a number of issues once the foreign affairs
and international trade committee is constituted MAI is one of
those issues on which I wish to hear the views of that committee.
I think he knows that perfectly well.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, while the leader of
the official opposition wants to communicate with Quebeckers, poverty is
spreading in numerous regions across the country.
In the Speech from the Throne, I saw nothing that could be called
a well thought out policy on social infrastructures. Community
organizations help the poorest people. The Canadian conference of
catholic bishops called those people the new marginals who are abandoned
to themselves without any help from the government.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us if his government has provided
for precise measures to support these programs, of which only the United
Way, with means—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the
Minister of Human Resources Development has the floor.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to mention the
extraordinary work accomplished by hundreds of voluntary agencies
throughout Canada. I believe those organizations already rely largely on
the support of Canada, in particular the Department of Human Resources
Development. They are our partners and we are very proud of that.
Have we changed infrastructures? The hon. member should know that
we have made the most important leap forward in the area of social
policy with the creation of the national child benefit. We have
significantly improved the situation of children living in low income
families.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
Canadians are clearly asking for a parole system that is earned,
tightly monitored and limited. Why was the minister's own policy
at Correctional Service Canada not followed in the Machell case?
1500
Does the minister agree or disagree that a 24 hour delay in
reporting Machell not returning to his halfway house is
acceptable? Yes or no.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the National Parole Board and Correctional Services
Canada are investigating this incident. They will be doing a
report and will be reporting when it is available.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of two guests. The first is His
Excellency Yevgeny M. Primakov, Foreign Minister of the Russian
Federation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Second is the presence in our gallery of
members of the South African Parliamentary Housing Portfolio
Committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have received notice of a question of
privilege from the hon. member for Wild Rose.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STONY RESERVE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a question of privilege in regard to a very grave matter
relating to information that I sought from officials at the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
A certain official at the Department of Indian and Northern
Affairs, Mr. Jobin, deliberately misled me and subsequently
deliberately denied me information. I will argue that the sum of
these two deliberate acts constitute a contempt of Parliament.
On December 16, 1980, a Speaker made a ruling in regard to
information to which a member of Parliament was entitled. The
Speaker said: “It would be bold to suggest that no circumstance
could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be
made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an
hon. member”.
A Speaker in 1978 ruled a matter to be prima facie case of
contempt where the RCMP were alleged to have deliberately misled
a minister of the crown and the member for Northumberland—Durham
resulting in “an attempt to obstruct the House by offering
misleading information”.
On September 16, I was invited to a meeting with Mr. Jobin to
receive a progress report on the Stony reserve in my riding. I
brought along with me to the meeting citizens of the Stony
reserve.
At one point in the meeting I was asked to leave by Mr. Jobin
because he claimed that I was not entitled to certain information
that he offered to the citizens attending. While there was
unanimous written support for me to receive this information by
the applicants in attendance, I was made to leave by Mr. Jobin.
1505
The regulations from the department regarding information
release, referred to by Mr. Jobin, state that information may be
released if written consent is obtained from the applicant, which
I had received.
The regulations also contain several circumstances where
information can be released without consent. Point four on the
form states one of those circumstances as “to a member of
Parliament”.
I had both the authority as a member of Parliament and the
written consent of the applicants to receive this information.
Mr. Jobin deliberately misled and deliberately withheld the
information from me.
I requested this meeting to obtain information which is directly
related to the preparation of a question which I need to ask the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on behalf of
the citizens of the Stony reserve. I have given notice to the
minister of my intention to ask such a question.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, on
page 71 states:
On page 72 there is a quote from the report of the Select
Committee on the Official Secrets Act of 1939 which states that
“a proceeding in Parliament covers both the asking of a question
and the giving written notice of such a question”.
As I mentioned earlier, I have given the minister written notice
of such a question and, unfortunately, I am afraid that I may not
have the information necessary to follow through with this
question.
In conclusion, I would like to address the issue of ministerial
responsibility. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a
Speaker's ruling of November 9, 1978, at page 966 of Hansard.
The then Speaker said:
—I do not think there is procedural significance to the doctrine
of ministerial responsibility, it appears that we are now
embarking on a different course in having the House, through a
question of privilege, reach around the minister and examine
directly the conduct of an official—it seems to me are
probably not procedural matters—
The Speaker did not consider ministerial responsibility a
consideration when he determined there was a prima facie question
of privilege in 1979. There is no procedural significance in
this case either, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you consider my
points accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review these matters and if you find
there is a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to
move the appropriate motion. It is difficult and literally
impossible when you do not get the co-operation of the
departments to be able to assist the constituents of your own
riding, in this case the residents of the Stony reserve.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in support of my colleague from Wild Rose. The official
named, in my view, is in contempt of Parliament for his actions.
Erskine May's 21st edition describes contempt as:
—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt,
even though there is no precedent for the offence.
As members we do not always expect enthusiastic co-operation
from ministers and those who serve them, but when an official
deliberately misleads a member of Parliament with some bogus rule
and as a result of that act deliberately withholds information,
it is a clear contempt of Parliament.
It is imperative that members of Parliament have the confidence
to perform their duties with accurate information which is not
deliberately misleading or deliberately withheld from them.
I join with the hon. member for Wild Rose and ask that you
consider this very serious matter. I look forward to your
ruling.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the facts
which have been brought before the House by both hon. members.
The government has no intention to participate in any way in an
act which would constitute the contempt of this House.
Mr. Speaker, my suggestion to you, respectfully, would be as
follows. Given that the minister is temporarily out of the
House, I would suggest that she be able to examine what has been
stated by the hon. member opposite and respond tomorrow in the
House of Commons, or at a later time. At that point perhaps you,
Mr. Speaker, would want to rule then whether or not there has
been an instance of contempt, as opposed to simply a
misunderstanding by someone who may or who may not have committed
a mistake.
1510
This would not unduly delay anything, given the fact that the
parliamentary committee on procedure, privilege and elections has
barely been constituted for 24 hours. I would suspect that it
probably would not be able to hear the case for a few days and
waiting until tomorrow would not unduly delay any proceeding or
attempt to find out what is the truth. All of us want that to
eventually come out.
Perhaps Mr. Speaker would want to accept this suggestion and, if
so, render a ruling tomorrow or later. At that time we will have
had an opportunity to listen to information that could be brought
to this House by the minister responsible for the department in
question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the intervention of the House leader.
I appreciate also that the minister will get back to us
promptly. The way the House leader put it is a little
open-ended, which is tomorrow or at some later date. The first
opportunity, I would assume, will be in the next day or so, not
on the Order Paper for the foreseeable future.
The Speaker: As you can see I, too, have just been
apprised of this matter. You will note that the words “to
deliberately mislead” were used quite a few times and that I did
not intercede because I wanted to hear the whole reason for
bringing this point up.
I would like to get a little more information. If I could ask
the indulgence of the hon. member for Wild Rose, I would like to
hear something from the minister who is involved. Maybe there is
an explanation. I do not know.
I will reserve judgment until I hear from the minister, but as
the hon. whip of the Reform Party mentioned, I would encourage
the government House leader to see to it that the minister is
here to respond at the earliest possible moment. And that is
precisely what I mean, the earliest possible moment. I do not
want this dragged out.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to do
precisely that, to have the minister address this as soon as
possible, hopefully within the next 24 hours or so. In any case,
it will be as soon as possible, and there will not be a delay, I
can assure you.
The Speaker: We now have an undertaking from the leader of
the Government in the House. I will reserve my decision until I
and you hear what the minister would have to add to this
particular case.
At that time, if it is necessary, I will make a decision.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—BUDGET SURPLUS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
on June 2 Canadians were consulted. The voters clearly preferred
our more responsible approach and saw through the Reform Party's
irresponsible tax cut promises before the budget was balanced. In
every single province except Alberta, the majority of voters
rejected the cuts to programs and services.
It is irresponsible for a government to artificially determine
optimal government size and taxation levels and then drop the
ball in order to achieve those goals.
1515
As we know and as we have experienced in Ontario, this leaves
those less able to, to go and fend for themselves. We feel this
every day in Ontario: a mission of tax cuts; smaller government;
survival of the fittest; no positive role for government; knee
jerk, simplistic approaches; black and white with no shades of
grey.
Canadians expect us to do what we said we would do. We will put
the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward trend. We will
balance the budget by 1998-99. They expect us to demonstrate
vision and values. They expect us to be innovative and to find
and build partnerships. They also expect us to reinvest in a
stronger society. We said we would and we will.
As said in the Speech from the Throne, it is our responsibility
to ensure that no Canadian is left behind as the country moves
forward. We can do this without financial risk. We can do it in
a balanced way set forth in the election platform.
The government has made tremendous strides while continuing to
adhere to five basic principles: controlling government spending
rather than increasing taxes, fairness so that no one is left
behind, enhanced economic prospects and job growth, and frugality
with a commitment to decrease waste in government.
The government also made a promise to shift resources from lower
priorities to higher priorities knowing there is no new money
until the budget is balanced.
I wish we could do this without having to listen to inaccurate
Reform rhetoric and truncated history lessons that leave out the
four critical years of stunningly successful fiscal management.
Members of the official opposition keep talking about shell
games. I dare them to go and pick up all the shells at once.
They will be disappointed. There is not a tax and spend Liberal
to be found.
Canadians will be consulted, but we will consult on how we
deliver our promise and not whether. We have committed 50
percent of any surplus to reinvestments in building a stronger
society. Canadians are counting on us, especially those less well
off. The prime minister said “It is a nice problem to
contemplate this surplus. It is a proud moment for Canada, not a
time for partisan jealously.
The motion must be defeated and the government congratulated,
not condemned, for its practical and doable election promise.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her presentation.
I understand the hon. member is a physician. I am sure she
understands as a physician that it is very important not only to
treat the symptom of a decease but the actual root of the
problem. Any physician would agree.
The problem we have with unemployment is that over the last many
years we have devoted billions of dollars toward the problem of
training people for employment and we still have abnormally high
unemployment rates. Will the member acknowledge that one of the
keys to dealing with the problem is to lower taxes so we have a
greater demand for all the people who have been trained?
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, there is no question
one of the root causes of the ongoing demand for health care will
be the determinants, jobs being one of them.
We need to celebrate the fact that we have improved the number
of Canadians with jobs. We are not there yet.
1520
We also have to understand that governments like Ontario that
are laying off thousands of people are contributing to the net.
We actually have to realize that our ultimate success is a net
cost. There is some gain and some loss, and we know we are not
there yet. We would love to be able to put more efforts into
training. We are excited by the kinds of programs we see.
At the Industry Canada open house last week there was a national
graduates registry. Graduates were being put to work, able to
consult with CEOs and able to produce good resumés. They were
able to get out there and go to work.
I have not seen in Ontario where any tax cut has increased the
numbers of jobs. I have not even felt the extra money jingling
in my jeans pocket those people continue to talk about. That
does not create jobs. There is no evidence to that effect.
An hon. member: How can we create jobs if the federal
government takes them away?
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: We are big picture people. We know
there is a positive role for government. Arbitrary
determinations of size of government and optimal tax rate will
not work. We need to have a goal of putting Canadians back to
work. We have to do whatever we can in partnerships and
innovation to make sure that happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech, and also for
having shown some compassion, something her government has
forgotten.
Since she is so well disposed toward job creation, would the
hon. member be prepared to meet with her Minister of Finance to
explain to him that instead of keeping the contributions to the
employment insurance fund at an artificially high level, a level
which generates surpluses which will top $7 billion this year,
reduction would in fact create employment?
Is the hon. member prepared to take such a step, since
employment appears to be something she considers important?
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, all of us in the
Liberal caucus are consulted and are prepared to meet with
ministers on everything.
We already have a tremendous example of consultation. I know
the people I spoke with during the election campaign, the people
who have the risk of potentially being unemployed. As much as we
are creating jobs, there are other people being laid off. We
need to be able to promise people who may potentially be laid off
through future downsizing that they will be secure.
The underwriters feel the amount in the EI fund is appropriate.
Similarly in my profession the medical protective association is
being accused of having too big a surplus in its fund. We have
to deal with the experts. We need to have appropriate and
realistic reservoirs for the future. We cannot put Canadians at
risk, in particular those who may face losing their jobs.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, congratulations
on your appointment. I also congratulate the hon. member for St.
Paul's on her initial speech to the House.
We are the highest taxed nation in the world, especially among
the G-7 countries. Eighty per cent of our trade is going to the
U.S. We are especially very heavily taxed in comparison with the
U.S.
Canadian families have been struggling to balance their
household budgets over the last several years. Canada is
expected to balance the budget shortly.
Who does the hon. member think can spend the taxpayers' money
most wisely, the taxpayer or the government?
1525
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I wish it was that easy.
It is a very good question for people of means. It is not very
good question for people who do not have means.
If we continue to compare our taxation rate to that of the
United States, it is a comparison of apples and oranges when 30
percent of people cannot afford to go to a doctor. Some of my
patients who go south of the border have to write a cheque for
$10,000 for health insurance. They do not see us as being
particularly overtaxed. Those who cannot afford the $10,000 for
insurance are forced to take the American approach of being
western gambler pioneers and run without any health insurance and
then eventually lose their homes.
It is extraordinarily important to understand that two plus two
does not make five. As a group we can do much better for those
who have less than they can do on their own. Some 150 years ago
we said we would try to look after one another. We have to do
that.
Canadians want value for their tax money. By decreasing the
deficit and the debt we will be able to give them more value for
their tax dollars. We will be able to make them feel more
comfortable about their future, that programs will be there when
they need them, particularly health care.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member. She is a very learned and well
educated individual who understands her profession extremely
well. She fully recognizes the implications of the cuts made by
her government to the health program of Canada.
However my question focuses on another area. I believe she will
agree that major contributors to her profession are scientists,
researchers and people who have worked to find new ways of
dealing with and preventing various diseases.
There is considerable evidence that people who cut taxes bring
about an attractiveness in a country for people to come and
conduct research partly because of lower taxes and strong money
for infrastructure.
The history of the government has been to decrease moneys given
to research and development to the tune of approximately $700,000
in the last budget.
Would the member tell us how not cutting taxes will attract
researchers to this country?
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, it will be imperative in
the next chapter for us to reinvest in medical research, science
and technology. The innovation fund is one of the most exciting
things stated in the election platform and in the budget. To
hear John Polanyi on Sunday night talk about the reverence with
which he holds that fund was truly heartening to me as a Liberal
member of Parliament.
Scientists understand that we will do the right thing. I do not
think tax cuts have any relevance. In Ontario there is no
evidence that tax cuts work. We know that most companies locate
here because of the quality of our health care program,
particularly companies in the service industries trying to pay
health insurance premiums for their employees. That is bad for
business. The companies with lots of employees love to go to
places that have good, inexpensive health care and a good
government funded health care insurance program.
It will be exciting when we start choosing where to reinvest.
Obviously I will be fighting for job creation with investments in
medical research, science and technology. We should be debating
where to reinvest, not whether to reinvest as the member's motion
states.
1530
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate. Because
of the miscue before question period, 10 minutes of debate was
taken away from the Reform Party. We will correct the mistake at
this point.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
believe the person who will be correcting that will be the third
in line in this segment.
I would like to recognize the presence in the gallery of some
constituents from North Vancouver, Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie. I
welcome them to the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ted White: I would remind members today that we are
debating a Reform motion which reads:
That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50
election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public
debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus
threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of
irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high
taxes, causing high unemployment.
It is not difficult to see the reasons why we would propose such
a motion in the House. There is plenty of evidence out there
among ordinary average Canadian taxpayers that they are very
dissatisfied with any suggestion that government would increase
its spending at this point in the cycle.
The Financial Post did a poll of Canadian CEOs and average
taxpayers in September. This poll was published in the
Financial Post on September 27. I can give members a couple of
examples from this poll.
Peggy Witte of Royal Oak Mines stated in answer to questions
that Royal Oak Mines left Canada because of the high Canadian
taxes which made it difficult to attract top-notch talent to fill
positions in the company within Canada. I know that Peggy
Witte's company, Royal Oak Mines, is certainly not the only one
that has deserted our province because of high taxes.
Where I live in Vancouver, we are very close to the United
States border. There are something like 30,000 Canadians who
have business interests just across the border in Bellingham and
Blaine. Many thousands of Canadians go to work every day just
across the border because there is a lower tax climate there both
at the corporate and personal levels.
It was not just CEOs though who responded to the poll and
indicated that they were dissatisfied with tax levels. Among
average taxpayers, a vast majority favoured tax reductions and by
28:1 they favoured cuts in personal income taxes. It is not
difficult to see why they would favour cuts in personal income
taxes when we look at an article that was printed in the
Vancouver Sun on September 18 and sent to me by a constituent.
The article shows Canadian household savings are on the decline.
Canadians are saving much less than ever before and mainly
because since 1980 the government's share of personal income has
gone from 17 percent to over 25 percent. The government has
increased its take from personal incomes by 8 percent just since
1980. As a result, people have far less savings. In fact the
graphs, which I cannot show to members, show that personal
savings have dropped dramatically as taxes have increased
dramatically since the early 1980s. At this point the savings
rate is running at about 1 percent. That is a full 9 percent
lower than it was just a decade ago.
Of course income taxes as we know were supposed to be a
temporary tax. I mentioned to members yesterday that I had a
folder full of things that constituents had sent to me over the
summer that they would surely hear about as we went on through
the business of this House.
There is another clipping here sent by a constituent who wanted
me to remember that September 20 marked the 80th anniversary of
the birth of the income tax in Canada. It preceded today's
income tax. It received royal assent on September 20, 1917. It
was supposed to be a temporary measure which would be reversed
once the war was over. I think we are still in a bit of a war
but now it is to try to battle back those who want to spend other
people's money. They certainly throw it around very freely.
Mr. Trevor Roote in my riding was a bit outraged when
bureaucrats at the GST collection department said that they were
losing revenue because of the exemptions for groceries, drugs and
medical devices. He really objects to the way that bureaucrats
say they are losing tax revenues because of exemptions. He said
that it was only through the permission of the people that they
can have these tax revenues.
1535
Really, it is quite outrageous that the government treats this
as if it were a business income to which it has a right for some
sort of service that it provides. I realize there are many
services that the government provides which we all agree are
necessary and essential but there is a tremendous amount of
government waste. Some of it was mentioned today during question
period.
I am sure many members have seen the headline on the front page
of an edition of the Hill Times: “Pork barrel politics:
Bagmen, old college buddies and riding association presidents all
benefited from Liberal largesse collecting plum government
appointments last month”.
There were some examples: Gilles Champagne will sit as a member
of the Canada Post board of governors. The three-year
appointment which was approved by cabinet on September 24 pays a
$600 per diem and a $7,000 annual retainer. The Liberal Party
director in Quebec knows Mr. Champagne from their fundraising
work together and he described him as a good Liberal.
The Liberals for example made another appointment in the heart
of Bloc Quebecois country. Mr. Frappier, who is the son of a
Liberal appointed judge, was given a plum position there.
Bryan Williams, a lawyer in the Vancouver area, a long time
Liberal supporter, was named chief justice of the Supreme Court
of British Columbia last month.
There are a whole slew of examples even in the Hill Times
and many of these examples find their way into the mainstream
press. We read about them regularly.
I think some of us will remember members who were not re-elected
to this House. Geoff Regan, whom I remember, represented Halifax
West. I mentioned to him at one time that his failure to
represent his constituents on an issue would probably come back
to haunt him. I see now though that not satisfied with the
taxpayers' decision to throw Mr. Regan out of office, the
government has appointed him senior assistant in the federal
ministerial regional office located in Halifax, the executive
suite where the ministers go to powder their noses. Mr. Regan
landed on his feet.
Of course we remember Mary Clancy and how many times in this
House she criticized the United States, how she slammed the
Americans. And where is she now? She is in Boston in a
patronage position at the embassy. Imagine Mary Clancy as an
ambassador for Canada. Can you imagine that? The person who
condemned the United States constantly.
That is one area of waste, but there are many others such as the
federal-provincial infrastructure program of course, which Reform
criticized because much of it went to pork barrel politics.
There are the results of a questionnaire that was sent out to
all members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business a
couple of months ago asking whether there should be a renewed
federal-provincial infrastructure program. Of those who replied
Canada wide 49 percent said no. These are business people answering
these questions about the way tax dollars should be spent.
Forty-nine per cent Canada wide and fifty-six per cent in B.C.
said “Don't use our tax dollars on these pork barrel
federal-provincial arrangements”.
When we think about it, what a silly way to raise taxes for
local infrastructure. We tax workers in B.C., transfer their
money to Ottawa where it gets shuffled around by the bureaucrats
and then it gets dumped into a program for infrastructure and
gets sent back to B.C. again where it gets shuffled around and
handed out under the grants program.
We probably if we are lucky get back 50 cents on every dollar to
actually spend on the infrastructure. It would have been better
for the local government body closest to the taxpayer to be
responsible for collecting that money in the first place and
spending it on the infrastructure directly.
Then the minister for multiculturalism today in question period
said how carefully she screens the grants to multiculturalism
groups and how they never waste any money.
There was an example in British Columbia which I wish I could
have brought up for the minister at the time, the Canadian
Association to Fight Racism, which of course has a wonderfully
politically correct name. No one would ever dare suggest that
maybe it is doing something wrong.
That organization had failed to file its papers with Victoria
for three years in a row. It got struck off the register. It
was still collecting money from the minister of multiculturalism
when it had no mandate and no legal authority to exist.
These are the sorts of things that go on constantly with our
taxpayers' money. I could go on. I have a big stack of stuff
here that I could go through for all these examples of waste, one
which all the members in this House would have got about a week
ago.
1540
There is another survey from Ms. Tremblay which she does every
parliamentary session, $41,000 down the drain again, asking us
whether we think there should be more women in Parliament and
what we should do to arrange that. It is the voters who decide
who will be in Parliament, not us. What a waste of money.
I wish I could spend a half a day talking about this absolute
pile of waste, but I know that members opposite are bursting to
ask me questions.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
congratulations to you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for North Vancouver for his comments. I
find it somewhat ironic that the member opposite often stands in
the House to talk about the very excellent public policies of New
Zealand. I gather the member is originally from New Zealand. I
find it somewhat ironic in the sense that in New Zealand it was a
labour government which was elected a number of years ago to
clean up the fiscal mess which the previous conservative
government had created. It was the labour government which
introduced a number of privatization measures and caused the New
Zealand economy to revive and avoid the country going into
bankruptcy.
I do not know what the member's affiliation was when he was
living in New Zealand. It is rather irrelevant. However, I
think it is ironic that he stands in the House ad nauseam to rave
about the excellent public policies in New Zealand when we know
that country has experienced some of its own challenges.
I want to turn to the subject of the GST. The GST was introduced
by the Conservative government in the eighties. When it was
introduced, my understanding is that the government consulted
widely with New Zealand to learn better from the mistakes of that
country particularly in terms of the rate, how the rate was set,
what kind of coverage the GST had and what kind of exemptions
were made. It was a Conservative government which looked very
closely at the New Zealand model in order to learn from that
experience.
I wonder if the member could comment on the New Zealand
experience with its GST, or whatever it is called in New Zealand.
He might have some wisdom to share with the House.
Mr. Ted White: Madam Speaker, I do apologize to the
member for going on ad nauseam about New Zealand, but now he has
asked me a whole bunch of questions about it so I guess I will
have to do it again.
First of all, I would mention that in New Zealand the type of
government he is calling a conservative government which was in
power just before the crisis was reached was known as the
National Party. However by North American standards, all
governments in New Zealand were socialist. When I lived there I
thought the National Party was a progressive conservative style
of government, but it was not really; it was socialist and I soon
learned that.
They were all tax and spend governments. They were the first
with a welfare state in the world. They really set the stage for
the total collapse of a welfare state.
Yes the Labour Party which took power had to clean up the mess
because within a few days of taking power, those investors who
had been prepared to buy government bonds deserted en masse. The
New Zealand government ran out of international currencies within
a few days of the Labour Party taking office. Then the World
Bank stepped in and helped them to recover. As a result of that,
New Zealand really has found the optimum size of government and
taxation. The government is now about 40 percent of the size it
was in 1983. The country is functioning better.
Last year New Zealanders were given on average a $200 per month
income tax reduction. However, the New Zealand government first
began to pay down its debt before giving tax relief. It realized
that as soon as it started to pay the debt down, the interest
payments would begin to retract very quickly and there would be
more money to spend on other programs. It has actually increased
spending on social programs by almost $1 billion in the last
year.
Now on the GST, of course the Liberals promised to scrap,
abolish and get rid of the GST, which they did not do. It is true
that the PCs asked New Zealand representatives to come here to
give them advice on how to implement the GST. The advice was
ignored. New Zealand's GST has no exemptions. It was at a lower
rate across the board. There were no exemptions at all and they
urged that if there were to be a GST in Canada, it should be that
type of GST at a lower rate.
1545
From a personal perspective to members, I am not sure that a GST
could ever be successfully introduced when we have a bordering
country that does not have such a consumption tax. It makes it
very difficult and very competitive. Perhaps more consideration
should have been given to that before that style of tax was
introduced.
I thank the member for his questions. I am sure he will hear a
bit more about New Zealand from me, but that goes with the
territory, I guess.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, since this
is my first formal speech in this 36th Parliament, I would like
to thank you and congratulate you on your appointment. I would
also like to express thankfulness to the constituents of Kelowna
who saw fit to re-elect me, giving me the opportunity to
represent them in this House. It is an honour to be able to do
so.
The constituents of Kelowna live in probably one of the most
beautiful parts of this country. Some people say there is at
least one other part of British Columbia that is better than
that. It happens to be the place where they live, and of course
I disagree with that because I think that Kelowna is the absolute
most beautiful spot in which to live.
I wish at this point to refer back to a question that was asked
by one of my hon. colleagues from the Conservative Party. I
unfortunately do not know which constituency he represents. He
asked probably one of the most poignant question that has been
asked on this day in the debate of this particular motion, and
that question was to the hon. member for St. Paul's.
The question was did she think that the taxpayer would be able
to spend money more wisely or would a politician or a bureaucrat
spend money more wisely.
For a moment I thought for sure it was one of my Reform
colleagues because that is exactly the kind of questions we have
been asking. We have discovered over and over again that it is
the taxpayer who is probably in the best position to determine
how best to spend his dollars. I am absolutely convinced that is
true.
The hon. member for St. Paul's could not answer that question.
She is prepared to take her money and let somebody else spend it
for her more wisely than she is able to spend it. I do not
believe that she even believes that particular answer.
I want to get to the substance of this debate. The substance of
this debate centers around adequate public debate about what
should happen after a surplus has been created in the budget.
That is an absolutely critical point because we believe so
fervently that it is the people of Canada, the taxpayers, the
people who voted us into these chairs, who own these chairs, who
own this House who would say now that we have a surplus, where
should that money be spent. That is critical and that is really
what this debate is all about.
I am going to address my remarks pretty well to the business of
reducing taxes and cutting taxes. There is a brief reference.
It is not even a complete sentence. There is just one tiny
little phrase in the Speech from the Throne that refers to a cut
in taxes.
As individuals we are tired of the tax burden that we carry. As
families, we are tired of the tax burden that we are carrying. It
does not matter what business person you talk to, it does not
matter what individual you talk to, whether they are married,
whether they are senior citizens, every person comes back with
the answer that their taxes are too high.
Recently I read about an Asian centre that is being built in
Surrey. These people are considering that this may be their
first and only investment until the tax structure changes in
Canada to do any further development in this country. That would
be a very serious blow to that part of our country.
The average family today has real problems. It is spending
$3,000 less per year—that is all it has—on food, clothing and
shelter, the very basic things we need. Families are unable to
spend that money because it has been taken from them by the
taxes.
There is another point and it has to do directly with the
individual tax level, the brain drain.
1550
In this part of the country alone, here in Ottawa, recently 11
scientists out of 17 of that group have moved out of the country,
most of them to the United States. Why? The personal tax burden
is to high and also because there is no money available to
support the infrastructure necessary to conduct research.
There are two difficulties with the infrastucture. Some of the
material is worn out and cannot be used anymore and other new
machines have to be brought in to do some of the more recent
research.
Our high tax burden is a very serious detriment to retaining
strong people. It is at the point now that in some sectors we
are missing the skills and the professional ability to carry
forward the research application that needs to be done.
My hon. colleague from North Vancouver alluded to a survey in
the Financial Post. There is a very interesting observation
here. So many people argue that tax cuts are really not the thing
that women want to support and that it is something men want to
support. Women want social programs more than they want tax cuts.
This is very interesting. There is a marked difference here.
Women actually supported tax cuts to a greater degree than did
men. It would appear that protecting the financial interests of
families may be more important that protecting government
abilities to fund programs.
That is very significant. The women have it right. They
understand what matters. They can spend money very wisely. They
think they can spend it more wisely than the government.
Congratulations. It is about time we got some balance into this
society of ours.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: We need more women in Parliament.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Is that not a wonderful comment, Madam
Speaker? You have order in this place and another member said it
is okay. I am a man who said the right thing. That is a
fantastic way to live in this old world.
I want to go back to research and development.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Pretty smooth.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, this is very interesting.
Now we have another man in on this. Now we really have a
balance. That is what the House is really all about.
I want to move into the technology partnerships Canada program.
This program is supposed to help build innovation, research and
development in Canada.
An hon. member: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: There is absolutely nothing wrong with
that. The only difficulty is the contrast. Whenever the minister
makes an announcement, and he has probably made about 40 or 50
announcements about these various partnership programs, he says
it is repayable. Not a subsidy, not a grant, this is a loan or
an equity position. It is very interesting that there is
absolutely no reference to what the provisions of the contract
are, what the partnership shall actually achieve and what
schedule there will be of the repayment of the grant, subsidy or
loan. If it is not to be repaid, if it is an equity position,
what are the dividends that will be paid on the investment?
If the contract is a secret one, this does not prove anything.
There is no accountability here. That is very serious.
The DIPP, the defence industry productivity program, went
essentially to the defence industry. The son of the DIPP, the
technology partnerships Canada program, is going to exactly the
same people. The first $150 million of that was to carry over
and pay for some of the programs that have not been taken care of
under the DIPP.
If this is what is going to happen, then we will have a DIPP and
a TPC program which have not been paid for. I think we have to
say that the DIPP has become tipsy.
1555
I think we have to be very serious about exactly what is going
on here. Where is the truth in what is happening here?
We need to become serious about cutting our taxes so that the
people can spend money where they want to spend it and spend it
wisely. The only way we can find that out is to ask the people
where they think a surplus should be spent once we have a
balanced budget and there is extra money in the treasury. They
will tell us far better than a bureaucrat or we sitting in this
House. Let the people speak and we will all be better off.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would first like to welcome my friend from Kelowna
back to the House of Commons. Over the last four years we had a
lot of constructive debate together and I still feel that when we
work in a constructive way that is when we achieve the most.
The member for Kelowna today wanted more of a public debate on
where this surplus should go. I find it really encouraging
actually that the Reform Party has now come to the conclusion
that the surplus is within sight. I think we can honestly say
that just a couple of years ago the Reform Party had very little
confidence in our ability to manage the fiscal framework of this
nation. I am glad to see that today we have basically received
its endorsement on the basic trajectory or direction that we are
heading in.
When it comes to the debate on the surplus, I want to say to my
friend from Kelowna that we will be on opposite sides. As
passionately committed as the member is to tax reduction, and I
have done some work in this area, I am passionately committed to
making sure that the human capital that has been through a lot of
suffering, those people at the lower end of the income spectrum
who have not had a voice in this Chamber for a long time, I am
going to be with that voice. I am going to be with that voice to
make sure the Minister of Finance keeps his commitment that was
stated during the election.
I was elected in my community, which is a disadvantaged
community in downtown Toronto, on the basis that we have been
through a lot of belt tightening. There have been a lot of cuts.
There has been a big ratchet on this sort of obsession with the
deficit and there has to be a dividend to look after the people
in our community who are the most disadvantaged.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Tax relief, that is what we are
talking about.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: No, it is not in a tax cut. If we
really had a payday here and we can do both, terrific. However,
I want to be on the record that I really think that some very
important programs have been gutted, and I hate to say this
because I have been part of a government that was a party to
this. I feel badly for some of my colleagues who went down in
Atlantic Canada because the cuts were too severe. They were
victims, in my judgment, of extreme cuts.
In my own community, and I know the member will believe me when
I say this, I have human capital, which is a very important thing
to nurture, training and retraining. The member talks about the
brain drain. One of the reasons we have a brain drain, even in
the public service, is that we get all upset if we bonus some of
our most respected senior public servants.
I think the Reform Party, which has been very effective as an
opposition, has to take a more balanced approach and realize that
we have to start creating an atmosphere of hope in our public
service and hope for some of our more disadvantaged. I hope that
he would modify his approach somewhat over the next few months.
1600
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I guess the admiration is
mutual. I have a lot of respect for the hon. member opposite.
The important thing about human capital is what do we want to
create?
If he would read the Beyond a Balanced Budget document the hon.
member will discover that there will be 1.2 million Canadians who
will be off the tax roll. They will have the money that they are
now paying in taxes. These are low income people who earn less
than $30,000 a year. That is very significant.
The reason some of these people do not have jobs is because of
payroll taxes. Many business people to whom I have talked, and
the hon. member is a business man, know only too well how many
people have not expanded their businesses because of the proposed
increase in the CPP and employment insurance premiums.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this is my maiden speech, so I respectfully request the
co-operation of the members of the House of Commons, particularly
members of my own party, to keep their heckling to a minimum.
I would like to thank the constituents that elected me and
placed their confidence in me as their representative.
Today I will speak on the Reform motion and, as a deputy critic
of industry, I would like to address the motion from the vantage
point of the industry department.
Three large regional development programs, the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification and the
Federal Office of Regional Development of Quebec will account for
nearly $1 billion in government spending in 1997-98.
If we analyse the throne speech and dissect such phrases as
“public-private sector partnerships” we should have a grave
concern that the Liberals plan to not only continue funding these
outdated programs, but actually plan to increase the number of
tax dollars to these programs. Throwing more taxpayers' dollars
into regional development programs would be an awful mistake.
They are inefficient, unaccountable and ultimately they
represent, to Canadian taxpayers, money pits.
Let us examine what the auditor general had to say in his report
of November 1995. The auditor general examined these three
regional economic development programs and what he uncovered did
not sound good. As a courtesy to the Liberal members who have
this big government, high spending, high taxation mentality, I
would like to caution and advise them that they may wish to cover
their ears.
The auditor general found that information which the regional
development programs supplied to him was inaccurate and
incomplete. He discovered that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency had been reporting survey results as actual job creation
figures. It had no idea about the actual number of jobs created.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency's rule of thumb is, if
you do not know it, make it up.
Meanwhile, at the Federal Office of Regional Development in
Quebec, the auditor general reported that its actions forced the
closures of two fish plants, but its records showed a net gain of
250 jobs. At the Federal Office of Regional Development in
Quebec the elimination of workers actually led to an increase in
employment. I think it is time for a remedial math course.
The auditor general found that projects had been funded that did
not require government money. I guess it does not matter. You
fill out the forms, you get the money. This is taxpayers' money,
money from ordinary Canadian families.
I do not recommend that the big government, high spending, high
taxation Liberals uncover their ears just yet. There is more
they will not want to hear.
1605
The auditor general also found that the regional development
programs had an inefficient system for determining qualified
recipients. I guess that does not matter either. If you apply,
you get the money, taxpayers' money, money from ordinary Canadian
families. The auditor general also stated “their objectives are
not clearly established and performance measuring is inadequate
so it is impossible to tell if the programs are meeting their
objectives”.
The auditor general is not the only one who has harsh words for
regional development programs. In November 1996 the Atlantic
Institute for Market Studies published a book about the effects
that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has had on the
Atlantic region. It concluded that over 35 years of regional
development programs have led to huge economic distortions. The
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency raised costs of producers,
slowed private investment and kept unemployment high.
This should come as no surprise. These effects only stand to
reason. The government should not be injecting money into the
private sector. Wherever this is done an unlevel playing field
is created. Someone enjoys a rich government subsidy at the
expense of others, at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense
of ordinary Canadian families.
The institute went on to say that subsidies handed out under the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency provided disincentives to
work and promoted the expansion of inefficient companies.
Furthermore, these regional development programs are subject to
abuse by pork barrelling politicians. The Liberals refer to the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as the MLLM, money for loyal
Liberal maritimers. In the past election they were not as loyal
as the Liberals expected them to be, were they? This should
worry us though. Much of the new increased government spending
the Liberals are talking about may go back into these regional
development programs. Now that the Liberals have lost support
outside of Ontario, they will see these regional development
programs as a way to buy back votes.
Liberals wasted taxpayers' dollars throughout the 35th
Parliament and now they are promising to waste even more in this
36th Parliament. The problem with the Liberals, which comes back
to regional development, is that they believe government spending
can create jobs. They believe that massive job creation programs
are the solution to the perpetual levels of high unemployment in
this country. They do not understand that that approach has been
tried over and over again. And guess what? It does not work.
It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars, money taken from average
Canadian families.
One might think they might learn from trial and error, but the
Liberals just cannot seem to shake their big government, high
spending, high taxation mentality. We have endured it for over
20 years. Actually that is not quite true. We endured the
Conservatives for a portion of that time and they were even
worse.
Canadians desperately need tax relief which will in turn spur
job growth. It is a win-win situation. But the Liberals have
raised taxes 35 times since 1993 and the average family has
experienced a $3,000 drop in actual income. The average family
spent more on taxes than on food, shelter and clothing combined
in 1996.
The government is approaching a balanced budget but it has not
been balanced by cutting government overspending. Instead it has
been balanced on the backs of taxpayers, Canadian families, and
their backs are getting really sore. Trust me, I know because I
am a chiropractor and the most common complaint I hear in my
clinic is that taxes are too high.
The cries for tax relief from Canadian families are dismissed by
the Liberals. As long as they are dismissed, unemployment will
remain unacceptably high. There is certainly room for government
spending on such things as education, health care and funding for
research and development. Canadians believe that governments can
play a positive role, but that role does not involve handouts to
profitable corporations. It does not involve taxing small
businesses into bankruptcy and it most certainly does not involve
scattering public money all over the nation in an attempt to buy
votes.
1610
Canadians want smaller government. They want lower taxes and
they want real jobs. Accordingly, members who favour smaller and
more responsible government must vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member got his wish. There was not too much heckling.
Madam Speaker, congratulations on your recent appointment.
I would encourage the member over the next four or five years to
do what is best for his riding, and that is to offer proactive,
positive comments and suggestions on how we can make Canada
better. He should not join the ranks of his fellow Reformers who
constantly run a negative campaign, such as the one he
demonstrated in his opening remarks.
Over the past couple of days I have heard my Reform colleagues
consistently speak of open reform, public involvement, let the
people make the decisions, referendum, referendum, referendum. I
find it a very noble statement to make on the surface. However,
I find it somewhat deceiving to make that statement when in fact
they are suggesting that these referenda have to be somewhat
selective. They need to choose which ones should be referenda
and which should not, which ones need to have public debate and
which ones do not.
I would ask the member if he is prepared to use that selective
approach in deciding which ones he feels should have public
involvement and which ones should not.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, it is rather ironic to hear a
Liberal member criticizing Reform Party proposals for
parliamentary reform. We have led the way in proposing freer
votes in the House of Commons; member recall, whereby members of
Parliament would be held accountable to constituents who elected
them; and asking for referenda on issues of national concern. The
Liberals have rejected our suggestions for parliamentary reform
time and time again.
That brings me to the point he raised about negative remarks.
There are no negative remarks coming from members of the Reform
Party. We lead the way in providing alternative solutions. If
it was not for the Reform Party, the Liberal government, no
doubt, never would have focused on the deficit. If it was not
for us it would not focus on the debt.
Canadians want their taxes to be reduced and we are going to
make sure that is done.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on
my Liberal colleague's comment about negative comments and the
negative campaign.
I am quite concerned. I think there was a time when some
Canadians were buying into that type of rhetoric, that kind of
down talk. I do not think they are buying into it any more.
They have seen that a Liberal government has taken the country
from a $42 billion deficit which was left by the Conservative
Party to a deficit almost zero. In 1993 when I was elected, that
was a very big concern.
My hon. colleague in the Reform Party did not say anything about
the throne speech, about the fact that we have stabilized health
care funding or about the fact that we have given $850 million in
a child tax benefit to poor families.
He touched a bit on partnerships and private sector funding, but
he did not talk about all the good that has been done through
internships and because of the fact that we have created
internship programs for students.
I would ask my hon. colleague if the Reform Party is opposed to
stable health care funding, to internship programs and to helping
the poor in Canada?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously was
not listening to my speech. I said there certainly was room for
government spending on such things as education, research and
health care. That is an exact quote from the text of my speech.
1615
I would also like to correct the hon. member on her position
which seems to say the Liberals have somehow done a good thing
with health care. They cut health care funding from $19 billion
to $10.5 billion. Now they have brought it back up to $12
billion and are trying to say that they have increased funding
for health care. I think they need a remedial math course along
with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
I just do not understand this thing about negativity. We
proposed positive reforms to the criminal justice system and tax
cuts that will stimulate employment. On national unity they have
kept their ears covered. It is time to uncover them.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am a bit
surprised by the motion today. The Reform Party is attempting to
suggest that a balanced approach would be fiscally irresponsible.
When the member for Medicine Hat spoke earlier he talked about
it being irresponsible spending and that things did not seem to
improve.
I thought I would start by getting it on the record, in case the
member for Medicine Hat was not aware, that we will be the first
government in almost three decades to balance the budget.
Part of the balance means that the government will not bend from
its pledge to Canadians to invest in the future of our young
people. The future of our country calls on us to make
responsible ongoing investments aimed at improving the
educational and job prospects of young Canadians.
Our young people are well prepared and well placed to take
advantage of the many opportunities arising from our increasingly
high tech and knowledge based economy, for they are the best
educated and most adept ever in the use of technology.
Nevertheless, Canadians are worried about the prospects for
youth. A recent poll showed that 91 percent of Canadians were
concerned about the difficulties facing youth today and 74
percent of young Canadians said that they expected to have a
lower standard of living than that of their parents.
Such worries are reinforced by frequent media stories suggesting
that many young Canadians will face bleak job prospects and will
be forced to take work that does not enable them to contribute to
their full potential.
Sadly these stories have helped to perpetuate myths like the one
that having a good education does not matter. That is not true.
Education matters more than ever today.
It is also believed that the job situation and salaries of youth
have deteriorated considerably compared to those of previous
generations. This is also not true.
Many young Canadians today face very good job prospects, but far
too many youth face serious challenges which must be addressed.
That is why one of the first mandates of the government is making
youth a priority.
As members know, the government made youth a priority as soon as
it took office in 1993. We have already helped by introducing a
number of initiatives aimed at helping youth. For instance, the
youth employment strategy launched in February 1997 will provide
more than 110,000 young Canadians with the work experience
opportunities they need to help them get that critical first job.
This strategy builds on an investment of approximately $2
billion in Government of Canada programs for young people. It
comes out of the commitment of the Government of Canada to
address youth employment issues by working in partnership with
all sectors of the economy.
As my colleague from Guelph just mentioned, we talk about
internships and mentor programs. We know those are what the
youth of the country need and want. We are just starting. We
are at the tip of that program. There are places to go and room
to move within it.
We have also moved to improve accessibility to post-secondary
education by building on initiatives announced in the February
1997 budget which included improved registered education saving
plans, increased and expanded education tax measures, extending
the period of interest relief for graduates having trouble
repaying their loans, and gearing loan repayment to income.
Our colleague from Medicine Hat was actually on the finance
committee with me as we travelled from the west coast to Toronto.
He heard what the youth who came before us had to say. They
talked about having the opportunity for a first job, about having
the ability to get an education and about having the ability to
afford an education. We took action in the 1997 budget and
addressed it again in the throne speech. We will continue to
address the needs of youth as money becomes more available. That
is why the 50:50 approach worked, because 50 percent will go into
social programs including youth where we need it.
1620
We know what also works. We know that higher education is the
key to getting a good job. We know that the Canada student loans
program has helped young Canadians to get an education. We know
that getting relevant work experience is increasingly important
to help make the transition from school to work. We know that a
variety of services are needed to address the challenges facing
low skilled and low educated youth to give them a better chance.
Finally, we know that lifelong learning and access to labour
market information contribute to the long term success of all
young people. Knowing what works is just the first step. What
really matters is translating this into practical initiatives
that can make a real difference in the lives of our youth. The
Speech from the Throne has done just that.
In our second mandate we will continue to build on what works.
The Speech from the Throne has renewed the government's
commitment to youth as a main priority for the second mandate. We
will continue our efforts to support access to post-secondary
education and to ease the transition from school to the first
job.
We will also address the special needs of disadvantaged youth,
especially those who face barriers to becoming self-reliant due
to lower education, low skills or other social and economic
factors. These youth often find it difficult getting started in
the workforce and deserve a better chance.
All Canadians have a stake in meeting these challenges. No
single sector could have all the answers. In the area of new
partnerships with the provinces, with the private and voluntary
sectors, and with Canadians the government has made a commitment
to our young people.
Partnerships work. We have seen the success firsthand of the
internship programs undertaken by the private sector. One good
example is the career edge initiative which demonstrates the
private sector's commitment to helping youth.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments will also
continue to address the problem. First ministers and territorial
leaders will be working on the issue when they meet this fall.
We must all contribute to helping young people take their
rightful place in society. We must also ensure that they have
access to education.
Governments have a responsibility to ensure the widest possible
access to learning at all levels. Working with its partners, the
Government of Canada will continue to reduce barriers to
post-secondary education by reforming the Canada student loans
program, by making it easier for students to repay their student
loans, by introducing new grants for post-secondary students with
dependants and by introducing scholarships to promote academic
excellence for low to moderate incomes.
In addition, just last week the prime minister announced a one
time investment in learning and knowledge that will form the
foundation of the most significant millennium projects for young
Canadians. Beginning in the year 2000, the Canada millennium
scholarship endowment fund will reward academic excellence and
will provide thousands of scholarships for low and moderate
income Canadians to help them to attend college or university.
We will also expand information awareness and guidance related
to career and job options and the skills required for them. That
means ensuring that young Canadians know what education they need
to get a job in high growth sectors of the economy. There are
thousands of unfilled jobs out their because we did not help our
young people prepare for the demand. This can, will and must
end. We will work to better equip ourselves, our partners, our
government and Canadians to forecast the needs of our economy.
When I look at my own riding of Essex I know that each day in
the paper there is a high demand for mould makers and skilled
trade. We are still not meeting that growth and demand.
In other parts of Canada the same thing is happening in the high
tech industry. We have to funnel our interests and efforts
together at all levels of government. We have to work to ensure
that all youth in Canada have equal opportunity. We must also
ensure that they can make the transition to the workplace.
1625
We will continue our strong support for youth seeking to make
the transition from school to work by extending existing
international science and technology and first nations
internships, by extending student summer job programs, by
sharpening their focus on relevant experience, by building on
existing exchange programs and by creating a new national career
mentorship program in partnership with provinces and the private
sector. This will give them a better chance.
As announced in the Speech from the Throne, we will also focus
on helping youth facing barriers to becoming self-reliant due to
low education, low skills or other social or economic factors.
To this end we will bring partners together to create a new
community based program to assist higher risk youth, including
aboriginal youth, upgrade literacy and basic work skills, create
work opportunities and get the help they need from community
resources. We will do this in partnership with provinces,
communities and employers.
We will also seek to address the special needs of aboriginal
youth through the creation of urban multipurpose aboriginal youth
centres which will provide a relevant cultural and supportive
environment capable of encouraging first nations youth to stay in
school and complete their education and which will offer career
planning and employment opportunities.
Investing in young Canadians makes good economic and social
sense. The government has from the very beginning made preparing
young Canadians for the 21st century one of its main priorities.
As I mentioned, investing in young Canadians makes good economic
sense. It helps ensure they will become highly skilled and
productive workers who can compete and thrive in a demanding
global economy of the future. It is good social policy too.
A young Canadian with a job has a foothold in the labour market
and is better able to contribute to the economic and social
fabric of his or her community. Our youth programs are aimed at
ensuring that the youth of today can make the transition to
tomorrow, can get access to education, can get experience in the
workplace and can get a job in the future.
I am also pleased that the throne speech mentioned that the
needs of rural Canada would be addressed. I am looking forward
to the youth programs being adapted to meet the needs of rural
Canada to ensure that youth return and work in the communities in
which they were born and raised and bring the educational skills
back to help those communities grow and prosper.
As the Speech from the Throne makes clear, the Government of
Canada intends to do even more by working in partnership with the
provinces, business and labour, voluntary groups, youth and their
families to ensure that young Canadians have access to the skills
and knowledge they need in today's economy. Federal, provincial
and territorial governments are working to address the problems
that face youth. The first ministers will discuss the issue at
their meeting this fall, as I mentioned earlier.
The commitment is vast because all of us must contribute to
meeting the challenge, each in our areas of competency. All
Canadians have a stake in meeting that challenge successfully.
This is an ambitious yet vital agenda since its success will
ensure that our youth are prepared for the jobs of the next
millennium.
I call upon all members of the House today to defeat the
defeatist motion by the member of the opposition. By doing so we
will be sending the signal of support for our young people,
thereby ensuring a prosperous future for our country. Our young
people of today are our future of tomorrow. Our goal is to
balance the books and then to spend 50 percent on investment in
people and programs. I believe this is responsible.
We will split our budgetary surpluses on a 50:50 basis over the
course of our second mandate. Half will go to investment in
social and economic priorities.
I cannot believe that a member on the other side of the House
would find the youth of today not to be one of those economic and
social priorities.
The other half will go to a combination of tax reductions and
debt repayment. Members on the other side talk about how there
will be no tax reductions. That has not been decided. We will
consult with Canadians as we have in the past. There has been a
lot of talk about consultation but the government is the first
one in many years to consult with Canadians. The hon. member for
Medicine Hat has participated in those consultations, in what we
called prebudget consultations with Canadians.
1630
When the finance minister releases his economic statement later
this fall I assume there will again be consultations with
Canadians. They will be asked for their input concerning what
will happen, the direction of Canada's future and how they want
the 50:50 ratio to be adapted.
They gave us a vote of confidence in the last election in which
they said to this government “we want you back, we like your
balanced approach, we respect the fact that there needs to be
spending on social and economic priorities, we know that there is
an issue of getting the debt under control and we are concerned
about the level of taxation”.
This government has proven that a balanced record and a balanced
approach are best for Canada and what guarantee a great future
for this country. I cannot believe the member for Medicine Hat
could put forward today's motion after he sat on the finance
committee with me as we travelled from Vancouver to Toronto. He
also sat in on many meetings in Ottawa. He listened to the
Canadians who came before us, in particular young Canadians who
said they wanted a future in Canada, that they wanted to be a
priority, that they were looking for investment in that future.
Today I stand here and ask again that everyone defeat this
motion and send the signal to our young people that they are our
priority.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask the member some questions about the aboriginal
funding initiatives that she mentioned were announced in the
throne speech. This is the only area in the last budget to
receive an increase in funding. Spending on Indian and northern
affairs is now more than $6 billion a year which, as someone
worked out, is the equivalent to $32,000 per annum for every man,
woman and child in the aboriginal community. It is quite a lot
of money already.
Yet in Alberta and northern B.C. in polls that were mainly
aboriginal the member will probably be surprised to learn that
the people in those polls voted Reform in the last election. The
reason they did that is in a lot of native communities the
structure of the bands is not very democratic. As the auditor
general pointed out, about 20 percent of bands are in financial
difficulties because they either improperly manage or are
incapable of managing the money they get.
Many rank and file band members recognize this as a problem but
because there is no democratic structure within the band, it is a
hierarchical chief system, they have no way of controlling
expenditures or ensuring they get their share. I see that on the
Squamish Indian reserve within my riding. I get complaints
from band members there who are shut out of the process, who
cannot get a home, who are not allowed to open a business, who
cannot do things because they are not related to the chief, and
there is no way they will ever get the money.
Would the member identify any initiative of this government to
first make sure there are democratic processes in place to make
sure this money she is talking about will truly get down to the
end user instead of being given once again to people who perhaps
are incapable of managing or who improperly manage the money?
Ms. Susan Whelan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's
comments but I am not sure he heard what I said. In case he did
not hear I will repeat for him that I was talking about
aboriginal youth. I said we are going to create urban and
multipurpose aboriginal youth centres to help them provide that
cultural and supportive environment, to encourage them to stay in
school in order to complete their education. We will help by
offering career planning and employment opportunities.
Regarding the democracy of bands themselves, there is democracy
in the elections of their leaders. I will not comment on that
because I am not part of that process, nor do I represent an
aboriginal community per se. I do know that in Ontario there are
members who represent large aboriginal areas. They supported the
Liberal members on this side. They returned them to Ottawa. The
minister is working very closely with all groups across Canada to
ensure their needs are met and that they are a priority of this
government.
1635
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
past weekend I attended an economic forum in the riding of
Matapédia—Matane. Do you know what the people there are calling
for, are demanding? They are saying that money has been lifted
from their pockets. They should get that money back.
When the hon. member said “yes, there is money coming in, but
we don't know how to return it”, well, it must be returned to those
whose pockets it was taken from, and in the amount taken. Are you
brave enough to give back the money you have taken, you have
stolen, from the poor, from the most disadvantaged?
I am asking that the people of Matapédia—Matane get that money
back.
Next Tuesday I will be seeing the fishers of Tourelle. They
are 50, 40 or 30 hours short of eligibility for unemployment
insurance. What is to be done with them? They will find the
winter a very long one, and I am asking my colleague, if she has a
little compassion, to do something for the families of those
people, for their children. I am asking her to push her government
a bit, give it a little jolt to get its heart working a bit.
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's
comments but I do want to assure him that we have compassion on
the government side. We do recognize that the disadvantaged in
Canada and the poor in Canada need assistance.
Changes have been made to the EI benefits to address seasonal
workers, especially in Atlantic Canada and other areas. There
are ongoing pilot projects to ensure that those needs have been
met.
We will also be introducing legislation with respect to the
seniors benefit which will again benefit lower income Canadians
and ensure that nine out of ten women who are seniors will be
better off down the road.
We have a lot of work to do as a government to ensure that with
the 50:50 split which we talk about going toward tax reduction or
toward debt reduction, disadvantaged Canadians benefit at the
level they deserve.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, if there were
a family in my riding with an income of about $50,000 a year and
it was spending $15,000 more than its income, having to borrow on
credit cards, I think the last thing we would hear that family
talking about when its borrowing decreased to $5,000 per year was
where to spend the extra money. It does not have any extra money.
It is still spending $5,000 a year more than what it is taking
in.
That is the state of affairs in this country. The Liberals like
to pass on to Canadians the myth that their finances are in order.
I have to concede, hesitantly, that they have made some
progress. They are borrowing less. That is true, but to try to
pass that off as economic success and as fiscal responsibility
is—I cannot use the word. That is what it is. It is what I
cannot say.
I ask the member what she said in the campaign.
1640
Did she, like the Minister of Finance, say our fiscal house is
in order, please vote for us, we're great? Now they are talking
about spending money. They have not even heard the question yet.
What are the needs? Where do we have to spend the money?
Instead, they are in advance saying they going to spend 50
percent of the surplus.
During this Liberal government we went into debt another $100
billion in the last term of Parliament. If that does not stop
then Canadians are doomed. I want this member's response to that
and I want that to be a responsible response.
Ms. Susan Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's question. As he knows, we are not borrowing any money
right now to meet our budgetary requirements. In fact, we will
balance the budget no later than the fiscal year 1998-99. We
stated that when the books are balanced and when we find
ourselves in a budgetary surplus then we will split whatever
budgetary surplus is there 50:50 within our fiscal framework.
I will tell members what I told my constituents and those people
who voted in the 1997 campaign in my riding. I told them that
this is the first government in 30 years to be able to say we
will balance the books, and this government will maintain our
fiscal track record. At the same time, this government is
compassionate and recognizes that there are social and economic
priorities far beyond tax reductions. We will ensure that all
Canadians are treated fairly, and I will stand on that record.
I am sorry the member for Elk Island does not recognize there
are social and economic priorities and not just tax reductions.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time
with my worthy colleague from Joliette.
I am pleased to be here today, Madam Speaker, and to wish you
good luck. I congratulate you on your appointment to your new
position.
I would like to say how proud I am to be the first sovereignist
member elected in the new riding of
Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all the
voters in my riding who enabled me to be in this House.
I would especially like to pay tribute to my family and to the
hundred or so volunteers who worked so hard throughout the
campaign. Without their support, the results might have been
different. I firmly intend to vigorously defend their interests
and those of the people of Quebec, whatever their religion, their
language, their culture or their country of origin.
I come now to the motion before us. Like all my colleagues in
the Bloc Quebecois, I must say I support the government's objective
of eliminating the federal deficit by the year 2000. However, I
disagree totally with its means to this end.
Fifty-four per cent of the cuts were to provincial transfers.
In the end, thousands of people paid the bill, and the provinces
bore the political pressure.
And with this money it has saved on the backs of the provinces, the
federal government is now going to finance new initiatives in areas of
provincial jurisdiction, such as literacy, university and hospital
research infrastructures, etc.
Our friends across the way have got it all worked out to fool the
public. I am not making this up. The current President of the Treasury
Board gave it away when he told Le Soleil on March 8, 1996, and I quote:
“When Bouchard has to make cuts, we in Ottawa will be able to show that
we have the means to preserve the future of our social programs”. This
is nothing but demagoguery, the kind of deceit that hurts the most
disadvantaged and the workers who foot the bill.
1645
This is how we, the Quebec people, have been forced in recent years
to help lower the federal deficit, to the tune of 72 cents on every
dollar contributed.
It is all so much trickery, like using the five billion
dollars—five billion, that is 5,000 million dollars—from the
employment insurance fund to reduce the federal deficit. Not
only has the federal government failed to create the jobs it
promised in its red book, but it has used the unemployed to
reduce its deficit.
In addition, by changing the eligibility requirements for
employment insurance, the federal government is forcing unfortunate
unemployed workers onto welfare, with no regard for how terribly
traumatizing this can be.
As for the increase in tax revenues, where does the money come
from? Certainly not from the wealthy taxpayers who take advantage
of tax havens, but rather from the middle class, whose tax burden
is getting heavier and heavier.
The Liberal approach to putting our fiscal house in order is
totally unacceptable. Year after year, the squandering of
billions and billions of dollars by the federal administration is
denounced in the auditor general's reports.
Yet, during the election campaign, the Liberals promised they
would root out waste. Did they deliver on their promise with our
dear heritage minister's one million flags and the television
propaganda from all government departments? I wonder how much it
has cost the government to tell Quebeckers: “We love you. We
love you”.
Four years later, the people of Quebec and Canada as well as the
auditor general are still waiting for this shameful waste to
stop. But the Minister of Finance is skirting the issue because
he obviously does not want to cut in that area as he does without
hesitation in social transfers to the provinces.
It is not as if he did not know what the people want. I sent him
a copy of the August 26, 1997 resolution the City of
Saint-Eustache sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, informing
him of its opposition to the federal government's cutting
transfers to the provinces without reducing taxes by the same
amount. This resolution comes from the City of Saint-Eustache.
Departmental spending was cut by 9 percent even though, in his
1995 budget, the Minister of Finance had promised to cut it by 19
percent. More empty promises!
The Liberals are incapable of honouring their commitments, and I
still wonder just what gives the Minister of Finance cause to
boast? Next year's budget surpluses will be attributable to the
efforts of Quebeckers and the provinces. It is therefore his
duty to distribute them equitably.
Given what I have just said about the government's
mismanagement, my party and myself consider his announced 50/50
policy to be a crock. Investing 50 percent of the surpluses in
social programs and using the other 50 percent to reduce the debt
and taxes is unacceptable.
Under this formula, the federal government is perfectly free to
spend the surpluses in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
We have examples already, with the announcement by the Prime
Minister of a $1 billion merit scholarship fund.
We must not be fooled. This $1 billion was taken from cuts in
transfer payments for higher education.
Here is what the taxpayers want. And this is what the government
must do: first, return $5 billion to the provinces; second, stop
borrowing wholesale from the employment insurance fund; third,
lower the rate of contributions to the employment insurance fund;
fourth, increase the benefits that were drastically reduced in
1997 under the new employment insurance plan; and fifth, stop all
intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
1650
For these five reasons, no doubt different from those of the
Reform Party, I will nevertheless vote in favour of their motion.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, there were a number of things in the hon. member's
discourse that were inaccurate.
He talked about the fact that the Liberals have not been able to
do much about unemployment. Indeed, we are not at a level we
would like. However, in 1993 when I was elected a member of
Parliament, the national unemployment rate was 12 percent. It is
now stands at 9 percent and in my riding is at 7 percent.
It is important for the hon. member to understand that we all
have to do our bit to help the unemployment rate and help the
country. The Bloc should understand that Quebec is a part of
Canada and that it is important for it to acknowledge the
benefits it gets by being a part of Canada.
The member spoke about cuts in government. However, he did not
talk about additional spending in retraining programs by the
federal government which Quebec enjoys, in literacy, internship
and mentorship and student programs.
I am sorry that the hon. member from Quebec does not acknowledge
that Quebec enjoys the money sent to it.
It is important to also acknowledge the helping hand the
Saguenay region received during the flood. Who helped? It was
the defence department and the Canadian government. It is
important for the member to acknowledge that to all of his
electors.
About two weeks ago one of my staff members, who unfortunately
is no longer with me, went to Montreal and had the opportunity to
see many buildings and homes which had been vacated because, she
was told, people are leaving Quebec because of the instability
the Bloc is creating with the scare of wanting to leave Canada.
I would ask the member to acknowledge that the federal
government did help during the time of the flood. The government
did a very important constructive thing.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Madam Speaker, I think my friend opposite
should come and visit Quebec.
For starters, just recently Intrawest invested $500 million in
Mont-Tremblant. The member across the way thinks she is living in some
dream world with unemployment in her riding at 7 per cent. In
Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, the rate is 14 per cent. In Matane, it is
over 22 per cent.
We invest $34 billion in Canada so we are entitled to some
compensation. Canada gave us some of that money back when Chicoutimi was
struck by disaster last year.
1655
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): The member for Richmond—Arthabaska
has the floor.
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Speaker, are we having questions and
comments, or resuming debate?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): Questions and comments.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I
will keep it brief.
If I understood correctly, our friends in the Bloc Quebecois are
going to vote in favour of the Reform Party's motion. I do not know if
opposites attract or what, but I have a question for the member.
If, in fact, the Bloc Quebecois agrees on a 50/50 share of the
anticipated surplus, I would remind the member that there will be no
surplus available before the end of the next term of office in four
years' time, barring an earlier election.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Madam Speaker, we simply do not agree with
the government and it has nothing to do with the 50:50 ratio. It is
simply a matter of redistributing surplus money equitably, as it should
be.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, there is something
surprising in this debate and in the Speech from the Throne presented by
this government.
In its throne speech, the government makes a commitment: it is
as if it was wondering just how it could keep on doing exactly
the same thing it has been doing for the past 27 years while
appearing to be doing something new. In other words, to keep on
spending taxpayers' dollars to make them happy, gain votes, gain
popularity or score political points at the expense of the
provinces.
With budget surpluses within reach, the Liberal government is
wondering if it could not carry on pleasing people, without their
noticing what is going on.
It takes a profoundly irresponsible government to forget, as the
Liberal government is doing, that, while the deficit could
apparently be reduced to zero by the year 2000, this government,
this country is still $600 billion in debt. A zero deficit does
not mean Canada's debt burden has been made any lighter.
Since this government took office in 1993, the Canadian debt has
grown by an additional $75 billion. It is one thing to say I now
have enough money in my pocket to buy groceries, but I will have
to use some of the money I will save to reduce the debt I
accumulated over 30 years.
But right now, the Liberal government seems to be favouring a
formula that would once again shift the responsibility onto the
provinces, which would be left with the dirty job of making cuts
in health, education and social programs because the federal
government has apparently decided to use funds earmarked for the
provinces to repay its debts.
If it wants to reduce taxes, ensure that social programs benefit
taxpayers to a greater extent and see the taxpayers' debt at
every level of government go down, all the federal government has
to do is give back to the provinces the money it took away from
them.
1700
Let the government give back to the provinces the $4.5 billion
in transfer payments it cut, and the provinces can then maintain
their social programs. They can also then cut taxes.
But no. This is not what the federal government wants, because
it wants the glory of being the one to give taxpayers the most.
It wants to give the provinces the thankless job of making the
cuts, and once they are suitably hated and detested by taxpayers,
the federal government will ride in as the saviour and say to
these taxpayers “The federal government, the best and strongest
government, can now give you what the province denied you or
deprived you of”. That is what is hateful about the situation.
This business started years ago. We need to look back at our
history. When the federal government asked the provinces during
the first world war for the loan of their power to tax directly,
the provinces agreed to come to the aid of the nation at risk, to
protect its future. However, the federal government hung on to
this power, refusing to give it back to the provinces. The first
theft, this country's greatest theft, started then,
when it took over the power of taxation from the province,
supposedly on a temporary basis, and never gave it back.
This is the power the federal government is now using against
the provinces, selling its bill of goods about a strong government
in Ottawa and a subservient one in the provinces. No wonder Quebec
is now thinking of sovereignty, of autonomy. It is tired of having
to play the heavy, the one to make the cuts to the taxpayer, while
the federal government, because of the taxation power the provinces
have given it to collect taxes in its stead, has equipped itself
with a tool for making the provinces subservient.
The transfer payments, which should have been used to share
the wealth and rebalance the means of meeting the needs of the
population, are being used far more by the federal government at
this time to make the provinces subservient to its centralizing
domination.
The provinces, Quebec in particular, are tired of this
situation. The government of Quebec wants to be able to tell its
taxpayers that it is able to meet the needs of social programs,
education, health, which are its responsibility, provided it has
the taxes we are paying for that, and not just a portion of them
with which it can meet some health needs, while the rest of the
taxes go to the federal government so that it can say that it will
also meet another part of health needs then leave it to the
taxpayer to judge which of the two governments is doing a better
job of fulfilling those responsibilities.
The same taxpayer is paying taxes to two governments at the
same time. One too many governments is involved in this, and
Quebeckers feel that theirs is not the one that is superfluous.
They pay twice to two institutions, and end up exploited and with
fewer services than they ought to have.
Our federal government, with the Liberal Party at its head, ought
to think first of all of saving money, instead of making more cuts
and more expenditures, if it wants to have money to spare.
Recently once again, the newspapers have reported—and this
was really not a new discovery, since the auditor general has been
saying so since 1993, without the government doing anything about
it—that the auditor general has spoken out against the fact that
they are trying to put a new computer program in place for
processing the old age and income security pensions.
1705
In the beginning, it was supposed to cost some $260 million. Four
years later, the cost has reached $365 million and the computer system
is still not operational. The people in charge of setting up the system
are poised to ask a further $150 million to do so, four years later.
The federal government has not seen fit to wonder whether it was on
the right track. Are we on the right track with this computer system we
are having trouble setting up?
Imagine, $500 million for something which initially was supposed to
cost $260 million. The auditor general has mentioned it in his reports
a number of times, but the government has done nothing about it.
This is where money could be saved. This is where the government should
have saved money instead of cutting transfer payments to the provinces
to be able to act later on and appear to be a generous big brother, a
kindly father willing to meet the needs of the nation.
Quebeckers can see through all that. So do Canadians as a whole. I
believe maritimers, who also are faced with high unemployment and
poverty, must be wondering what the federal government is waiting for to
enter into partnerships with other governments, with the provinces. In
this case partnership means “Here is the money we collected, take it and
meet your taxpayers' needs in your areas of jurisdiction provided for in
the Constitution”.
This is called showing respect and making better plans for the
future.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot
about the government having to cut in order to balance the books
in some way.
Lately I have read with great interest about a past colleague of
ours in 1993, when Mr. Bouchard was in this Chamber. He talked a
lot about being able to do things magically, being able to
balance books without having to cut back on services. I have
since read an awful lot about the fact that Mr. Bouchard has had
to make a lot of cutbacks. He has had to try to balance the
books. As I understand it right now, he is falling dramatically
in the polls. The support for separation and leaving Canada is
not a popular concept any more in Quebec.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell me how he feels about the
fact that his premier who has left here has had to go on and do
the very same things to try to balance the books and make a
better Quebec. It seems to me that my hon. colleague was
speaking against the Liberal Party making cuts when in fact the
premier of Quebec had to leave here to do the same thing.
Could we have a direct comment on Mr. Bouchard having so much
difficulty?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Speaker, the difficulties of the
province of Quebec, and of the other provinces as well, arise
mainly from the fact that it has a revenue shortfall in what it was
receiving from the federal government in the form of what were
called transfer payments.
The cuts by the government of Quebec account for 54 percent; 54
percent of
the cuts made are the result of transfer payments which are no
longer coming from the federal government as they did in the past.
This is not surprising. It is as if, in a family budget, one
parent required the other to clothe the children, but cut his or
her budget in half at the same time. So something would have to be
cut somewhere.
Then, when the other parent is unable to meet the children's needs,
the first one comes along to say “I will get you some fancy shoes
and clothes, a nice hat, a nice dress”. So, of course, one of the
two parents comes out looking good, but he or she has done this
with the other's money, because only one of them has had to make
any sacrifices.
1710
What did this federal government, which was supposed to be cutting
departmental spending by 19%, do? The fact is it has cut spending by
only 9%. That is barely half as much as promised.
Instead of making the sacrifices it was supposed to make to reduce
its deficit, the federal government had the provinces make them, asking
that they do without the funding they used to receive from the federal
government in the form of transfer payments. The government asked them
to do without so it would not have to do without too much itself and
have fewer cuts to make. No wonder the provinces are experiencing
difficulties now and having to make cuts.
See what is going to happen. As one of my colleagues pointed out
earlier, Mr. Massé made a statement to that effect. At a time when the
provinces are experiencing difficulties, the federal government is
blessed with a better than expected income and is about to start playing
Santa Claus again because there is a provincial election coming in
Quebec, and because that election will be followed by a referendum. To
have the taxpayers believe that their future, comfort and security
depends on it, the federal government will try to start investing again
in health, education and social assistance, all of which are areas under
provincial jurisdiction.
That is what the federal government will do. Every time the
provinces put their fiscal house in order, the federal government steps
in. The government is responsible for every deficit in the past 30
years. The provinces also had deficits, but the federal government
failed to play its role properly.
That is why today we are speaking in favour of the motion put forward by
the Reform Party.
We do not necessarily agree with everything the Reform Party said
on this issue, but we agree with the principle of distributing
surpluses, because we want them to be distributed differently and, on
that basis, we will give our support.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
congratulations to you on occupying that chair. It is a pretty
face to see.
This is my first intervention in the 36th Parliament and I would
like to thank the people of Durham who graciously have decided to
send me back to the House.
We have been debating the Reform motion which refers to the
returning to the last 27 years of our history. This is rather
absurd because the reason we are here today debating the motion
is the diligence the government has had toward its fiscal agenda
to reduce the annual deficit. In my lifetime I do not remember
another finance minister who not only set and met the targets but
exceeded them. It is because of the orientation the government
had toward its fiscal agenda.
It seems rather absurd to me that the second party is now
thinking that somehow we are going to change all that again. The
agenda is very clear in my mind. We are going to continue to
keep our fiscal house in order.
There is some room to manoeuvre. This will be the first year in
which we do not have any positive net borrowings in the capital
market to support our annual expenditures. In future years we
will be able to reduce not only the deficit but will also make a
positive contribution toward reducing our outstanding debt.
I welcome the debate because it is very important to question
what is a fair level of total debt. At approximately 75 percent
of our gross domestic product the current level of debt is
inoperative and must continue to come down. I believe most
parties can agree with that.
Second, the throne speech clearly talked about tax cuts. Most
of us will agree that Canadians are fairly heavily taxed and that
they are probably entitled to some kind of rate reduction in the
future.
The operative word is future. More important, what is the nature
of the tax cut? How is it physically done?
1715
This whole debate talks about spending. The motion of the
Reform Party talks about irresponsible spending as though we all
know what it is. According to Reformers all spending, as far as
I can understand from listening to them, by the government is
somehow bad. It is very simple.
It is very interesting to be in the 36th Parliament because we
have another group of parliamentarians at this end of the House
who stand day after day and say that all spending by government
is good. It is interesting to sit between these two arguments
and try to find out what makes any sense.
Time and time again member after member of the Reform Party says
that money in the hands of consumers is far better than money in
the hands of government. I have heard their speakers suggest
from time to time that we also live in a period of high consumer
bankruptcy. It may actually occur to members that some people in
society spend too much. The negative impact is the consumer
bankruptcies that occur.
When we talk about tax cuts I am very interested in exactly what
we are talking about. We are talking about rate reductions. The
income tax system in Canada is called a progressive system. As
income increases, tax rates also increase. This is something
that has been accepted in Canada for a long time.
I have heard the Reform Party indicate from time to time that
everybody should have a flat tax and everybody should pay the
same. That is a reallocation of taxes from the wealthy to the
middle class. That seems to be part of its agenda as well,
although I have not heard much about it in this parliament.
When we start talking about how to direct a tax reduction in a
progressive taxation system, we have to take into consideration
that the people who will benefit most are the very wealthy, which
is why the Reform Party supports that group of people.
There is another point missing from the debate. When we start
talking about tax cuts and hitting higher income groups more
efficiently, we do not consider the demographics of our
population. Everyone knows that Canada's population is aging.
Almost a third of our country consists of what we call baby
boomers, of which they tell me I am on the leading edge.
If baby boomers today were given a choice and were told that
they would be given an extra dollar from taxes, chances are they
would save if for their retirement. That is not so bad. That is
good because we know we are having trouble with some of our
retirement programs as well.
The reality is that tax cuts will not necessarily lead to job
growth. There is no stimulation in the economy by people who
simply save and do not go out and spend.
In other words, there is a great elasticity. We may well give
more money back to people, and well we should. I believe our
rates are too high. However the argument does not follow that
somehow the economy will be stimulated and jobs will be created.
We have a premier in Ontario who ran a whole election based on
giving a 30 percent rate reduction across the board. Of course
what happened is that most of it went to the same group I am
talking about, the relatively wealthy, sometimes and often the
baby boom population.
Jobs were created although during the period in which he made
this announcement jobs were lost in Ontario. Jobs have
subsequently been created in Ontario, but I suggest that almost
all jobs creation was created by lower interest rates which are
directly related to the government's commitment to reducing its
deficit. In other words, all rate reductions in the world do not
stimulate the economy and do not create any new employment.
1720
We might consider that the same generation of people today, once
again thinking about investments, are thinking about foreign
investments. I have heard members of the Reform Party talk about
not making Canadians invest in Canada and allowing them to invest
all over the world. Essentially the agenda of the Reform Party
is to promote capital flights: give them a tax reduction and let
them take the money out of the country.
Many people will say that for every billion dollars of direct
foreign investment in Canada 45,000 new jobs are created.
Similarly it must follow that for every billion dollars removed
from our economy 45,000 jobs may well disappear. The Reform
Party's agenda may indirectly result in reductions in jobs and
not the increase Reformers constantly tell us about.
It is a delight to be in this new parliament because we have two
parties that are diametrically opposed. I listened to members of
the NDP who constantly think the simple answer to all our social
problems is to spend more money.
As a nation we have to spend money wisely and efficiently. In
my riding I have a program called CAPC, a federally funded social
program to assist young teenage parents with a nutritional
program and prenatal care. I am proud to say that this coming
week the program is being expanded in Port Perry in my riding.
They have expanded it in many communities. It is amazing that it
has been done with the same budget it has had for the last five
years. More services are being delivered to assist these people.
We cannot create smart parents. I do not think everything we do
will create better parents. We need people in the communities
who try to assist these people. We can help in the delivery of
the system to assist with child poverty.
I am very proud to be part of a government that recognizes the
importance of some of these building tools and building blocks. I
am also very proud to be part of a government that recognizes
there is such a thing as child poverty, especially in working low
income families. The government has changed the working income
supplement to breathe more financial strength into parents who
are trying to work and at the same time support their young
families.
This is the balance we need. The word spending has been going
around and around this room the past two or three days. What is
missing from the debate is that there is a difference between
consumption and investment.
I will give a definition. To consume is simply that we pay out
the money and it is gone tomorrow. Some people might say that
seniors are entitled to their old age pension cheques. When they
get the money in their hands they usually spend it and the money
is gone. There is no money coming back into the economic system.
We owe these people the support. They have entered into a trust
agreement with us.
The other side of the spending equation is investment. I heard
the member for Kelowna talk about investments in the technology
partnership program. That program is oriented toward some very
positive things. When the money comes back in, all Canadians
will benefit from it. The money did not actually disappear. The
money is still out in the system and will come back not only in
its original form but also added to it will be some of the
benefits of the growth that has actually occurred in the economy.
When we look at government expenditures the problem is that we
do not think about these two different factors: the difference
between investments and consumption. I am very proud to be part
of a government that talks in the throne speech about investment
spending and investment in people.
If we can solve some of the child poverty problems that
investment will come back to us. Those people will be less of a
threat to our criminal justice system. More important, they will
have the tools and the skills to live useful lives.
1725
The government has been very concerned about investment in the
area of science and technology. I heard some members opposite
talk about the fact that many people with technological skills
were being hired south of the border. The average master's
graduate in science and technological earns $45,000 to $50,000 in
Canada. In the United States they will earn $65,000 to $70,000.
That is a great incentive. Members opposite blame our tax
system. There is some relationship between our tax system and
that of the United States.
Another aspect of the economy is that our supply of those
graduates is very low. When the supply is low pure economics
bids up the value of labour. There is a bidding war. Similarly
when there is a shortage in the United States they bid up their
costs and they are removed from our country.
We have companies in Ottawa such as Newbridge Networks which
needs 4,000 workers. It will only hire half of them in Canada.
Nortel needs 5,000 workers. At best it can only hire 700 here
because that is all that is available. In my own riding Durham
College has a science and technology program with an enrolment of
700 students. The bottom line is that they could all get those
jobs twice over. In other words, there is an emerging science
and technology community which we are not filling.
What can governments do to invest in their people so that they
will have the opportunities and that Canada and our standard of
living will be better for it?
I am proud of a government that recognizes this is how the
economy is evolving. The throne speech talked about the new
millennium fund of $1 billion to help low income people who want
a post-secondary education, hopefully in the areas of science and
technology.
This is a very positive statement about how we want to invest. I
keep coming back to the word invest as opposed to spending.
Members opposite probably think this is frivolous, that money
should have been given to higher income groups through rate
reductions rather than by helping people to get the opportunity
to better their positions in our society.
As in the previous parliament we have the Canada Foundation for
Innovation. I am working with some of my community colleges to
ensure they can access these funds to build their programs. They
have indicated to me that their biggest problem is not having
enough money to run their programs. They need more top grade
scientific equipment to teach their people, to give them the
skills to become competitive in the 21st century. I am happy to
be part of a process that recognizes we have to give these people
the tools to compete in the new millennium.
At the same time as we have this problem going on, we are going
through a process of studying our immigration laws that satiate
some of the demand of high tech companies in Canada. In this
labour market the total immigrant population in 1990 was 1,900.
By 1996 the figure was 6,600. These people were brought in from
other countries because we did not have the skills to fill these
jobs. It is very important that we as a government take the
initiative to give our people the skills.
1730
In conclusion, I think what is really missing from this debate
is when somebody stands up and says that spending is bad and tax
cuts are good. That is a very simplistic argument. The reality
is we need to do more investing in people and I am very proud to
be part of a government that recognizes that. Yes, we are going
to reduce the deficit and debt, but at the same time we are not
going to forget the opportunities and challenges facing our
people. We are going to give them the tools to meet the 21st
century.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have listened to that speech and yet I am
terribly disappointed in some of the content of the speech.
The hon. member for Durham and the hon. member opposite should
listen more carefully and I would have enjoyed the whole speech.
It was when I began listening with great interest that I began
to recognize that something did not make sense. There is a lot
of stuff that does not make sense in that speech.
I think the suggestion was made somehow that people who cut
taxes do not necessarily increase the employment of people. I
would like to refer the member to some statistics that I have put
together here with certain American states. In fact, there are
about 10 of them that have increased taxes in the years between
1990 and 1995. During that time period we also have about the
same number of states that have cut taxes. We have two groups
here, one group that increased taxes and another group that
decreased taxes.
It was very interesting to note that for the tax hikers over
that 10 year period, the total revenue that the states collected
was increased by 27%. They hiked their taxes in order to
increase their revenue. They did by 27%. The tax cutters
cut their taxes and their revenues increased 32.6%. That
is very interesting. They cut their taxes but increased their
total revenues.
Let us look at job creation. The tax hikers increased
employment, percentage wise, zero. The tax cutters over that
same five year period increased their employment by 10.8 percent.
That is very significant. These are not numbers that I made up
or that somebody manufactured for this speech. These are numbers
that exist. The hon. member can find those numbers himself. They
are very significant.
The member then suggested that when people get jobs all they do
is spend the money, suggesting that somehow spending money is a
bad thing. Mr. Speaker, I know you are a businessman and I know
that much of the business you have done in your lifetime has been
spending dollars that have come from other people. You, Mr.
Speaker, have become a wealthy man because you invested that
money.
The hon. member opposite has had exactly the same kind of
experience. He has become wealthy because people spent their
money. The suggestion that is being made here is that when
people spend money is disappears. Investment money comes back.
How it is that tax hikers had no increase in jobs but the tax
cutters had an increase in jobs? Let him explain to us that
spending actually hurts the economy.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. Obviously I do not have the statistics that the
member has before him. However, I am sure that there is a
plausible explanation. I am glad that he used the American
example because it lets me remind people that this whole agenda
of the Reform Party is not new. It was started by Ronald Reagan.
Basic Reaganomics said that what it was going to do is reduce
taxes, stimulate demand and get rid of the deficit.
The results are, and the member can and look just as easily as I
can, as the member suggested to me, that the U.S. went to a
deficit of $1 trillion in that same period of time, almost
bankrupting that country. Why is that?
Under Reaganomics they did stimulate demand at that time. The
stimulation went to foreign imports. The bottom line is that
they went out and bought Japanese cars. There were no more jobs
created and the U.S. deficit went through the ceiling and they
are still paying for it.
1735
Do not tell me that there is a simple solution, that if we put
some dollars into people's pockets somehow that will solve all of
our unemployment problems. It will not.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the discourse of
the member for Durham and I was trying to think what it reminded me of.
I have finally remembered. It is the same discourse we heard in 1970,
1971 and 1972 in the early Trudeau years. It is the same kind of
discourse we heard then, telling us that the federal government would
create a just society, that it could spend in all sorts of sectors
outside its jurisdiction, and that we were going to see that it would be
able to do it much better than any of the provinces or anyone close to
the issue and the people.
This is exactly what the present government brings to mind.
After three and a half years, it has been forced, by a large
deficit, to retract its promises and to adopt the Reform Party
platform, just as the Trudeau government borrowed from the NDP
platform in order to stay in power. This is exactly the image
that comes to mind.
I would like to ask the member a question. In this context, the
Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development made a wonderful announcement last week “We are
going to invest in employment and partnership for young people,
in community futures development corporations, to set up a
program to help people start a business, and to hire youth
advisers”. This is great for votes, it is very laudable and
sounds very interesting.
But we now know—we can no longer forget—that in the provinces,
such as Quebec, structures have already been planned for the strategic
development of local areas. The federal government steps in, bringing
with it further duplication of existing programs: it creates a new
program that will do exactly the same thing.
Is that the model that is ultimately going to be offered? Will
the citizens of Quebec and Canada once again be told that, now
that it has turned the screws a little tighter, the federal
government will again begin to meddle in affairs that do not
properly concern it?
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. The reality is Canada's government has a commitment
to its youth and the extent to which we take advantage of that,
no matter what province they live in, is a positive thing.
There is a horizons program that takes young people in
universities who have been educated in the area of export
development and puts them into small and medium size businesses
to make those businesses export ready. There are a number of
programs that once again take some of those youth with an
understanding of the information highway and put them into small
and medium size businesses to empower those businesses.
The member is talking about duplication and overlap. I do not
think, frankly, that there is enough money to go around. The
problem with good initiatives, whether they be federal or
provincial, is that there still is not enough money to take up
the need. I am sure those students, those young people in
Quebec, are happy to share in a federal program that has a
federal initiative and vision about where the country is going in
the area of science and technology.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
briefly to the issue of Reaganomics, during the Reagan era after
the U.S. government cut taxes to top marginal rate, employment in
the U.S. increased by 17 million jobs and revenues doubled. But
because of a profligacy in the Congress, the deficit did
increase.
The government's own finance department said in a research paper
that cutting payroll taxes does create jobs. It talked about an
increase in the payroll taxes causing about a 1 percent increase
in unemployment in this country. I would invite the hon. member
to check the numbers from his own finance department to find out
the horrendous impact that payroll taxes have on job.
1740
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I will even concede to
the hon. member that payroll taxes do have an impact on job
creation. I wish we could reduce them to a nominal amount.
The reality of government funding and government financing is
that is not possible. If you want us to stay in the Canada
pension plan, like all the people in my riding have told me, then
you have to implement reforms to make that happen.
When we talk about tax reduction, I do not doubt that UI rate
reductions are going to be on the table. We have been reducing
them, by the way.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today against
the Reform motion and that of the Liberal Party. I also wish to
thank the constituents and the people of Sackville—Eastern
Shore, a new riding in Nova Scotia, who elected me and gave me
their trust and honour and privilege to represent them in this
House of Commons.
It is amazing when we hear the Reform and the Liberal Party go
on and on with their rhetoric. I want to inform them that the
people of Sackville—Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia elected me to
come to the House of Commons for political solutions, not
political interference.
They wanted me to come and not only hold the government
accountable and hold other opposition parties accountable for
their actions and their responsibilities, but also to work with
them to find the solutions of today.
When the hon. member for Durham talks about the NDP and our
policies, I should inform this House that we are the only federal
party whose parliamentary and constituency staff are organized
under a collective agreement. We do not hear anything coming
from their side on that aspect of it.
Where are the Reform and Liberal backbenchers to help us
eliminate the immigration head tax?
If I may digress a little, I wish to inform the House that I am
an immigrant. My mother and father and six of us moved to this
country in 1956. We went from Halifax at pier 21 by train all
the way to Vancouver. I want to tell members what my parents
told me. At the time I was only eight months old.
My father was in the Dutch resistance during the war of 1939 to
1945. The first person who rescued him out of a POW camp was a
Canadian. Because of that, he had a lifelong dream to come to
Canada. Because of the closure of the coal mines in the south of
Holland in 1952, 25,000 families in the south of Holland had to
literally evacuate the country because there were no
opportunities at that time.
We came to Canada in 1956. My father got off the boat at pier
21 and the first question he asked in his broken English to a
woman from the Salvation Army who was there to help, along with
the Red Cross, was where he could get food for eight people for a
two day journey. She asked where he was headed. He said
Vancouver. She laughed and laughed and of course it was
contagious and my father started to laugh and laugh as well, not
knowing what he was laughing about. He did not realize that it
was a six day journey from Halifax to Vancouver by train.
Anyway, we got to Vancouver and that Christmas my mother
received a turkey from her local church group. She had never
seen a 20 pound turkey before. Not knowing what to do with it,
she cut it up in little pieces and fried it up in two huge cast
iron skillets. The woman next door who happened to be from
Quebec and was living in Delta walked in to see how the turkey
was coming along. She noticed that this turkey was cut up in
tiny little pieces and she laughed and laughed. Of course my
mother started to laugh as well. It was quite contagious. This
woman then took my mother down to the store and got another
turkey for her and showed her how to cook it properly.
My parents, in return, invested in Canada by running a group
home for over 25 years. For over 25 years I grew up in a group
home with over 400 children from across the country who were
runaways, who were abused, from every aspect of life. My parents
did that to repay Canada for their lovely entry to this country.
1745
The reason I say that is because I spoke with my parents the
other day. My father is under palliative care. One of his
closest friends passed away two months ago waiting for a
transplant operation. The hon. member for Durham should
understand that my parents' laughter is now gone. The cuts to
health care have taken away their humour.
Where are the political parties when it comes to health and
education?
Our most valuable resource is our children, and yet we turn
around and say to people that children with disabilities cannot
receive proper education because we do not have the money. We
have the money to give huge tax breaks to profitable banks and
corporations. It is simply scandalous that this rhetoric can go
on and on.
I wish to say a few things about the deficit and the debt and
what we should do about them.
Average Canadians are the real heroes in the war against the
deficit. They are the ones who should benefit from their
struggles.
The interests of big business and Canada's elite cannot be put
ahead of ordinary Canadians. The Reform Party and lobby groups,
such as the Business Council on National Issues, are pressuring
the government to give further tax breaks to Canada's highest
income earners and the most successful corporations.
Unprecedented government cuts to programs, such as Canada's
health care and education systems, might have improved the
government's bottom line, but they have increasingly threatened
the average Canadian; not only average Canadians who use the
public services of health and education, but all Canadians who
have a job; those who are said, from the government lines, lucky
to have a job.
The current trend is that Reformers are pushing the Liberals
into their agenda, away from the previous Tory agenda. During
the campaign I liked to say that the Liberals have reformed the
Tory agenda.
People who have worked for 20 or 30 years are now insecure in
their jobs. They do not know if they will have a job tomorrow.
They do not know if they will be able to meet their payments.
They do not know if they will be able to send their kids to
college.
Today I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if he would
re-commit to a signed, written contract with the 40,000 fishers
of Atlantic Canada and Quebec to maintain the income supplement
program known as TAGS, for the fishers of those areas. His
response was that he consulted with those people, in order to
eliminate the program, for an entire year. Can I honestly
believe that he would ask 40,000 fishers “Do you want to lose
your income for a year?”
It is simply scandalous that the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans would stand here and tell us that is what he did. It is
an absolute scandalous mistruth.
An hon. member: It's a fish story.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: There is more to it than that. We in New
Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia pay more for postage
stamps than anywhere else in the country because this government
introduced the HST. It bribed, cajoled and did everything it
could to the Atlantic provinces, and this is what we got stuck
with.
The most dreaded tax of all time was the GST. That was not good
enough for the Liberals. They had to throw the HST on people.
There is HST on children's clothing. There is HST on
electricity. There is HST on home heating oil. There is HST on
gasoline. How the heck do the Liberals expect low income earners
and those on fixed incomes like pensioners to pay for the basic
necessities of the day to day lifestyle in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland?
It is simply scandalous that the hon. member for Durham, with
the cheerleading crowd from Ontario, and Reform members can stand
and say that there should be more tax cuts. Why do they not
stand in the House and tell the people of Atlantic Canada “Yes,
we will give you a tax cut. We will give you a major tax cut on
the HST”.
We now have a premier who is unelected, Mr. Russell MacLellan.
He was appointed by the Liberal Party. He was here in the House
and signed the agreement implementing the HST. Now he is back
there saying to the people, because he may be coming up for a
byelection soon, that they will re-think the HST. We are
encouraging him to re-think it all the way back to the federal
party.
Of course, the finance minister is saying “Mr. MacLellan,
before you can say anything like that you have to come to speak
to us first”. His hands will be completely tied because of the
Liberal agenda, a Liberal agenda which has been pushed and
controlled by the Reformers. To us it is simply scandalous that
this goes on and on.
1750
The member for Durham was talking about giving money to these
programs. Exactly. Total tax reform means that we can get
enough taxes from profitable businesses and corporations that can
afford to pay their fair share and spread the money around.
An elderly gentleman in Cape Breton told me a year ago “Peter,
money is like manure. It is only good when it is spread around.
When it concentrates in one pile you know exactly what it does”.
I could go on and on with this, folks, but I can assure the
House that Atlantic Canadians will not stand for it any longer.
Come May the original TAGS program, which was supposed to go to
May 1999, is going to expire.
May I remind the House that in the last year we have had people
in New Brunswick tear-gassed by the Frank McKenna government.
They were fighting to keep their schools open. We have had Cape
Breton unionized workers burn down an apartment building because
they were in distress trying to find jobs. We had people rocking
a media bus in Newfoundland because of their desperation for the
TAGS program and supplement programs of that nature.
I encourage members of the House to work together to help those
people in Atlantic Canada because if we do not, come May it is
going to be a very sorry picture indeed.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on a
heartfelt speech, one that raises some very interesting points
about the direction in which our country is going.
I was also very pleased to find out that the hon. member
believes that now is the time to engage in serious debate about
which direction we are going to take.
Madam Speaker, I want to bring to your attention, since the hon.
member is a new member in this House, that the Liberal government
has used the consultation method, including prebudget
consultation meetings, as well as a number of meetings across the
country on social security review to modernize and restructure
Canada's social security system. We have made headway and
positive change has occurred.
I want to ask the hon. member if his method of representing his
constituents will be to hold townhall meetings? For example, we
know that in the very near future we will be consulting across
the country on the next budget.
Does the hon. member believe that every member of Parliament
should participate in that process? We are in a very fortunate
position in this country today, as a result of the measures and
the fiscal responsibility exercised by this government, to begin
to look at new ways and new programs and perhaps a new style of
economics since we may in fact be heading for the first time in a
long time toward the elimination of the deficit. Does the hon.
member think it is the responsibility of members of Parliament on
both sides to seek public input on this prebudget consultation
period and to hear from him where his constituents would like to
see our government go.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. Yes, indeed, I will be holding townhall meetings.
My goal is to hold at least 50 townhall meetings throughout the
next four to five years. Because I have such a large rural and
urban riding, I think it is my responsibility and that of my
staff to go out to the communities and speak to them on these
issues.
I want to have the hon. member understand why I am sitting in
this House and what gave me the push to get in here. It was the
last townhall meeting, the very famous one, where the prime
minister spoke to a woman from Quebec. She told the prime
minister that she had three degrees and was finding it very
difficult to get a job. His response was “Well, Madam, you know
in life some people are lucky, some are not”.
The second he said that I phoned my provincial secretary and
asked him to tell me what I had to do to become a candidate in
the next election so that I could face the prime minister and his
party and question him on the fact that we do not base our
society on luck. We base it on hard work, compassion and
fairness.
1755
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was
really impressed with the hon. member's speech. I came to this
country almost 30 years ago and I went through hardships which
were probably much easier than those of his parents.
Over the last four years I had an opportunity to travel to
Europe and the Pacific rim. Just recently I was an election
observer in Bosnia. Last year for the first time I took my
family to Europe for a vacation and I had the opportunity to meet
a colleague from my childhood in Frankfurt for breakfast. For
the two of us it cost 36 Deutschemarks. The same breakfast could
probably be bought here for $6.
My question for the hon. member is this. Does he have a better
agenda than that of the government? If he does, why does he not
tell us? What I heard from NDP candidates during the election
campaign was that their agenda was similar to the eastern
European agenda.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak
on and on. Yes, we have another agenda. Perhaps he would like
to have a copy of it. It is just one example of our agenda. By
all means, the member may come down and talk to us at any time.
We are at Room 368 of the Confederation Building. I would be
more than happy to have dinner with the member. I will pay and
we can discuss our agenda with him.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would like to begin my speech by thanking the voters of the
Churchill riding for their support.
As many know, the riding comprises some four-fifths of
Manitoba's land mass. It is home to the Sayisi and the
Northlands Dene nation, a nation that is still disputing land
claims north of the 60th parallel.
The people of Tadoule still seek compensation for forced
relocation that almost saw the total destruction of an entire
people.
Our riding is home to Churchill, the polar bear capital and a
community of citizens such as Penny Rawlings and Robert Penwarden
who believed in their town and the viability of the port of
Churchill.
It was a shame that the government of Canada did not have the
same commitment to the port. As many of us maintained, the port
was not utilized to its fullest for years. The port is being used
now after it was sold to an American company.
The Churchill riding is home to a number of communities where
seasonal work is the only way of life. The government's changes
to employment insurance saw many of the families in these
communities forced to go on welfare as they did not meet the
required hours to qualify for EI benefits. Some were only short
by a few hours. The government should not be proud of this. Many
people have simply given up looking for work and have been forced
to go on welfare.
The government's cuts in social assistance dollars saw people in
northern communities who have to pay $11 for four litres of milk
paid social assistance benefits at the same rate as those down
south paying $4.04 for milk. Cuts to health and education have
seen hospitals short staffed with line-ups for emergency
services, not enough dialysis machines or not enough trained
nurses to operate them.
At a time when the royal commission on aboriginal people's
report recommends 10,000 aboriginal health care workers are
needed, we see fewer and fewer dollars going that way.
Increased tuition costs have made it even more difficult for
students of the north who must already pay relocation costs to
continue their education in university.
The government's failure to act on our charter of rights, its
failure to pay the public service workers money due as equal pay
for equal work, its failure to treat women fairly is despicable.
I have often felt that I am from a generation that has not done
without. I have had medicare and maternity benefits, labour
legislation, health and safety legislation, the security of CPP,
employment insurance and employment equity.
1800
People like Syd and Mory Allen of The Pas, and Nestor and Vicki
Dolinski from Flin Flon, Manitoba in my riding supported the
efforts of Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles from the early
years.
These benefits I have had are not things that I want my
generation to not give to the people following us. I want my
children and their children to have those same benefits.
We talk about what to do with the “surplus”, the government's
prize at the end of three and a half years of starving Canadians
and at the end of 13 years of women fighting for equal pay. Let
us put the dollars toward the people who have earned it and to
those who really need it. The Government of Canada owes some
200,000 workers $2 billion. Let's pay the dues.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on
her speech.
There seems to be a perception on the other side of the House
that things are not just right. Perhaps the reason why I believe
that things are getting better is that I was here as an assistant
and as a member of Parliament under the former Conservative
government and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that things
are indeed getting better in this country.
I remember as a Canadian born in 1960 when I came to this House
there was a $42 billion deficit. Now we are entering a new era in
Canadian public policy where we will have the first balanced
budget in a long, long time. This is lost on the New Democratic
Party whose members think somehow productivity gains and a
competitive society is built simply by spending.
As an Ontarian I remember the Bob Rae years with a great deal of
sadness. We saw firm after firm leaving Ontario. We saw the
competitive edge of a once very prosperous province vanish.
We had to do a great deal of work to re-establish a competitive
economy that speaks to modern day values, to the fact that we
live in a global society. We cannot be isolated as the New
Democratic Party would like us to be.
What a difference the past four years have made to the lives of
so many Canadians. Almost one million new Canadian jobs have
been created as a result of some of our measures. I want to ask
the hon. member, if she were to define the optimal conditions for
economic growth, would they not be low inflation rates and
elimination of the deficit? Do these not spur economic growth?
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, although there was not
a question there, I thought I made it pretty clear without really
spelling it out that the surplus was there as a result of the
Government of Canada not paying its dues to its employees and not
paying its dues to the people who were unemployed.
The surplus is there because those people are not paid
unemployment insurance premiums the same way they would have been
prior to this government. I did not get into the nits and grits
of the $12.3 million paid to 3,000 government managers while
these same workers were not being paid. I did not get into a
reform of a tax system that would be fair for all Canadians. If
we need to spell it out, one plus one is two and zero added to
zero is nothing.
1805
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague from
Churchill on an excellent speech. She stands in a very good
tradition that I am well aware of having served in this House
with a predecessor of hers, Rod Murphy, the member of Parliament
for Churchill from 1979 to 1993.
Perhaps the hon. member could elaborate for just a few seconds
since we do not have much time on the injustice being done to so
many women in the public service, by virtue of this government's
persistent refusal to take seriously the judgment of its own
human rights tribunal and pay what is due to women in the public
service as a result of that judgment having been made with
respect to pay equity.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I will certainly respond.
I thank the member for his comments. I too want to acknowledge
Rod Murphy and all of his help.
Since 1984 the pay equity issue has been on the table with the
Government of Canada. Since that time the government has failed
to respond even though a report from the human rights commission
indicated that those workers were entitled to fair pay for equal
work.
As I was speaking to a Reform motion I happened to become aware
of a statement by a former Reform MP from Simcoe Centre. I want
to read his statement: “As you are no doubt aware, the Reform
Party and I do not support the notion of pay equity as outlined
by the federal government and the human rights tribunal. We
believe the hiring and remuneration decisions should be made
solely on the basis of merit without regard for gender or other
inalienable characteristics”.
It would sound to me, just as I see this Reformer was using
whatever he could to talk about equality—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): To the hon. member
who has brought orange juice into the House, would you please—
Thank you. Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Vaughan—King—Aurora.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I noticed with a great deal of interest the Reform
Party's motion:
That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50
election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public
debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt,
thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of
irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high
taxes, causing high unemployment.
I want to remind members of the Reform Party of something and
point out the word consultation. I do not know where they were
on June 2 but I thought the people of Canada made quite a
statement. They re-elected a majority Liberal government. Hon.
members may think what they want but we are back on this side
after a vigorous debate precisely about this type of issue during
the election campaign. The debate spoke to the renewed
confidence that Canadians have in their government.
As I said earlier in my preamble to one of the questions I posed
to the hon. member from the New Democratic Party, indeed things
in this country are getting much better. That we are in a
position today to even talk about this particular subject matter,
namely how we are going to split the surplus, is only because
Canadians and this Canadian government had the vision and made
the sacrifices necessary to be in this position.
I also want to bring something to the attention of the Reform
Party members. They need to understand that for the first time in
a long time Canadians have a great deal of confidence in their
government.
1810
I was sitting on the other side of the House in opposition
during the Mulroney Conservative government era. I saw Canadians
being taxed to death, with no benefits to show for it at the end
of those 10 years.
When we took office we had certain objectives. We had to get
the fiscal house in order. In large measure we have done that.
As I said earlier, we are going to have a balanced budget.
Second, we were going to restore honesty and integrity to
government. We have done that.
We also set some very good objectives. We said that we would
invest in areas which would generate economic growth and increase
our productivity as a country, understanding full well that in
order to compete in an international economy we need to have the
type of regulatory framework which speaks to the decisions which
will generate wealth in order to generate the revenues which will
result in the type of social programs to which Canadians have
grown accustomed.
What are our priorities? Youth is a priority. I have dedicated
my political career to advancing the cause of youth. When I see
that the government has invested $2 billion in Canada student
loans, which is a 57 percent increase over five years, I am quite
proud of the fact that as a government we realize that
accessibility to education is extremely important in increasing
job prospects for youth. There is a direct correlation between
the type of education a person has and the type of job they get.
We also invested heavily in technology. We understand the
multiplier effect that investing in technology has. Right here
in Ottawa, in Kanata, and in Cambridge we have been able to build
a highly skilled, highly paid workforce that is producing value
added products. We have helped to transform the economy into a
new technologically advanced economy which is generating
employment in key areas, areas in which we are quite competitive.
There is a strategy in place. We inherited a financial mess. We
have cleaned it up. Now we are entering the second phase and we
need to identify our priorities. What are they? What do
Canadians hold sacred? Budgets and throne speeches must reflect
Canadian values. What are they?
One of them is health care. We made an announcement just before
the election campaign when we found out that the financial
situation in Canada was even better than we expected. What did we
do? We reinvested in health care. Why was that? Because that is
a part of the fibre of Canada.
What else did we do? We reinvested $350 million on youth
employment projects. Why was that? Because we know that the
future of this country belongs to our youth and we need to
provide them with the right opportunities.
How did we do that? Did we do it the old fashioned way?
Absolutely not. We invested in areas where there was growth. We
identified 33 key areas of growth in our economy. We entered
into internship agreements with those sectors of the economy and
now young people have a job and a future.
Gone is the old way of pork barrelling. Gone is the old way of
throwing money at problems without getting results.
1815
The Speaker: I surely hate to interrupt the member in full
flight. I remind my hon. colleague that he will have the floor
when we return to the debate.
[Translation]
It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and
put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the business
of supply.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 88
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 178
|
PAIRED
Members
Beaumier
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Chan
| Desrochers
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Fournier
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lebel
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
It being 6.47 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)