36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 78
CONTENTS
Monday, March 23, 1998
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESERVE FORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-232. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1145
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1150
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1155
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1200
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Deferred Division on Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1350
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1355
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NOWROOZ
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1400
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KEN KOYAMA
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD WATER DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
1405
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JANE URQUHART
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RACISM
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SULPHUR
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1410
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILDREN IN WAR
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LENNOXVILLE
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1415
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEAHY FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1420
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1425
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1430
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1435
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL CONVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN AMBASSADOR JACQUES ROY
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1440
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILEAN REFUGEES
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1445
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOLF HUNTS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1450
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1455
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1500
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILDREN'S HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George S. Baker |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1505
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-383. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1510
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STARRED QUESTION
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Report stage
|
1515
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1610
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1625
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1630
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1645
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1650
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1705
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1730
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1745
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1800
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1805
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Asbestos
|
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1830
![V](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 78
![](/web/20061116174836im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 23, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
RESERVE FORCE ACT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-232, an act to facilitate participation in the reserve force,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to my private member's Bill C-232,
the citizen soldier act. This bill will entitle employees of the
federal government to a period of leave not exceeding two months
annually for the purpose of training in the Canadian Armed Forces
reserve. This legislation does not affect the private sector and
private sector employers.
The question of legislating employers to allow training time for
reservists with full time employment has been a contentious issue
for some time now and, in particular, since the increased
contributions in military activity since the early 1980s.
In response to the problem a national organization called the
Canadian Armed Forces Liaison Council was designed. It was first
established in 1978 with a goal that was not aggressive enough to
accomplish its mandate of bringing more employers into agreement
with allowing reservists to participate in the Canadian Armed
Forces reserve.
1105
In 1992 it was reorganized, given its present name and a new,
more challenging mandate. The Canadian forces liaison council's
mandate not only includes promoting reserves to the business
community, but also advances reservists' concerns to business and
works directly with employers in the area of recruitment.
The Canadian forces liaison council has been very successful.
More than 3,000 employers have indicated their support of the
reserve force in writing, including more than 1,700 who have
adopted a military leave policy.
Some employers also pay the difference between military and
civilian pay and other employers are even giving two additional
weeks' leave for courses in the reserve.
I acknowledge that the Canadian forces liaison council has done
a wonderful job. However, its role has been limited to the
private sector and there is room for improvement, in particular
when it comes to the need for the federal government to take a
leadership role in allowing its employees to participate in
reserve training.
This first came to my attention in 1994 when the then chief of
defence staff, General John de Chastelain, appeared before the
special joint committee reviewing Canada's defence policy.
When I posed a question to the chief of the defence staff on
this issue he told the committee that the federal government was
the worst offender in allowing training time for reservists.
Again in 1995, after the report on restructuring the reserves
was presented to the Minister of National Defence and then to the
House committee on defence and veterans affairs, I asked the
members of the commission, the three commissioners, again to
confirm whether or not the federal government was playing a
proactive role in allowing reservists the training time they
required to participate in the Canadian Armed Forces. Again they
agreed with me that the Government of Canada, the federal
government, the largest employer in our nation, was not in fact
promoting reserve friendly policies in office protocol.
There it is. A contradiction exists. On the one hand the
government encourages private sector employers to have their
employees participate in reserve training through the Canadian
forces liaison council. On the other hand, public service
employees are not receiving that same encouragement. Bill C-232
addresses that discrepancy.
When surveying different defence associations across the country
about my bill, I received a letter from Lieutenant Colonel D.W.
Wright, representing the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps
Association. He said that the Government of Canada has provided
for limited military leave within the Public Service Staff
Relations Act. Employees are permitted to receive a leave of
absence for military duty and may elect to receive either their
government salary or their military per diem.
He goes on to say that, unfortunately, the regulation is
permissive rather than directive and most often thwarted by
supervisors who exercise the ultimate discretion.
I will repeat that because it is very important and very
disturbing for people who wish to serve their country through the
reserve force. He said that the policy is most often thwarted by
supervisors in the federal government who exercise the ultimate
discretion. Therefore that means the reservists must devote
their annual holidays which they have earned through their work
with the federal government to meet their training obligations.
It is with this poor record of the federal government in mind
that I introduced Bill C-232. This bill does not attempt to
supersede the fine work done by the Canadian forces liaison
council in the Canadian business community.
The Minister of National Defence, through the Canadian forces
liaison council, would still be able to negotiate with private
sector employers training time for private sector reservists.
This bill does not affect them in any way, shape or form. What
it does is directly attempt to address the poor record of the
federal government when it comes to reserve training.
With Bill C-232 I hope to accomplish three fundamental things:
one, to enhance participation in the Canadian Armed Forces
reserve; two, to ensure reservists receive the training required
for effective augmentation of the regular forces; and third, to
lay the groundwork for a national mobilization plan for Canada.
1110
Participation in the reserves can benefit employers tenfold.
Through their part time military experience reservists acquire
many skills that are transferable to their jobs, including
leadership, discipline and loyalty. Often reservists acquire
special technical skills which they can use in their specific
trade or profession in their civilian life.
Many employers have discovered the tremendous value of reserve
training and education as their employees become more productive,
more capable and highly motivated. All they ask in return from
their employer is to train and upgrade through their military
qualifications.
In the past few years Canadians have had the opportunity to
examine firsthand the role reservists play domestically and
internationally. I thought I would take just a few moments to
talk about those instances.
Most recently, of course, the ice storm in eastern Canada
required the deployment of some 4,000 reservists to the provinces
of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick to assist in humanitarian
relief.
Similarly, last year's floods in the Red River Valley required
the deployment of some 500 reservists.
On the international scene, 800 UN peacekeepers, or 20% of
Canada's entire UN commitment during the UNPROFOR mission in
Yugoslavia were reservists, part time soldiers, citizen soldiers.
In 1993 it is interesting to note that Canadian soldiers fought
their biggest battle since the Korean war. The battle in the
Medak pocket pitted Canadian personnel and French troops against
the war-hardened Croatian army. More than half of that proud
troop was made up of citizen soldiers, reservists from the
militia in Canada.
The Canadians won the battle. It was a true success for our
Canadian Armed Forces, for reservists and for the total force
operation.
Reservists continue to play an important role in the Canadian
Armed Forces as part of the total force. They serve with
distinction domestically and internationally and remain a vital
link between the Canadian military and society at large.
The federal government, as Canada's largest employer, should
create an environment where individuals can explore service in
the reserves and serve their country. For example, militia units
generally are made up with over 60% of their soldiers being
either students, seasonal workers or unemployed persons. These
soldiers have very few problems when it comes to finding the
necessary time to train. However, once the militia reservist has
finished their schooling and finds a full time job, the reality
is that their priorities change. They tend to quit the reserves,
quit the militia unit, and go into civilian life. They see this
option as being easier than juggling their lives to ensure time
for work, friends and the militia. These soldiers, in a way, are
being punished for trying to keep a regular job and a regular
life while trying to serve the government and Canada as well.
This bill is designed to enhance participation in the reserve
from all walks of life, not just from the ranks of students and
the unemployed. The federal government must take a leading role
in facilitating participation in the Canadian Armed Forces
reserve. As an employer, government departments and agencies can
help individuals balance their careers with a desire to serve
their country.
This attitude will filter down to smaller private sector
employers. This is a very important point. One of the reasons
for this bill is leadership by example. We want the federal
government to do what the federal government is asking the
private sector to do through the Canadian Armed Forces liaison
council.
1115
This will have two dramatic impacts. First, many working
Canadians will have the opportunity to consider serving their
country part time in the reserves. Second, the reserves and the
armed forces in general will benefit from the new pool of skilled
tradesmen and people with new abilities entering the Canadian
Armed Forces.
Bill C-232 will entitle employees of the federal government a
period not exceeding two months annually for training or service
in the reserves. I will talk for a moment about the two month
period which I have suggested. It is a length of time not to
exceed two months.
I picked the two month period because the first training course
a reservist must take is the general military training course. It
is commonly referred to as recruit training. Some of us would
call it boot camp. It is an eight week course and new recruits
must successfully complete the course in order to continue
service in the militia.
Reservists may receive their recruit training on weekends.
Usually it is over an extended period of time, about six months
in length. They have to attend recruit training every weekend,
or it is offered on an eight week summer course.
Many people interested in serving with the reserves have been
unable to commit to the eight week period during the summer,
especially when they are employed full time. Some are unable to
give up their weekends for a six month period. Others cannot get
permission from their employers to take the summer course.
Therefore service in the reserves is not an option for these
people at this time.
Bill C-232 will enable employees of the federal government and
crown corporations to take the initial eight week recruit
training course. This will open up the reserve option to many
working Canadians who previously could not take that course.
This does not mean that the reservists will want a two month
training period every year. In fact reservists would not even
have the opportunity to take two months a year. They would still
have to apply for a course. They would have to meet a certain
criteria. Most of the courses available to the reserves are not
eight weeks in duration. In fact the normal period is about two
weeks and that is why in my bill I specifically say up to an
eight week period.
There are essentially three types of reserve service. Class
a is a part time status which involves working one or two
nights at the local community armoury and working on some
weekends. Training cannot consist of more than 12 full
consecutive days. Class b and class c services
involve longer periods of continuous reserve employment.
The important point to note is that except for the initial
training course most other training and specialty courses are two
weeks in duration.
Another important point in my bill is forced generation. If
Canada is realistically to look at the mobilization plan outlined
in the 1994 white paper, a policy such as this one would have to
be put in place.
I would ask for unanimous consent of the House for Bill C-232 to
be votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to make the bill votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure
to speak on Bill C-232 presented by my colleague from
Okanagan—Coquihalla, an act to facilitate participation in the
reserve forces of Canada.
I fully support participation in the reserves. In fact, in my
riding of Bruce—Grey we have the Grey and Simcoe Foresters and
Lieutenant-Colonel Rutherford who went to Somalia. We know of
the good work of citizen soldiers. They serve their country very
well. It is actually quite a good program.
The Public Service of Canada already has regulations in place
that facilitate the granting of leave to its employees for this
reason. Military leave for employees in the federal government
is subject to reserve forces training leave regulations under the
National Defence Act and leave with pay and without pay policies
of the Treasury Board.
Crown corporations operate under their own terms and conditions
of employment. Many have included military leave provisions for
their employees who are reservists.
1120
I am also pleased to report that approximately 3,000 other
employers in Canada have participated in the provisions for
military leave on their terms and conditions of employment. In
its current form the proposed Bill C-232 does not bring any new
benefit to reservists and it does not meet Canadian forces
operational requirements. I therefore have no choice but to
oppose the bill.
I draw the attention of members to clause 2(1) of the proposed
legislation as it actually reduces the current flexibility of the
length of military leave and its compensation. First, this
provision would be more restrictive than the current treasury
board policy which does not limit military leave to a two month
period and allows a choice of leave with or without pay to the
discretion of the deputy minister.
In addition, the restriction of two months of leave would not
meet some requirements on United Nations peacekeeping missions
which are at least 10 months and could be in excess of 12 months
for United Nations military observers.
Second, the provision does not address the issue of
compensation. It only provides for an annual leave of absence
for a period not exceeding two months. As I have pointed out,
currently public service employees have the choice to request
leave with pay or leave without pay for most reservist
activities.
Third, this provision does not provide any flexibility to deputy
ministers who currently may grant or deny military leave. At the
time of a downsized public service it is essential that deputy
ministers keep some flexibility in the operational requirements
of their departments.
Notwithstanding, deputy ministers have been granting military
leave in accordance with Treasury Board policies. Between April
1991 and March 1997 an average of 314 public service employees
per year were granted military leave with pay and an average of
20 public service employees per year were granted leave without
pay.
It must also be noted that since 1970 there has been no
adjudicated complaint for not granting military leave in the
public service. As well, during the gulf war deputy ministers
supported granting a leave of absence without pay to employees
wanting to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces whether voluntary
or involuntary. These employees were guaranteed the protection
of their employment status regardless of the length of the leave
of absence.
I would like to address another point. Employees of the
government and crown corporations are subject to different
legislation and regulations. Therefore these latter employees
cannot be treated in the same manner as is being proposed in
clause 2(1). It is my view that clause 2(1) of the proposed
legislation would place more restrictions on the participation of
reservists. Furthermore it is my view that clause 2(2) would
have an effect on the participation of the reservists and that
private sector employers would view the legislation as
unjustified interference by the federal government in their
labour relations practices.
The Minister of National Defence already has the authority to
enter into agreements with any employer. Therefore clause 2(2)
would not provide any new authority that does not exist already.
Moreover it would be impractical for the Minister of National
Defence to enter into an agreement with an estimated 10,000
current employers of reservists.
The possibility of using legislation to mandate employer support
for military leave and to provide job protection for reservists
serving the Canadian forces has already been studied. It was
found that such legislation could lead employers to discriminate
against reservists in their hiring practices. As well, it would
result in a significant financial burden for certain employers
and would cause a general backlash on the part of some employer
associations.
In closing, I reiterate my position. I fully support the
participation in the reserve forces. I must oppose the bill
because it would not promote participation and it would not make
it easier for citizens of Canada who wish to participate in
reservists activities.
On another note, I have been a member of the Grey and Simcoe
Foresters in my riding of Bruce—Grey since 1968.
I speak to the men and women who participated whether it was the
ice storm we recently had in Ontario and Quebec or the floods out
west. There is no doubt in mind that reservists are necessary
and important. They have certain skills.
1125
For instance, we could have a medical doctor who is maybe a
professor emeritus of some university with specialist skills in
case of a sudden chemical war. In situations where their
services may be required there is no doubt in my mind that these
men and women will volunteer their services. Canadians are well
known for this. Dr. Bethune who went to school in the riding of
Bruce—Grey participated in China with blood transfusions and his
work helping people overseas is well noted.
I reiterate that I love the reservists. I think they play a
great role. It is great that we can draft an engineer working
for a firm to go overseas to rebuild a bridge that was damaged in
a war torn place.
The Canadian example is great for the world. We export our
democracy and our civil way of living. We would like the world
to be like us because we are a great country.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-232 and the
principle involved in it. As I understand, it is basically that
the government should practise what it preaches to the private
sector and institute a regime within its own house that would
permit Canadians who work for the federal government to have
leave for training as the member intends in the bill.
There might be some problems that could have been straightened
out in committee if the bill had been made votable and referred
to committee. I do not think the member on the government side
made a convincing case for the necessity of the bill being
defeated at this point.
If the bill contains the germ of a good idea, which I think it
does and which I think the government member thought it did, I do
not know why unanimous consent was denied by a government member.
This could have gone to committee. The committee could have
sorted out some of the details and perhaps come back to the House
with an improved and amended bill but nevertheless a bill that
would have gone some way toward accomplishing what the hon.
member intends in the original draft of the bill.
I add my own compliments and those of my colleagues for the work
done by reservists over the years both domestically in terms of
the ice storm and the flooding in Winnipeg and in terms of work
they have done as part of Canada's peacekeeping forces around the
world.
If the bill were to go ahead, it would provide an opportunity
for more Canadians serving in the armed forces reserve to
participate, having had the benefit of more training than they
sometimes have now as a result of the difficulty some of them
experience, particularly those who are working for the federal
government but also those in the private sector although the bill
is intended to deal with those working for the federal
government. I am referring to the difficulty they experience in
getting the permission and the time to take the kind of training
they would like to have the benefit of.
It appears we are to have a smaller regular armed forces as
there have been numerous cuts both in the strength and in the
resources available to the Canadian Armed Forces. Then we would
rely more and more on reservists to do the kinds of things we
want our armed forces to do, whether it be in peacekeeping,
addressing a civil disaster or whatever the case may be.
One thing has always mystified me over almost 19 years of being
in the House. Why have reserves always had to be on the begging
end of things when it comes the defence budget? It is the one
area where there has been no disagreement among the parties.
1130
We have disagreed here in the past on cruise missiles, nuclear
submarines, all kinds of things. But no one has ever disagreed
about the importance of the reserves and the fact that they need
more resources than they get.
That unanimity or consensus has never seemed able to provide the
impetus for any government that I have experienced so far to
provide the reserves with the kind of policy framework and the
resources they so clearly need. These are needed if they are to
fulfil both their traditional role and the expanded role which is
being increasingly required of them as a result of the cuts in
the regular forces and the increasing demand on Canada to
participate in various peacekeeping efforts.
It is regrettable the government decided to stand in the way of
this bill at least going to committee. These things could have
been considered in committee so that we might have before us some
legislation which required the federal government to make this
kind of leave available to its employees who are active in the
reserves and who wish to have this kind of training.
This would have benefited many people who serve in the many fine
regiments in Winnipeg, the reserve regiments, the Fort Garry
Horse, the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, the Royal Winnipeg
Rifles and of course those who serve in both the navy and the air
force reserves. There are a lot of Canadians in Winnipeg who are
active in the reserves. I am sure I speak on behalf of them when
I say that this bill should have been given more consideration
than it apparently has been given by the government.
I regret that the bill has not been made a votable item on the
floor of the House of Commons and sent to committee. Then we
could have had a recommendation come back to the House that would
have made it that much easier for the men and women in the
Canadian Armed Forces reserves to get the kind of training they
are entitled to.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague the hon.
member for Okanagan—Coquihalla not only for bringing this
private member's bill forward but also on his recent marriage.
Congratulations to him.
My friend and colleague has done a tremendous amount of work for
the military for quite some time. As our previous defence critic
he did an enormous amount of work bringing the plight of the
members in the armed forces to the forefront.
Bill C-232 which my friend from Okanagan—Coquihalla has brought
to the House is an effort to try to augment the ability of our
armed forces to continue to do the great job it does in
increasingly difficult times. As we in this House know, the
armed forces has had a very difficult time with cuts. As such
the number of people in our armed forces to carry out its duties
has diminished dramatically.
How do we deal with this? How do we ensure that we are going to
have enough people to carry out our duties and our international
obligations as a member of NATO and so many other groups?
Bill C-232 enables us to buttress up the number of people in our
armed forces through reserve members. The bill calls for a
number of people to be taken from the public sector up to two
months every year to carry out their training, their duties and
their activities as part of a Canadian reserve force that would
be integrated into our existing standing forces.
The bill challenges the government to show leadership. The
defence committee's 1994 white paper said very clearly to the
government that reservists are needed to buttress up the armed
forces. A way to do that is to provide opportunities for members
of the public to become reservists.
1135
So far the government has again failed to act on its promise. We
have roughly 25,000 members in the reserve force today. The
government has stated that it needs 30,000. Bill C-232 paves the
way for the government to do this. The bill allows people in the
public sector to take up to two months from their jobs to become
part of a regular standing unit as reservists.
This bill clearly allows the government to fulfil its duties and
obligations as part of the 1994 white paper. The bill tries to
stimulate the government into helping our beleaguered armed
forces personnel and units to have enough manpower to carry out
their duties.
Our armed forces personnel have had very difficult times over
the last few years. In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca they
have had extraordinarily difficult times with cuts that have been
made willingly and in the context of fiscal responsibility.
However, what the government is doing now is cutting even further
into the muscle and bone of our armed forces.
In the depot area of my riding which has been a model for
downsizing and streamlining, the government is going to put these
people's jobs up for tender. That is okay as long as the people
who have those jobs right now are able to compete for those jobs
in a fair and equitable fashion. The government is not giving
them that option.
The situation is awful. Many of these people have been working
in the armed forces for decades and for a wage that is below
welfare rates and they are actually being forced to leave their
jobs. These people who have been working below welfare rates are
working because they support the military, they support the armed
forces, they love their jobs and they love our country.
After all the downsizing which has taken place within their
groups and which has been done willingly and effectively, the
ministry of defence has now said it is going to take away their
opportunity to bid for their jobs. It is going to give the jobs
out to the private sector. This serious problem not only is
happening in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca but is
happening all across this country.
We are asking that the members in the armed forces today be
allowed to bid for their jobs in a fair and equitable fashion.
The minister should not throw the baby out with the bath water.
These people should not lose their jobs. We are going to lose
jobs and effectiveness in the military if these jobs are tendered
out to the private sector.
Our armed forces personnel are having a terrible time in terms
of their finances. Some are living below the poverty level.
There are some things the government can do immediately to
buttress up the situation in our armed forces.
First a solution could be to make the accommodation assistance
allowance non-taxable and payable to all people within our armed
forces. We should also enable the local commanders to have
greater flexibility in how to handle the resources on their base.
They are restricted right now by the Treasury Board. They could
become much more nimble and fiscally responsible and have more
money to help their people and would not be a burden on the
taxpayer if they were able to have more flexibility.
The government has also raised rents dramatically on members'
quarters while they have had a pay freeze for the last seven
years. One cannot on the one hand go to our military personnel
who are already being paid substandard wages and freeze their
wages, and on the other hand jack up their rents by as much as
10% to 12% a year.
What kind of message does that give to our armed forces? It
tells them that we do not care about them. That should never
happen to these hardworking men and women who put their lives on
the line to keep our country safe and to fulfil our international
obligations.
This bill and other suggestions need to be dealt with as soon as
possible.
1140
Our military personnel have not had the hearing they require
from this government. This government has failed our military
personnel repeatedly in the past. It has not given them the
tools to do their job. It has not given them the money to live
on. And this is in the face of men and women, Canadians, who are
giving their lives and working because they believe in the
institution of our Canadian military. Many come from generations
of military personnel and it is part of their heritage as it is
part of our heritage to have a fine fighting force.
The government needs to tell these people what their obligations
and duties are and where they fit in to the foreign policy
picture. Do not leave them hanging out in left field. Support
them. Give them the confidence and respect they have given this
country for decades and we will have an armed forces that will be
as good as it can be.
My colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla, a former member of the
armed forces, a man who knows what he is talking about, has put
forth Bill C-232. It is a good and sensible bill, a pragmatic
bill that is congruent with the government's obligation. In 1994
the government promised to build a strong reserve force that
would complement a shrinking armed forces personnel base. That
reserve force would enable us to fulfil our international
obligations in a way which is consistent with our objectives as a
country.
I ask that every member in this House, in particular government
members as they are are the linchpins in this, to look at the
armed forces and to think about supporting its members, many of
whom live in their ridings. Support Bill C-232 not only for our
armed forces personnel but also for Canada.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on this bill, the reserve force act. As I
see it this act was designed to facilitate service in the
reserves of Canada's armed forces.
I am in agreement with the idea behind this bill. This is a very
real issue of operating and training and recognizes that our
reservists are a crucial element of the Canadian forces. Canada
gets 24% of its soldiers from the reserve for only 3% of its
budget. More training means more expertise for our reservists
and more expertise means stronger Canadian forces.
I was in the reserves as a young man. I am likely in this
Chamber today as a direct result of lessons learned.
However as with much of what the Reform Party does in this
House, this bill has not been properly thought through. There
are some real dangers in this bill that have to be considered.
When I say dangers, I mean dangers to the Canadian forces.
I am quite sure the Reform Party has not thought of this but if
this bill were to pass, it would be a further excuse for this
Liberal government, a government with no respect for the Canadian
forces, to further cut regular forces. It would give the
government an opportunity to say “We have these well-trained
reservists. We are a peace loving nation. We have priorities,
we can now get rid of our regular force”.
I do not know about the Reform Party but my party refuses to
allow the Liberal Party any more excuses to cut the defence
department's budget. It has already been cut by 25% since the
Liberals took office. As we have seen in the defence committee,
this has had negative effects on the military's ability to
perform. It has also had a grave effect on the state of morale
in our forces. My party will not give the Liberal government any
more reason to further cut the defence budget.
I will talk briefly about the practical effects of this bill,
the effects it will have if implemented and the way it stands
now. I am thinking of a postmaster in one of my 39 small
municipalities. Could he or she leave for two months? Because
of this government's downsizing, there is not enough staff to
rotate. Will he leave and the mail will not be delivered for two
months, or does the Reform Party expect this Liberal government
to pay for a replacement for two months?
In my own riding I know of several government employees who are
officers in the reserve. One man is the commanding officer of
the Sherbrooke Hussars.
He is in charge of maintenance of all school buildings in the
municipality. In his job it would be nothing short of impossible
for him to leave for two months. Granted, he has worked out a
very good arrangement with the school board.
1145
I welcome the opportunity to meet the member for
Okanagan—Coquihalla to further discuss the bill and I look
forward to it coming up in committee.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
intentions of the bill seem to be quite reasonable. However, when
we look at the two aspects proposed, it might prove to be
counterproductive.
In Canada we have many reservists who have served their country
extremely well. For example, when the flood took place in
Manitoba, over 800 reservists participated. Over 4,000 reservists
participated in local communities in Quebec, Ontario and New
Brunswick and elsewhere across the country. The recent ice storm
that struck a good part of eastern Ontario as well as western
Quebec and the Montreal area saw many reservists helping out
local communities. Reservists have played an incredible
leadership role on the national scene. Many of our reservists
have participated in international peacekeeping missions around
the globe and have proved to be model citizens we are all proud
of.
The intent of the bill is to do two things. First, it will ask
the Government of Canada or any crown corporation to allow each
employee who is a reservists to have two months leave at most.
The second intention of the bill will also ask the private sector
to do the same. As a result of that, each reservists will have
two months leave to participate in reservist activities, whether
he or she works for the federal government or for the private
sector.
When we look at this in isolation it sounds reasonable. However,
many of the activities our reservists participate in will require
more than two months. In some cases reservists will have to be
on the job for 10 months or more. If there is an activity that
requires more than two months, reservists will not be able to
participate.
At the federal level we have a system which will allow reservists
to have 10 or more months leave when it is required. We have no
need to concern ourselves with government policy concerning
reservists. When it comes to the private sector, however, if we
pass this legislation in the House of Commons, provinces will
have to modify their labour codes to be consistent with what we
have passed here. If we tell an employer that by law he has to
allow a reservists leave for two months every year, we will
create an absolute reverse discrimination against reservists.
The employer may choose not to hire a reservist because he is
obliged by law to give the reservist two months leave per year in
order to participate in activities.
The intention of the legislation may be good, but the implementation
of it may prove to be counterproductive.
1150
We now have in place a better system. It leaves an arrangement
existing now with the liaison office to deal with reservists
entering into agreement with the private sector so that the
private sector can do it as a part of that agreement.
I am happy to report and to share with my colleagues that
presently there are approximately over 3,000 employers across
Canada who participate in the hiring of reservists and who work
with the military and the armed forces in order to make it easier
for those reservists to have a position that is flexible and a
position that will allow them to serve their country in times of
need here in Canada or outside the country.
We may as well not have any legislation that is not consistent
and that does not provide the reservists with a better
opportunity.
I want to congratulate my colleague for thinking about the
importance of making the job of reservists easier and for helping
them to participate. But these reservists would be better off
with what we have now than to move to the new proposal.
Now over 25% of our military deployment in Canada are considered
reservists. They are doing an outstanding job for the country.
Frankly, if we were to move with some sort of proposal, it would
have to prove to be better than what we have. To that extent, I
would be inclined not to support those two amendments in the
legislation as proposed by my colleague.
I want to go on record once again on behalf of my constituents
in Ottawa Centre and many of the people who live in eastern
Ontario in passing along our great appreciation and thanks to not
only the reservists who worked so diligently during the recent
crisis in eastern Ontario and across Quebec and in the Atlantic
provinces but to the military as a whole.
Frankly, quite often we forget to look in the mirror to see who
we are and to realize that in fact we have some of the finest
military forces in the world, that we are extremely proud of what
they have done not only here in Canada but across the world.
They are model citizens. They have served their countries
greatly, reservists included. They have participated in missions
and they were model citizens. They have done great service to
their country.
I have many reservists in my constituency in Ottawa Centre. I
want to congratulate them too. I have many young Canadians who
want to be part of that wonderful service and also I want to tell
them that this is a great service to their country, go for it.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this
debate.
I looked at the member's proposals very carefully. I have a
very genuine concern that I hope he will address in his summing
up remarks.
What Bill C-232 does, as I read it, is make it a right for a
reservist to have a two month leave of absence annually from the
civil service. This is where my concern is.
When we give people a certain right to something, then it
changes the entire character of that institution.
My concern is that if the reserve organization fills its
complement of soldiers and these soldiers all have a right to a
two month leave of absence from their employer, I presume with
pay, then there might be a situation where a poorer quality of
reservists may stay in the reserve forces. He or she would be
guaranteed.
He or she does not have to make a sacrifice to stay in the forces
because of the mandatory two week leave of absence they get for
drilling or service in the militia.
1155
I think it is very dangerous. As I read it, one of the reasons
why our reservists have consistently proven to be such fine
soldiers wherever they have served is there has been a screening
of them as volunteers. They have had to make sacrifices usually
in order to belong to the reserve forces. That generally
elevates the quality of soldier who serves overseas. I would be
afraid that with making mandatory leave would erode the quality
of soldier we would have staying in the reserve.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I would like to thank all members who participated in this debate
on Bill C-232, an act to enhance the participation of the
Canadian Armed Forces reserve.
In particular I would like to thank the government members for
coming here with the notes of deputy ministers of various
departments telling us why the federal government should not
enhance or encourage members of the federal government to
participate in the reserve force. This is one of the problems.
I think one of the government members who spoke here today
basically has talked to bureaucrats and has talked to deputy
ministers but did not get into the grassroots, did not talk with
the reservists themselves.
I am very proud to stand in this House and say that I served
five years in the regular force and five years in the reserve
force of the Canadian Armed Forces. These problems that this
bill will address are real. These problems are becoming more and
more evident with the policies of this government. In 1993 when
this government took over in its white paper it reduced the
regular force to some 60,000. This government was on track to
reserve the reserve force. All the while our international
commitments and commitments domestically are increasing.
The arguments the government put up today are not reasonable.
The argument stating this would not allow people in the reserve
to go out on UN peacekeeping missions is pure balderdash. This
is basically saying that the reservists are unable to get the
training to even apply for that international commitment at this
point because the federal government is thwarting their ability
to apply for those courses. The government is saying no and if it
does say, they have to use their own personal leave.
It does not prevent them from applying for a peacekeeping
mission for 10 to 12 months. Granted, other arrangements would
have to be made with an employer, because this is not job
protection legislation. This is only to ensure they get their
training to enable them to apply for other missions, to serve our
country.
This bill will address the enhancement of the Canadian Armed
Forces to more than just unemployed people and students. It will
open the forces up to a wide variety of people with different
skills that will bring a new meaning to the term citizen soldier.
This will bring new skills and abilities and it will also
address another very important issue in the white paper of 1994
by this Liberal government, a mobilization plan.
The minister of the day outlined a mobilization plan with four
strategic ways to expand our force if needed. None of those
commitments have been met. This bill addresses it because
whatever mobilization plan we have in this country, we will
require trained and capable armed forces personnel and they will
have to be made up partly with reservists.
No, this bill does not discriminate against reservists. There
are discrimination laws in this country. A pregnant woman cannot
be discriminated against, and neither can a reservist. That is
a basic principle in this country.
Those arguments that have been put forward have blinders on to
the facts. We have a Canadian Armed Forces that is declining in
numbers, a reserve force that needs training and training time.
1200
We have international and domestic commitments that are
increasing on a yearly basis, almost on a daily basis, yet this
Liberal government has failed to do anything for those people and
for the state of the Canadian Armed Forces.
In closing, with those arguments and because we have heard today
in this debate that we have support in principle from the
Conservative Party, we have support from the Reform Party, we
have support in principle from the New Democratic Party and, by
the sound of the Liberal speakers and the notes they got from
their bureaucrats to argue against this bill, there was even a
hint of support in principle from those people, I would say, for
goodness sake, let us not stand in the way of progress. Let us
move this bill to the next level, send it to committee and get
all of these details ironed out there.
I would therefore move again that Bill C-232 be deemed votable
by the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable
motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-28, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act,
the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age
Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate
Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western
Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the
Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
[Translation]
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There are three motions in
amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-28.
[English]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-28 be amended, in Clause 178, by replacing lines 35
to 40 on page 315 with the following:
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to debate
Bill C-28, and in particular Motion No. 1
I should start by saying that I object to this bill on three
grounds primarily.
1205
First, it is a bill that discusses income tax without providing
any tax relief for Canadians. Second, it is a bill that talks
about income tax but does not provide people with a
simplification of the tax codes, something that has become very
confusing for many people. Finally, it is a bill that really
typifies this government's aimless approach to dealing with the
problems of the nation. It is a bill that really does major on
the minors.
Specifically, Madam Speaker, let me speak to the motion that you
have just read. This motion attempts to roll back what I believe
is a real attack on the sovereignty of other levels of government
by the federal government. Essentially what the government is
proposing to do is to circumscribe the ability of municipalities
to raise revenues for their constituents, for the people of their
cities, villages and towns, through subsidiary corporations.
There are many such organizations like that in Canada today.
I want to explain to the House and to people who are watching
this via television why it is really important that
municipalities continue to have the ability to raise these
revenues without having them taxed by the federal government.
First, I want to point out that it was the federal government,
going back to the 1993 election, which made a solemn commitment
that it would not cut transfer payments to the provinces. During
the leaders' debate we know that our current Prime Minister, when
asked about cutting federal transfer payments for health care,
said “I said yesterday, replying to Mr. Bouchard, that I promise
they will not go down and I hope that we will be able to increase
them”. The rest is history.
We know that the Prime Minister did not meet his commitment. He
did not come anywhere close. In fact he cut transfer payments in
total by about $6 billion. The result was that the provinces had
$6 billion less money for health care and higher education.
What did they do? They had to find some way to save money as
well, so they started to make cuts. One of the areas that was
hit were the municipalities. Municipalities were hit and were
unable, in many cases, to provide some of the services that they
typically had been providing. At the same time the government
was expecting them to pick up even more services. Traditional
services which they used to fund, they were unable to fund. At
the same time provincial governments were asking them to pick up
new services. In fact the federal government was doing the same
thing.
We now see in this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-28,
the federal government proposing to tax another level of
government, something which I think is wrong. I think it is
incorrect, particularly when this level of government, which is
the level of government closest to the people, the one that is
best able to judge, the level of government that does the best
job of delivering services, is being asked to pick up more of the
load. It is wrong for the federal government to propose to take
away revenues that they earn through their subsidiaries in their
own municipalities. It is absolutely wrong, but that is
precisely what the government is proposing to do.
That is not the end of it. The final point, and maybe the most
important point, is that these taxes inevitably always are passed
on to the consumer. We know that. Every member in this House
knows it. We know that when corporations are taxed, those
corporations pass taxes on to the consumer. That is precisely
what will happen this time as well.
We know that this government has a penchant for raising taxes.
We know that we have the highest personal income taxes in the G-7
already. They are 56% higher than the G-7 average. We know that
if we were to be competitive with the United States in terms of
tax levels we would have to have a tax cut in this country of
over $35 billion.
I know my colleagues across the way will say that we must take
into account what happened in the last budget, which reduced
taxes by partially eliminating the 3% surtax. Indeed it did.
But what they did not tell us in the budget is that they just
finished increasing payroll taxes through the Canada pension plan
premiums which people have to pay.
1210
In fact, that tax increase will be the largest tax increase in
Canadian history.
What the government does not talk about is the phenomenon of
bracket creep, an inflation tax that happens every year. This
year alone bracket creep will more than wipe out any tax relief
that the government is proposing to give us through its reduction
in the surtax. Eight hundred and eighty million dollars is what
the government surtax would give Canadians in tax relief. On the
other hand, bracket creep would take $1 billion out of their
pockets. Canadians, just on that level alone, are coming out as
net losers.
We say to our friends in the government that increasing taxes is
not a way to help anybody. When are they going to learn? When
are they going to figure that out? We have had 107 tax increases
since the Tories and the Liberals came to power. We have
staggering levels of taxation.
At the Liberal convention this weekend we heard Liberals saying
that we must have tax relief. When is the government over there
going to wake up and figure out that it is time for Canadians to
have some tax relief? I am sick to death of seeing the
government come up with new and creative ways to tax Canadians.
That is essentially what it has done with this provision in Bill
C-28. This is yet another sneaky, back door way of increasing
taxes.
I hope my colleagues around the House, who are concerned about
the government's trampling on other jurisdictions, understand
that what the government is essentially doing is proposing to tax
another level of government, proposing to invade its jurisdiction
and to invade its sovereignty. That is wrong and it is
unproductive. It does not help when we are trying to build and
unite a nation. However, that is precisely what the government
is doing.
I sat on the finance committee when this bill made its way
through Parliament in the last Parliament. We heard a
representative from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities who
spoke against this particular provision because they could see
what was going to happen. The government is again coming up with
a new way to rip money out of taxpayers' pockets. It is wrong.
We need to stand up against this sort of creeping taxation that
the government has relied on to suck ever more money out of
taxpayers' pockets.
I was looking through some documents a few minutes ago and noted
that between 1993 and, according to the government's own
projections, 1999 we will have seen federal income tax revenues
rise by over 40%.
My friends will say that was growth in the economy. Give me a
break. Growth in the economy would not even be half of that. It
would not even come close to accounting for that massive increase
in income taxes. This is an increase of over $20 million. It is
a 40% increase. Where did that come from? It came from these
sorts of sneaky, back door taxes that this government has used 36
times in order to get more money out of the pockets of Canadians.
It is no wonder we had people standing up at the Liberal
convention chiding the government and telling it we need to have
lower taxes in this country.
I will simply conclude by saying to my friends across the way
and to my colleagues around the House that this is an important
issue for municipalities. They are already struggling to provide
services that used to be provided by other levels of government.
They are struggling to provide basic infrastructure for their
constituents. Let us not approve this and further circumscribe
the ability of municipalities to provide those services.
Let us go the other way. Let us ensure that the government
starts to fulfil some of its promises that it made in previous
elections to provide greater transfers to other levels of
government which do a far better job of delivering services than
a big, fat, bloated central government in Ottawa. Let us hold
this government to those promises.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I sat here and listened to
the intervention from the member for Medicine Hat, I could not
help but come up with a one-word description and that is
hypocrisy.
1215
I cannot believe he actually stood up and talked about the fact
that he wanted to now support infrastructure at the local level
when it was the Reform Party that stood up in this House day
after day saying the federal government should not put forward an
infrastructure program for the municipalities that was partnered
by the federal level, the provincial level and the local level.
Those projects that took place at the local level took place
because the local municipalities provided input and direction as
to where the money should flow, bottom up.
As he stood there I was amazed that he actually had the nerve to
talk about the bill doing nothing more than providing tax
increases. What about the $1.5 billion increase in transfer
payment going to health, going to a different level of
government? What they do not understand is that if you remove
something it is a decrease. If you put something back it is in
fact an increase in the eyes of those who are receiving it.
Then he goes on to talk about tax increases and that is
what this is all about. Then he made reference to the Canada
pension plan. I think he only once had a point to make with
respect to the motion. Other than that he talked about the
broader issue. He brought up CPP so I thought it would be
important to comment on that. And he made reference to the fact
that CPP was a tax increase.
Once again I just want to be perfectly clear, and I will speak
slowly so the member can understand, that a tax increase occurs
when in effect revenues flow to the consolidated account, to
government revenue. CPP premiums flow to a separate CPP fund and
that fund will be managed to provide rates of return in the best
interests of Canadians.
I know they have great difficulty understanding that. Let us
talk about another, what they often refer to as a payroll tax,
the employment insurance premiums. Let us talk about the $7
billion reduction which has taken place since we came into
office.
There are a number of points I find quite surprising that the
hon. member would make and then go on to defend in this motion
and this intervention. Let us talk about the motion for one
moment.
We now have Reformers saying they want the municipalities to
compete with the private sector. That is essentially what they
are saying. They are saying let us take taxes that are collected
by the municipality, collected in the form of property taxes, and
set up a corporation which will compete with other private sector
organizations. Now they want municipalities to compete in
private business. They stand up here and argue that they are the
big defenders of businesses. Now they want municipalities to
actually go out and compete with those corporations.
What in fact the government is doing with Bill C-28 is ensuring
there is a level of service provided to local taxpayers by
municipalities while at the same time allowing those taxpayers in
the municipality to engage in activities outside their specific
municipalities while at the same time ensuring that private
business is allowed to compete on a level playing field.
The 10% factor came into play. If 10% of a municipality's
income is derived from activities outside its jurisdiction, it
remains tax exempt. If its income is derived by more than 10%
outside its jurisdiction, the municipality loses the tax exempt
status.
I can give an example of where one municipality is providing
hydro to another municipality through an intergovernmental
agreement. The municipality providing the hydro will still
remain tax exempt. We are saying in an activity where a
municipality is deriving income greater than 10% perhaps as a
result of these intergovernmental activities it should not lose
that tax exempt status because it is still providing a service to
municipalities.
We can talk about areas where the government did receive
interventions along those lines and I point to the examples of
Edmonton and Calgary where those municipalities came forward and
provided that scenario. The government responded by allowing
them to maintain that tax exempt status.
1220
The Department of Finance has received a number of
interventions. One of the amendments passed in committee of
which the hon. member is a member was to provide for a deferral
of one year from 1998 to 1999 of the application of the proposed
amendments to tax treatments of municipal corporations. This
will allow for a detailed review of all the comments and
recommendations forwarded to the government's attention on this
issue.
The government's intent is not, as the opposition party
attempted to paint, to tax another level of government. What is
intended is to provide a fair and equitable way for
municipalities to maintain their tax exempt status while
providing services to their local municipality and their local
residents while at the same time ensuring that private businesses
and Canadians who are involved in businesses are able to compete
on a fair and equitable basis.
The Reform Party puts forward this motion that would allow a
municipality to enter any jurisdiction and compete by setting up
a corporation with taxpayer dollars collected through property
taxes and compete with other private sector organizations. It is
absolutely incredible that it would make that type of
recommendation.
We are not competing with the private sector. The role of the
private sector is very clear. Businesses should be allowed to
compete among themselves and should not use taxpayer dollars in
the form of local municipal corporations, as the Reform Party is
suggesting, to compete with. It is absolutely incredible the
Reform Party would actually say that.
On a more technical note, the motion is deficient in that while
it intends to remove the 10% income test in paragraph
149.1(d)(5), it leaves in that paragraph the reference to
subsection 1.2 which becomes meaningless in the absence of the
10% income test. The actual motion presented to this House does
not reflect what I believe the Reform Party was intending to do
to begin with.
The motion as it is presently put forward is flawed. The basis
on which the hon. member makes the argument that this government
is intending to tax another level of government by putting
forward this motion is completely false. Reformers go on to
argue that the purpose of this federal government is to put in
place tax increases to Canadians, which is completely incorrect.
The budget provided targeted tax relief and reinvestment not
only in transfers to the provinces but directly to Canadian
students in allowing them to access education and compete in the
global economy.
The bill is providing a framework for municipalities to provide
services to their local communities in an effective, tax exempt
manner. When those municipalities decide they want to derive
more than 10% of their income from their activities outside their
local jurisdiction they will be treated just like any private
business and they will be taxed.
Put in that context to any councillor at the local level it
would be a surprise if they stood in opposition to this. The
government has already taken measures to respond to continued
interventions and we will do so over the next coming year.
1225
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
speak to the Reform motion. The arguments of the hon. member
from the Reform Party have nothing to do with the motion.
I would however like to comment on the issue of municipalities.
I believe the government does not understand the concept of
municipalities either. Having been a mayor for over ten years, I
will point out certain facts. Municipalities change; some
decide to amalgamate while others decide to work together.
So, what we are saying—and this will be my question for the
government—is that, when partners sign an agreement, an
intergovernmental agreement between two municipalities, the 10%
will not apply. I think it is important because, as we are
increasingly seeing it in Quebec, the mixed enterprises are
forming partnerships that can go as far as being a 50-50 split
between a municipality and the private sector.
I do not think the government is necessarily familiar with the
issue of municipalities locally. So I do have a question.
Could the government perhaps enlighten us as to what would happen
if the 10% in income from services outside the geographic limits
and the jurisdiction of municipalities were exceeded but through
an agreement with other municipalities. The government cited the
example of providing hydro. Does the 10% not apply in such a
case?
Will the tax exemption be maintained? It is not clear. It is not
clear in the request made by the Reformers, nor is it on the
government side.
Close attention will have to be paid to the matter of the 90%.
As I said earlier, in more and more associations, groups and
mixed companies, there is much stronger participation from the
private sector. This is a fact.
Another comment I will make—and I must say that we will not be
able to support the Reform motion—is that the government ought
to be careful because dealing with federal and municipal taxes is
one thing, but interfering in a municipal jurisdiction is
something else.
Under the Canadian Constitution, municipalities are delegate
governments controlled by the provinces.
They are not governments recognized under the Constitution Act,
1867 as the federal and provincial governments are. They are
delegate governments. We could go as far as saying there could be
a single municipality per province.
I would like to caution both my colleagues in opposition and on
the government side to be careful when they talk about any
legislation dealing with municipalities. Municipalities are
facing deficits as well because, let us not forget that, when the
federal government cuts assistance to the provinces, the
provinces make a stink. When in turn the provinces make cuts,
supposedly in response to federal cuts, the municipalities and
school boards are left holding the bag. Municipalities are
currently confronted to a major challenge.
I think we should pay attention to this. Unfortunately, in Bill
C-28, the government lost track of daily realities.
It forgot to mention that any official agreement between
municipal governments, even one exceeding 10%, may be exempt from
tax.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will address the Reform suggestion that municipalities should
somehow be given special status or be granted the ability to go
outside of their own jurisdictions or responsibilities. We must
first understand that municipal governments are put in place
primarily to serve constituents within their own boundaries.
There is no question they are under a lot of stress.
1230
I have served some 10 years on municipal council. In fact my
wife currently sits as a member of Mississauga and Peel regional
council. I am fairly close to what is going on at the municipal
level.
I believe that what municipalities want more than anything from
senior levels of government, whether it is the provincial or the
federal government, are some long term visions, some long term
planning. What they have experienced particularly in recent years
has been almost knee jerk. All senior levels of government in
attempting to balance their books are shifting the burden and the
responsibility.
Municipalities are not allowed to run a deficit. It is an
interesting concept, one which perhaps we should be looking at at
this level of government. In fact we should be legislating it.
We would agree with members opposite on a few of those issues. I
think it has merit and makes sense at least within the mandate of
a government to take a look at ensuring that we balance our
books.
Municipalities are allowed to carry a certain amount of debt.
They can carry up to what is referred to as 25% of their own in
kind revenue. In kind revenue could include everything from
taxes, to fees, to levies, to special agreements, whatever could
be cash in lieu.
In the case of my municipality we are fortunate in many ways to
have Pearson International Airport within the boundaries of the
city of Mississauga. Every time members of this place land at
Pearson, they land in Hazel McCallion country. We were going to
call it McCallion international airport but that never got off
the ground.
The point is that the federal government pays a substantial
amount in the form of cash in lieu of taxation because the
federal government does not pay property tax, nor does the
province. We pay a cash in lieu of taxation to the city of
Mississauga as a result of the facility that we all use, known as
Pearson International Airport. We pay a cash in lieu amount
which is quite substantial. When you combine all the revenue from
the taxes that are derived from all the businesses at Pearson
International Airport, the city would benefit from federal cash
transfers to the tune of $40 million to $45 million a year,
including the airport cash in lieu, the post office cash in lieu
and the taxes that are paid by the businesses that exist within
the structure of Pearson International Airport.
The municipality has a very important relationship with the
federal government. There would also be a number of instances
where the province would pay cash in lieu to the municipality.
There is a clear relationship between the federal government,
the provincial government and the municipalities. In fact, the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario, on which I served as a
board member for three years, has called upon a new definition
with the province and the federal government to recognize the
role of the municipal government in Confederation. I think that
makes sense as well.
We tend to guard our territories a little bit in a parochial
sense, or as my friend Jim Bradley would say, a “pariochal”
sense. We get a little bit excited about this stuff. At the end
of the day and as I hear members opposite say on a regular basis,
there is only one taxpayer and clearly that is true. We should
be trying to establish better relationships with our municipal
colleagues and to put in place clear definitions and clear lines
of authority.
I have talked about the parochial issues that surround municipal
government. We can see it any day in my community. There are
fights going on between Mel Lastman and Hazel McCallion, or Peter
Robertson and somebody else. There are disagreements that go on.
At the end of the day the mayors and the municipal councillors
are elected to fight for the people within their own
jurisdictions, within their own boundaries.
A councillor may be elected on a ward system. A mayor is
elected at large. In some communities both are elected at large.
I think Guelph elects its council at large. Members have seen
some of the ads. The city of Vaughan ran some ads which caused
consternation.
It called itself the city above Toronto and everything which that
implies, that life is better and so on. Vaughan is a beautiful
community, no question.
1235
If we were to establish tax rules and grant exemptions as the
Reform members are looking at, in essence we would pit municipal
politician against municipal politician. We would pit community
against community.
Something that has always been avoided at the municipal level is
this concept of bonusing. It is something we see in the United
States. I know many of the ideas Reform puts forward do indeed
come from south of the border. But this is one that would cause
great disruption in the existing relationship between
municipalities.
One of the things that I think has been very beneficial in the
GTA has been the establishment of the mayors and chairs
committee, founded by my mayor but participated in by all mayors
across the GTA. The committee meets on a regular basis.
From time to time we see some acrimony. The new mayor from mega
Toronto will walk in with an entourage of press and cameras and
so on behind him and everyone kind of gets their back up. He
will stay for a little while and then he will get up and leave
after they have had a bit of a fight. I have also experienced the
other side. The other side is that these politicians and their
staff tend to roll up their sleeves on a regular basis and they
try to work co-operatively to the benefit of the GTA.
The principle is that we want to attract business, tourists,
conferences, conventions from all over the world into the GTA.
Once they land at the McCallion international airport they can
then decide where exactly it is they would like to locate their
new plant.
In many cases the decisions are based on something as simple and
yet as profound as the quality of the schools in a community.
When those businesses locate they want to know that when they
move their families in from Asia, Europe, the United States or
wherever it is, that they are going to be able to enrol their
children in good quality safe environments for them to go to
school both at the elementary and secondary levels. They look at
those kinds of minute details when locating here.
If we were to set up a system where we would encourage
municipalities to start offering perks or bonuses to try to
generate revenue or to try to beat out the guy next door to them
to try to attract that business instead of working
co-operatively, it is my submission that we would be establishing
a system that would not work to the benefit of the people who
live in those communities. At the end of the day in municipal
government we all have to try to get along.
I would submit in closing that what the Reform Party and all of
us here should be thinking about are ways that we can say to
those municipalities “Here is some long term planning, here are
some goals, here is guaranteed funding”, something they would
love from provincial governments.
Channelling our energy in that direction will be much more
constructive than trying to create some form of special status
that will lead to increased competition in an area where a
municipal government should not be trying to take business away
from one of its colleagues.
I do not support Reform's motion in this regard.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was delighted to hear the comments of the hon. member for
Mississauga West.
The member referred to the Hazel McCallion international
airport. Perhaps it should be called the Liberal boondoggle
international airport after this government has wasted $200
million in the botched Pearson contract buyout. It is something
for the member to stand in his place and remind Canadians, like
rubbing salt in the wounds, about what a terrible, atrocious job
he and this government did in reversing the contract rights of
people who had a vested interest in that airport which cost
taxpayers over $200 million.
The member spoke as well about the need for the federal
government and all levels of government to co-operate with the
municipalities. He said why can we all not just get along. We
need clear rules and guidelines so the municipalities know
exactly what the relationship is with the federal government.
1240
It is very interesting because the member's idea of a
co-operative relationship with the municipalities is to pass Bill
C-28 without their support, to impose a tax on the businesses
owned by municipalities, on their utility companies. That is his
idea of a co-operative relationship. That is the government's
idea of a co-operative relationship with taxpayers. The federal
government says “We will co-operate in taking money out of your
wallet”. That is its idea of co-operation. I call it a tax
grab.
What the hon. member seeks to do by supporting this bill and
opposing our motion is to impose a tax on profitable corporations
owned by municipal governments. These are important revenues to
many municipalities. Many municipalities rely on the revenues
they generate from these corporations. They turn those revenues
back into the corporations to reinvest in the utility
infrastructures of their cities, towns and villages. Others rely
on it to help supplement their general revenues.
Make no mistake about it. If we do not support Motion No. 1 on
Bill C-28 we will in effect be deciding to raise property taxes
indirectly because there will be less revenues coming into
municipal coffers. We will also be putting municipal politicians
who have been dealing with downloading from the senior levels of
government for the past decade in the very difficult position of
trying to decide which areas of their utility infrastructure they
can cut back on. That is not good.
We just went through the terrible experience of the ice storm in
southern Quebec and eastern Ontario. Tens of thousands of
Canadians are still recovering from the terrible consequences of
that devastating natural disaster. If we learned one thing it is
the need for all levels of government to be absolutely focused
and dedicated on maintaining a top rate utility infrastructure
that can defeat the attacks made on it by natural disasters like
the ice storm. We need municipal utility companies.
It is interesting that on the island of Montreal, I understand
that while most of Montreal was blacked out at the height of the
ice storm, the municipality of Westmount was still lit up. Why?
Because it has its own locally managed and owned utility company
with an infrastructure that is so sophisticated it withstood the
collapse of the power network.
By imposing a tax on that kind of utility company this
government would undermine the ability of municipalities like
Westmount to maintain a power infrastructure which can withstand
some of the challenges it needs to face. That is one of the
reasons we have proposed this motion which would prohibit the
imposition of this tax on subsidiary corporations owned by
Canadian municipalities.
It is really another back door tax grab. This Liberal government
is very artful when it comes to presenting tax increases as mere
housekeeping amendments. That is why it claims it has not raised
taxes in the past five years since it was elected in 1993. In
fact any close study of the books will conclude that the
government has raised taxes at least 37 times, not including the
most recent federal government budget. It is little amendments
like this one which, albeit indirectly and almost invisibly, end
up sucking more out of the pockets of local taxpayers.
It is true that there is only one taxpayer. The hon. Minister
of Finance has said that on many occasions. If it is true, as
politicians repeat it all the time, then why do we not respect
that basic truth of political reality? Why does the federal
government jemmy around with the rules of taxation of businesses
owned by municipalities and in effect impose a higher tax on
local taxpayers?
It is not Hazel McCallion or Mel Lastman or Jean Doré or Pierre
Bourque; it is not the mayors who own these corporations.
It is local taxpayers who own these corporations. They belong to
them. By taxing money away from the profitable utility
corporations they own we are imposing a tax on them.
1245
This reminds me of a tax change the government made in the last
session, a change to the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer
Act, PUITTA, a long, technical name. Precisely for that reason
the government thought it could make a significant change to
Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act that nobody would
notice.
Of course Reformers noticed. We opposed this enormous tax grab
as vigorously as we could. The government still passed it. It
said that privately owned utilities, private sector utilities,
would no longer be able to compete on a level playing field with
their counterparts in the public sector.
In Alberta, the province I represent, we have a vigorous private
sector economy. We believe in something the government does not
understand very well called free enterprise. We believe that
privately owned, privately managed businesses in the private
sector are ten times out of ten more productive and more
efficient in servicing consumers than crown corporations. That is
why Albertans have maintained an infrastructure of private
utilities.
It just so happens that publicly owned utilities like Ontario
Hydro and Hydro Quebec do not have to pay income tax or corporate
tax on their profits. I do not quarrel with that. Perhaps it is
a sensible policy. Until 1996 the federal government provided a
rebate to consumers of private utilities because private
utilities had to pay those taxes.
In effect this rebate levelled the playing field so that an
elderly lady paying for her heating bill in southwest Edmonton
would not have to pay the portion that was going into the tax
coffers of the federal government. That is what PUITTA did. It
helped that woman and millions of other consumers of private
utility services. It levelled the playing field so that they
were not paying more than their counterparts in Ontario or Quebec
who were taking advantage of utility services provided by public
crown corporations.
The government said to Alberta and private utility consumers
that it was sorry they did not count as much as the people being
serviced by crown corporation utility providers. It made a
technical change in the tax act like the one in Bill C-28. It
made a technical change, a housekeeping amendment, that most
people did not notice. The government called it a spending cut
and generated a few hundred million dollars in new revenue out of
the pockets of hard pressed taxpayers whose utility bills
principally in the province of Alberta went up.
That is what the change to PUITTA did. It is the same kind of
back door, sneaky tax increase we find in Bill C-28, which we in
the official opposition are trying to rectify through this
motion.
In closing, my party and I believe in a principle known as
subsidiary, a principle of political theory which suggests—and I
believe it is a self-evident truth—that the lowest level of
government, the level of government closest to people is the best
level of government to serve them. We need to respect that
level of government, not to treat it in the backhanded manner the
bill seeks to do. We say to municipal politicians and property
taxpayers that we want to avoid this back door tax increase. That
is why we seek support for Motion No. 1.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak. After the fine speech by my colleague I
feel like saying amen and sitting down, but I will not.
I would like to take a little different angle on some of the
problems with Bill C-28. As has already been noted, it is
another tinkering bill. People on that side of the House seem
impressed that they have a 460 page book in both official
languages which they can add to the long chain of books that
drags and tugs behind business people, entrepreneurs and families
as they try to make their way in the world. It hangs behind them
like the dead weight it is. The bill will not improve the
situation. It is tinkering that does not get to the real nub of
the problem that tax rates are too high.
The bill does nothing to address that. The amendment put forward
by the Reform Party is at least an attempt by the official
opposition to rectify a systemic problem on for members on that
side of the House. They have never met a tax they did not like.
1250
I would like to look at the taxation problems, especially in the
context of British Columbia, and to put forward some Reform Party
ideas to stimulate growth, especially in British Columbia where
we are at the precipice, it seems, of being in a very serious
financial situation.
I will quickly give some background. British Columbia was the
only province in Canada last year to post a net loss in jobs. The
situation is very serious. The unemployment rate right now in
rural areas is pushing 13%. The idea that British Columbia can
be taxed and milked and the rewards of that sent off to Ottawa to
be distributed by the good graces of those across the way is not
going over very well in British Columbia right now. We feel we
need to hang on to as many dollars as we can in our own province.
In February the jobless rate in B.C. hit a four year high.
Experts predict B.C. will lose even more jobs this year. The TD
Bank predicts economic growth of .5%, virtually stagnant growth.
In essence British Columbia is virtually in a recession.
Consumer and business confidence is down. The forestry industry
is on the ropes. The industry that I made my living in for over
20 years is now virtually shut down in a good part of the
province. I will not blame all the woes of the forestry industry
on the federal Liberals. However it is enough to say that B.C.
is in bad shape economically for a variety of reasons.
How have the Liberal tax policies contributed? In British
Columbia's case there are some specifics that are only applicable
to British Columbia. The Asian economic flu, as they call it,
affected that province worse than others. High taxes are
stunting growth. There is only one set of taxpayers. Certainly
the NDP provincial government of British Columbia is partially
responsible for the highest marginal tax rates in North America
at 54%. It is very much a disincentive to entrepreneurship and
investing.
The federal Liberals are not without fault. Since 1993 the
Liberals have raised taxes 37 times in one way or another by
administrative tinkering as in this bill or as in the PUITTA case
mentioned earlier, by bracket creep, and by hidden tariffs and
hidden user fees. It all adds up to more disincentive for people
in British Columbia to invest and to take risks with their
capital.
According to the Fraser Institute, in 1997 the average British
Columbia family spent $28,400 in taxes. The KPMG management
consulting study suggested what the federal government could do
to help. It appears that British Columbia has been shortchanged
by $1.3 billion through federal government procurement policies.
Contrary to what the Minister of Finance said in our province
last week, the Liberals have to take at least some of the blame
for the economic downturn in British Columbia.
People say that it was kind of a cold winter here. I do not
know if that is true, but they did say it was interesting the
finance minister finally had his hands in his own pockets for a
change. In British Columbia he still has his hands in our
pockets.
What does the bill do? Does it lower taxes to build consumer
confidence and attract investment across Canada and in British
Columbia? No, it does not. The government continues to collect
billions and billions of dollars more each year and to offer us
small amounts of what it calls tax relief by reducing a surtax on
the income tax and a few other tinkerings. It takes tens of
billions of dollars more in increased income. It is no wonder
British Columbia finds itself on the economic mat with its back
to the floor.
The CPP increases passed by the Liberal government were rammed
through by using time allocation and by refusing to allow lengthy
debate in the House.
An Informetrica report indicates that in British Columbia alone
9,100 jobs will be lost with the CPP tax increases alone.
1255
The government continues to tax and continues to spend. Instead
of leaving money in the hands of business people, homemakers and
families and allowing them to spend it as they see fit, the
government takes their money, brings it to Ottawa, deducts 50%
for handling and gives it back in services never asked for or
programs that do not actually help the economy.
I do not know how much longer the government thinks British
Columbians can handle this kind of abuse. It cannot be for much
longer because we are already stagnant. We are already facing a
recession. There is no hope in sight with the Liberal government
tax policies.
What would Reform do? Instead of spending the fiscal dividend
before allocating it in the budget, Reform would invest 50% of
budgetary surpluses on lowering taxes. Our initial target is to
reduce taxes to save the average family over $2,000 by the year
2001. That would mean $2,000 every year to do with as a family
would see fit. Let us imagine what that would do to the local
economy of towns like Abbotsford and Chilliwack that I represent
with 150,000 people or maybe 60,000 or 70,000 families. Let us
imagine the impact that much money would have on the local
economy.
The Reform Party would achieve these targeted reductions in
taxes by reducing the GST and by increasing the basic personal
deduction to $7,900. We would reduce capital gains tax, another
job killer the Liberal government seems to think is a money milk
cow. The Reform Party would reduce job killing payroll taxes
paid by employers and extend the child care expense credit to all
parents whether they raise their children at home or send them to
day care.
In our opinion they need help with their finances and more of
the money left in their hands. The government should not say
they can only have the money if they send their children to day
care. The government should be saying that it wants to help them
raise their families and leave more money with them. The
government should not choose the type of child care they use. It
should allow them to make the decision. The Reform Party thinks
that parents or families can make that decision better than the
government can.
Overall our measures would focus $2.5 billion in tax relief for
British Columbians. I cannot tell how desperately tax relief is
needed. We need some way of infusing more money into the local
economy in British Columbia and not sending it to Ottawa where it
is spent on programs, often programs that we never asked for and
do not do any good as we try to build our economy back up.
The Reform Party believes tax reductions would give consumers
and business people confidence again that when they invest money
or take a risk they can get ahead. We believe tax reductions
would attract investment and immigrants to stay in our province
with their money, with their investments, to build the province
and to stay where tax rates are reasonable instead of where the
tax rates are confiscating too much of the wealth. The Reform
Party believes that tax reductions would create jobs.
The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of
the cruelest delusions that has ever befuddled the human mind. I
agree. Prosperity is not created in a country by taxing it into
prosperity. It is not possible. It has been tried over the last
couple of decades. It is time for another tack, especially in
British Columbia where tax relief could be offered to the people
who need it most: the entrepreneurs, the families and the people
who live in a province that is on the edge of a serious
recession.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, as the
last speaker pointed out, tax relief certainly is something we
hear no matter where we go in the country.
The budget tells us the government's agenda. As we travel
around our constituencies the people tell us their concern is for
debt and tax relief. They tell us to stop spending. It appears
the government has chosen to go in exactly the opposite
direction.
The biggest problem facing the country today is debt and
interest payments. The bill does nothing to address them or any
type of tax relief for the very tired taxpayer.
1300
Bill C-28 attempts to make some cosmetic changes but as usual it
does not go nearly far enough. We made some amendments but we
know what will happen to those. The government is not prepared
to accept amendments. It is not prepared to accept what people
are telling us as we travel around. Overall, Bill C-28 gets a
very high failing grade.
This bill unfortunately flies in the face of what people are
telling us and what a majority of Canadians feel. When it comes
to tax reform, Canadians want us to flatten the tax base. They
want us to simplify the tax system and they want it to be less
onerous, if nothing else, on small businesses, which provide the
great majority of jobs in this country. Our tax form is so
complex with over 2,000 pages. Amendments come out on a daily
basis. Accountants must go to course after course on a monthly
basis in order to simply upgrade. They are trying to stay ahead
of what the tax man is trying to tell us.
There is enormous frustration across this country by individual
taxpayers and small business taxpayers. The Liberal government
fails to hear this message. It perpetuates rising taxes and the
overspending that is so common in this place. During the past few
years there have been over 30 tax increases. Most of them are
hidden and the government constantly says that there have been no
tax increases. But when we look at the revenue figures it is
very easy to see where the tax increases have been.
This bill has a few good points. Encouraging charitable
donations is an area that should be sponsored. On the issue of
volunteerism, we are now asking volunteers to do more and more.
But if we are going to encourage volunteers and if government is
going to abrogate its responsibilities, then we must give them
tax relief so they can do that. We must prevent the abuses that
go on. That is the key message.
Increasing the contributions for registered education savings
funds is a positive which has been taken right from our platform.
We are pleased the government at least can read and has read our
platform.
We can look at other things but overall we find that this bill
simply tinkers. It simply touches a few areas but as usual it
does not go nearly far enough to provide any sort of tax relief
for the taxpayer. Taxpayers must see light at the end of the
tunnel. They must know that at some point they are going to get
a break so that at some point they can rearrange what their lives
are all about and they can do what we all want, provide more
jobs.
By constantly raising taxes we are destroying initiative in this
country. While we would all agree there are some areas that need
help like education and health care, it will come through a
rearrangement of spending and not by increasing taxation. The
very worst thing we could do is put more money in government
hands because government wastes that money. We have many
examples of that.
The weaknesses in this bill are obvious. It is our job as
official opposition to alert taxpayers that the tax and spend of
the Liberal government are back. This kind of piecemeal bill is
an indication of how seriously this government takes any kind of
tax relief.
Young Canadians are particularly hard hit by this sort of
legislation. They are asking what the government does with all
the tax money it gets. If these young Canadians are lucky enough
to get jobs, when they get their first cheques they will start to
look at their deductions. Year by year they are asking more and
more what the government does with that money.
The government needs to have an answer. The government needs to
be more accountable and needs to particularly account for all the
waste going on.
1305
In terms of competition we are now a global society. We must
compete with other countries, with other businesses. We have the
highest personal income tax in the G-7, 56% higher than the
average G-7 partner. We are destroying our ability to compete.
I have been fortunate for 35 years to travel to pretty well
every country in the world. As I have done that I have started
to realize how our country is falling behind.
Yes, it is a great place to live. Yes, I think we can recover,
but we are falling behind. One of the key reasons for that is we
have too high a tax level.
The government refuses to listen to Canadians. A Liberal member
distributed a questionnaire showing that 42% in his riding wanted
debt reduction as number one and 37% wanted tax relief. Close to
80% of his riding said they want to have lower taxes and debt
reduction. What does the government do? It increases spending.
That is not what the people are asking. The people do not want
more spending. They want rearrangement within the spending but
they do not want the government to start spending again. Above
all, they do not want to pay more taxes.
As the Liberal government goes on and ignores this factor the
problem becomes more critical. We could throw in some what ifs
here. What if interest rates change? What if the Asian flu
affects Canada? What if oil prices stay low? There are a lot of
what ifs the government is not taking into consideration.
It says we are now into a golden age. It is a golden age as
long as everything goes as predicted but we also know what
happens when you assume that.
We have close to 200,000 young people out of work and looking
for jobs. We have a whole generation being lost and we know that
taxes cost jobs.
Payroll taxes in 1966 were $803. In 1993 they were $3,272. We
have the most recent figures. There has been a 73% increase in
CPP. In January one of the things I found by travelling to some
other countries is that there are other ways to do things such as
payroll taxes and pension plans. I will always remember the
faces of some of those people who told me how proud they are of
the type of pension plan they have. Ask young Canadians about
their pension plans and I know what the results will be.
It appears that the government is happy with 9% unemployment. It
appears it is happy with a $583 billion debt and $45 billion in
interest payments. It appears it is happy and will accept that.
With that kind of thinking, I think on this day, Academy awards
night, the government will be much like the Titanic, and of
course we know what happened to that ship. I believe the Liberal
tax and spend policy will lead to that same sort of final result.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-28.
This issue goes to the heart of the situation in the country
today, the heart of our economical and societal problems that we
have been having for a long time but that the government has now
failed to address.
The government again had an enormous opportunity to deal with
the tax structure in a way that would provide the greatest
stability and greatest infusion, stimulation to our economy that
we have had in decades. It has done what usually happens, it has
nibbled around the edges rather than getting to the heart of the
issue, taking the bull by the horns and dealing with it.
1310
The solutions are out there. I wish the government had given as
much zest and gusto to this bill as it has over the last five
years in providing the tax increases for the Canadian public. We
are reaping what we have sown and that is manifest quite clearly
in the 9.8% unemployment rate that Canadians suffer from, the
actual rate being much higher, and the nearly 20% unemployment
rate our students labour under. This is completely unacceptable,
particularly when we look south of the border and see that the
U.S. has an unemployment rate of about 4.5% whereas just north it
is 9.8%. Why is that so?
The bottom line is we have to look at what we really want to do.
We want to provide for an economy that is going to enable
Canadians to have the best social and economic situation that
they can possibly have. We also want to have social programs
that provide for those who cannot take care of themselves and
provide the social programs that we rely on that set us apart
from other countries that do not have them such as our health
care program.
However, we need to do that in the context of being able to do
this within our means. In other words, we spend not more than
what we make. Can we do this? Indeed we can. We do not have to
adopt what went on south of the border where there are huge
discrepancies between those who have and those who have not, but
there are leafs to take from that book. In fact, there are leafs
to take from our own history.
The Conservative government around 1992 under Mulroney lowered
taxes. What happened? Government revenues went up. As a result,
the government went on a wild taxing spree and government
revenues went down. The lesson in this, as it is south of the
border, is when taxes are lowered government revenues can go up
which would enable us to provide more money for our social
programs such as health care which is suffering dramatically and
also ensure that people will have enough money to provide food
for their children, a place to stay, a roof over their heads,
education and opportunities. The government has failed to do
this. Instead it has nibbled around the edges with Bill C-28.
There are other examples from around the world that we can look
at. Look at what is happening in England. It has taken charge
of the situation. It has not nibbled around the edges and it has
implemented some sensible programs.
What can we do? For years the Reform Party has told the
government to ensure that the debt goes down. If we bring the
debt down then interest payments will decrease and there would be
more money for the social programs that we want to pay for.
Looking at the American or the British situation, people will
have more money in their pockets to be able to provide for
themselves.
The government likes to tout its much lauded economic statistics
and say it has done so well. It has done well on paper but it
has not done well at the dinner table of Canadians. People have
less disposable income today.
Let us go through a few more solutions that the government can
adopt apart from what my colleagues in the Reform Party have
eloquently stated today. We have to eliminate the waste of tax
dollars and business subsidies to businesses that do not need
them and develop a right to work legislation. When the right to
work legislation was put forward in the United States over 75% of
new manufacturing jobs went into those states.
Right to work legislation enables those companies to be much
more aggressive on the international market. For the individual
person that right to work legislation provided $2,800 more in
their pockets. That is what we are trying to, put more money in
the coffers so we can ensure we will stabilize our eroding social
programs which are eroding because the government has increased
taxes, has failed to deal with the economic situation in this
country and in doing so has failed to provide the stable funding
required for health care, education and other programs.
Payroll taxes need to be decreased. Right now we are sitting on
a $13 billion employment insurance surplus. Why are we doing
that? So the government can go in an scoop out a bit of money,
put it in its pocket and use it when it needs to.
The best thing that the government can do is lower EI premiums,
particularly in view of the fact that it has just doubled the CPP
premium for companies. Canadians had a rude awakening on January
1, in particular those who are providing the bulk of the jobs,
those who are self-employed. Why do we continually try to
compromise the private sector in this country, the private sector
that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have
repeatedly said is the primary engine of growth in Canada? Why
are we preventing Canadians from getting the jobs they deserve?
1315
England has put forth a new deal for students. It has created,
for example, a university of industry. In this university
students will learn the skills which will be required in the
future that will enable them to have high paying jobs. Also, it
has provided a new deal for students by giving the private sector
tax incentives to hire new students.
One of the biggest complaints any of us will hear from private
employers in our ridings is that the taxes are too high and
therefore they cannot hire new people. They cannot invest in
their companies. They cannot invest in research. They cannot
invest in apprenticeships. They cannot invest in creating new
jobs. When we have a situation like that we erode the ability of
our economy to be able to provide for people.
This is not one or the other. It is not jobs or social
programs. It is not affluence for the rich and be damned for the
poor. We can take care of both. In fact it is beneficial in
ensuring that we have a strong economy to have strong social
programs.
Repeated government overspending by Liberal and Conservative
governments has, contrary to popular belief, been the primary
destroyer of our social programs. If we spend more and increase
our debt, we pay more interest which means we have less money to
provide for programs such as health care. As a result, we have
people dying in our hospitals. People are waiting for two days
in the emergency department to get into an intensive care unit
bed. A senior person in severe pain has to wait 14 months for a
new hip. That is not a health care system which is providing
good care for Canadians.
We can do it. We can provide the strong social programs and we
can provide a strong economy. We can do both. We do not have to
reinvent the wheel in doing that.
There are other solutions. We can eliminate the personal income
tax surcharges. Why do we continue to pile more taxes on people?
The government thinks it knows best how to spend Canadians'
money. Let the people decide what they want to do. Let the
government take what it needs to provide for social programs and
give the rest to the public to ensure that they have enough money
to provide for themselves.
We underestimate the ability of people to provide for
themselves. Let us give them that opportunity, while not
forgetting that we have an enormous responsibility and a duty to
provide for those people who cannot take care of themselves.
That is the hallmark of having a kind, considerate, caring
society from which we all derive an enormous amount of benefit.
In closing, the government should decrease taxes, ensure that
the money it spends is spent wisely on social programs that we
need, and also ensure that it pays down the debt. For heaven's
sake, it should take a leaf out of the books of other countries
which have used innovative measures, tax incentives and research
and development to strengthen the education system and to link
the education system to the future needs of industry. If we do
all of that, instead of nibbling around the edges with Bill C-28,
we will have a strong economy, we will have strong social
programs and we will have a stronger nation.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
far be it for me to refocus the Reform Party on its actual
motion, but the motion that is before us is with respect to the
impact of the proposed 10% tax on municipalities.
The beauty of this motion is that it attempts to focus the
activities of a municipality.
1320
A municipality, by definition, occupies a particular
geographical area. By definition it is to provide services to
its constituents where the constituents are in need of garbage
services, education services or services of that nature. Those
are public services. Those are services which are supplied at
cost and for which people are not expecting the entity that
supplies the service to be making a profit.
I understand that all municipalities are in this hunt for
revenue. All governments in all countries are in a hunt for
revenue. But this is a proposal which attempts to refocus and
rebalance that concept. Municipalities should not be hunting for
revenue by supplying services where other entities in our society
supply those services.
If any motion prevailed with respect to the law of unintended
consequences, this is it. May I suggest that there are a number
of very significant unintended consequences that will result from
the hon. member's motion.
The first unintended consequence is that municipality will be
set up against municipality to supply services in order to be
able to generate the most revenue. In other words, it will not
have to go to its tax base, it will go to other forms of revenue.
We will have, for instance, the municipality of Hamilton
competing with the municipality of Kingston to supply service
x at the cheapest and lowest cost. Therefore, whichever
municipality gets to supply that service will not have to go to
its tax base to generate revenue. Some of that is happening.
The beauty of the proposal by the government is that it will cut
the matter off at 10%. After 10% of its gross revenues the
municipality will not have the incentive to seek to augment its
income in that manner.
Similarly, it will set up the unintended consequence of a
private corporation competing with the municipality to supply a
service. That is quite bizarre because the Reform Party's
motivation, raison d'être, is to enhance and encourage the
private sector. We will have this bizarre experience of a
municipality competing with the private sector over the same
service. With the huge advantages of a municipality, the private
sector will not be able to supply the service.
Second, a municipality, again by definition, has an enormous
infrastructure. It has secretaries, it has telephones systems,
it has buildings, et cetera. It could in a number of instances
undercut the private sector by a means which the hon. member
might not have thought his way through.
The third and beautiful unintended consequence is that it
provides a huge benefit to my municipality of Toronto. Most
Canadians, from my experience in travelling across the country,
do not think that Toronto should receive very many benefits at
all. It is a national pastime to hate Toronto. There are some
members here who would agree with that.
I might point out to the hon. member that Toronto is the seventh
largest entity in Canada. It ranks ahead of a number of
provinces. If this motion goes through it will provide to
Toronto an enormous advantage because there will be an enormous
incentive on the part of Mr. Lastman and his staff to create
services to augment revenue, to knock the private sector out of
the game. I do not know whether the hon. member wants to create
a situation such as that, but that is a very real possibility and
again follows through with the law of unintended consequences.
If the hon. member wishes to set up conflicts between
municipalities, if he wants to set up conflicts between the
private sector and municipalities, if he wants to benefit Toronto
in particular but large municipalities in general, then we should
probably stand aside and let this motion pass. However, I
believe that the government's direction is far wiser. It is
saying to municipalities generally that they can generate revenue
and, yes, they will be allowed a certain amount of activity
outside their municipal sphere.
1325
However, once they go beyond 10% of their revenues being
generated outside their geographical area or municipal sphere,
then they will be taxed like any other entity. As with all
governments, that achieves a balance which is a good balance and
is healthy for this country.
I hope it also addresses the issue of the balancing of revenues
among all three levels of government.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate. The hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, are you calling on me to speak
to the motion I moved, Motion No. 2?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We are debating Motion No. 1.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I did not ask to speak to that motion.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): A recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Motion No. 2.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the
debate at report stage on Bill C-28.
There are a number of things wrong with Bill C-28. We could
mention the government's measures feigning sensitivity with
respect to social programs and the deterioration of health care
that it has itself brought about through three years of cuts in
transfer payments to the provinces in the health, social services
and education sectors.
I listened this morning as a journalist put a question to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. What the
journalist asked him was this: “Has the Government heard the
public's cry of distress about health care?” The Leader of the
Government in the House replied as follows: “Of course it has.
In Bill C-28 you will see that we have added $6 billion for health
care and social services. If opposition members vote against
Bill C-28, it is because they have not heard what the public is
saying”.
If that is not the ultimate in demagoguery, I do not know what
is. Because what Bill C-28 says about the $6 billion transfer is
that, instead of cutting $48 billion between now and 2003, the
federal government is going to cut $42 billion. We will never
give our support to a bill that would fly in the very face of
what people want, which is an end to cuts in social programs and
health care.
There is also a serious problem with an apparent conflict of
interest involving the bill's sponsor, the Minister of Finance.
Clause 241 of Bill C-28 provides new tax benefits to
international shipping corporations, particularly international
shipping holdings. Clause 241 amends section 250 of the Income
Tax Act to exclusively protect international shipping holdings
against any Revenue Canada claims on taxes applying to profits or
other revenues.
There is a moral issue relating to this legislation, but there
is also another problem: the bill, including clause 241, was
introduced by the Minister of Finance, who owns a holding
corporation called Canada Steamship Lines.
The Minister of Finance sponsored a bill that provides him with
tax benefits, given his involvement in international shipping.
1330
There is at least an apparent conflict of interest in this
legislation, and this is contrary to the Prime Minister's code
of ethics adopted in June 1994, soon after he took office.
Indeed, this code of ethics refers not only to actual or
potential conflicts of interest, but also to apparent conflicts
of interest.
There is obviously an apparent conflict of interest, given that
the Minister of Finance tabled and sponsored a bill with
provisions that favour the finance minister's international
shipping activities.
When the Bloc Quebecois put the finger on the problem with
Bill C-28, after reviewing the 464 pages of this omnibus
legislation, which includes only two paragraphs on international
shipping, the Minister of Finance left the House with a historic
statement. He was speechless. He began to stutter like people who
are caught in the act, like people who have something on their
conscience and who just got caught with their hand in the cookie
jar.
The second reaction came from the Prime Minister during oral
question period. We had barely finished putting our question
when the Prime Minister jumped out of his seat to come to the
defence of his finance minister, saying he had done nothing wrong
and that this new provision would not in any way benefit Canada
Steamship Lines, which the finance minister has owned in full
since 1988.
The next day, the Deputy Prime Minister joined the Prime Minister
in saying that this measure did not apply to Canada Steamship
Lines. That same day, reference was made during Oral Question
Period to the Department of Finance press release which also
stated that Canada Steamship Lines would not benefit from these
measures.
The third reaction, as time went on, was less decisive and less
definite. It came from corporate taxation division senior
advisor Len Farber, the very person to whom we were referred by
the Minister of Finance and who is supposedly his right-hand man
in terms of policies and political strategies—likely more
political than anything else.
Mr. Farber appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and
was asked a series of questions which led him gradually into an
area where he felt cornered. He was forced to admit that “Yes,
these provisions could be available to that company”, because
reference was being made at that time to companies like Canada
Steamship Lines, the company of the Minister of Finance.
When the government found itself backed into a corner on the fact
that clause 241 could apply to Canada Steamship Lines, as even
its vice-president, Mr. Préfontaine, admitted, saying “Yes,
perhaps, but we have no intention of applying it”, it turned to
the process itself. By February 12, it was starting, through the
Prime Minister, to make statements like: “Yes, but all of the
rules were respected in tabling the bill. The Minister of
Finance did not see its contents, even if he was the one
sponsoring it”.
On February 12, the Prime Minister pointed out that, according to
what the ethics counsellor had told him, everything was done
according to the rules and the Minister of Finance was not at
fault. He put his assets and shares into a blind trust and is
therefore protected from any apparent or actual conflict of
interest.
Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, five days after his
statement in the House, his ethics counsellor appeared before
the Standing Committee on Finance and was also obliged to
admit—not only verbally, but also in his written report—that there
was at least a possibility of a problem, because introduction of
Bill C-28 had not followed normal procedure. He stated that,
normally, had he been approached by the Minister or the
Department of Finance on the procedure for tabling, steering or
sponsoring this bill, the Minister of Finance would not have
acted in this way.
1335
The ethics counsellor recognized that there had been at the very
least an apparent conflict of interest. But he later went back
on his position and told the finance committee “Look, even if
Canada Steamship Lines stood to potentially benefit from these
news provisions and the Minister of Finance stood to save
substantial amounts in taxes”—we are looking at millions of
dollars in the future—“that is not the problem. The problem is
that the process should have been more consistent with the rules
established in 1994”.
Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor, has many problems. The first
one is that he changes his tune every time he is questioned on
the subject.
He writes one thing and says another or vice versa. He has a
credibility problem.
Second, his credibility problem is compounded by the fact that
he is paid by the Prime Minister, when he should be an
independent counsellor reporting to Parliament. In fact, in the
red book in 1993 the Liberals stated, and I quote “A Liberal
government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor to
advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day to day
application of the code of conduct for public officials”.
He is not independent, he is accountable to the Prime Minister.
This means the Prime Minister can get him to say just about
anything, as he is the boss. That is why the government's ethic
counsellor has lost all credibility.
The ethics counsellor should be dismissed and replaced with a
real counsellor, who would be independent from the government, to
shed light on cases like this one without having to wait for an
opposition member to put his or her finger on a problem. As it
is, the ethics counsellor has become the one who saves ministers'
heads.
The motion basically calls for the deletion of section 241,
which gives an unfair advantage to shipping companies like the
one owned by the Minister of Finance, Canada Steamship Lines,
until this matter and the finance minister's apparent conflict of
interest have been clarified.
In fact, on February 12, the four opposition parties got
together to write a letter to the government, asking that a
special committee be struck to shed light on the whole matter.
Last week, I personally made a similar request to the Prime
Minister, but have not received any reply.
I make the same request again, but in the meantime section 241
should be deleted because we are convinced that there is, at the
very least, an apparent conflict of interest around the
introduction of the bill containing section 241.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for his motion. I
think it is an important motion and I think colleagues around the
House should support it.
The intention of the finance minister and the finance department
probably was not to somehow circumvent the rules. Nevertheless,
that is the position the government has put itself in. I think
fairness and integrity dictate that members support the motion to
avoid the appearance at least of a conflict of interest. Pretty
clearly, that is what has happened.
My friend from the Bloc has talked about that at length. I want
to talk about a variation on the theme. I want to talk about the
irony in having Canada's finance minister have to shelter many of
his own personal assets offshore to avoid paying the staggering
taxes that so many Canadians have to pay. I think that is rather
ironic. I think it would be very funny if not for the fact that
every other Canadian really does not have the same opportunity to
do that.
I say to the finance minister good for him, I am glad that he
has found a way to avoid paying the same level of taxes that the
rest of us pay. Truly I would like to see the same rules, the
same compassion extended to all other taxpayers in this country.
Would it not be wonderful if somebody who runs the donut shop
across Wellington Street could put up a Liberian flag so they did
not have to pay the same high level of taxes they currently have
to pay? Would it not be wonderful if in a garage in Rosetown,
Saskatchewan they could put up a Panamanian flag so they did not
have to pay the same staggering level of taxes they currently
have to pay? It could go on and on.
I think members get the point. The fact is in Canada today
people are driven to extraordinary lengths to not pay the level
of taxes we currently have to pay.
1340
As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, we have taxes that
are among the highest in the world. Income tax is 56% higher
than the G-7 average. I do not blame people for going to great
lengths to avoid paying those taxes but it is killing this
country.
There was an article in the weekend Globe and Mail about
British Columbia's recession. Not long ago that province was
leading the country in growth and now it is tenth in the country
in terms of growth. One of the primary reasons for this is the
combination of high taxes between the provincial and federal
governments that has made British Columbia uncompetitive. It
cannot deal with the competition from the northwest United States
and the Pacific rim. Consequently that government and that
province are in recession today.
I do not blame people for going to extraordinary lengths to find
ways to not pay these high taxes. The sad result is that people
are actually leaving the country. That is one way people deal
with the problem of high taxes. Not long ago a Nesbitt Burns
report was widely circulated in the media. It talked about how
young Canadians, in particular university graduates and
professionals, are leaving the country in droves to go to the
United States in particular and to other jurisdictions where
taxes are not through the roof. They want to find work where
they will be allowed to keep enough income to live the types of
lives they have dreamed about. They obviously feel they can no
longer do that in Canada. That is sad.
The Nesbitt Burns report talked about the computer technicians
this country is losing. That is terrible. We are losing
doctors, nurses, teachers and engineers. Some of our brightest
and best are disappearing from this country. It is not only an
economic tragedy, it is a personal tragedy too. We are seeing
families split up.
My friend, the hon. member for Red Deer, has three children.
They have all left Canada to find work. One is in Norway.
Another is a Rhodes scholar and is teaching in the U.S. at
Harvard. He could not get a job in Canada so he left for greener
pastures where the taxes are not so high. I believe this member
has another daughter in the Netherlands. My friend, the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast, has family spread out around the
world as a result of the high taxes.
Who can blame the finance minister? He is only doing what
everybody else is doing, trying to find ways to avoid the
crushing burden of taxes in this country. The challenge to my
friends across the way and to the finance minister is to find
ways for people to enjoy their assets in Canada, to find a way
for us to live the lives we want to live in Canada without having
to pay taxes through the roof. That is a novel concept, is it
not?
Instead of focusing on finding new and creative ways to spend
$11 billion, which is what they chose to spend in the last
budget, why do my friends across the way not find ways to lower
the tax burden in this country to help Canadians out? What is
wrong with that? Why do we have to drive people out of this
country? People are voting with their feet. They are leaving.
The brightest and the best are leaving. We cannot tolerate that.
It is time for my friends across the way to wake up and
understand that clause 41 is a symptom of a much larger problem,
that taxes in this country are too high. They are far too high.
We are now in a position where Canadians work half the year just
to pay the federal government. If I were to ask members in this
House what they would call it if they had to go to work for six
months of the year, had every cent taken and worked for no
remuneration, they would call that slavery. But that is exactly
what we do in Canada today. We spend half the year working for
the government.
When is the government going to wake up and understand that this
cannot continue? When is it going to do more than the half
measures we saw in this budget? The government said that it
introduced $7 billion in tax relief in the budget although it
forgot to point out that it previously introduced new tax
measures that would take $9 billion out of the economy. That
would leave Canadians a couple of billion dollars worse off than
they were last year.
The government calls that tax relief. I call it robbery.
1345
It is ridiculous that the government can get away with that type
of thing. I hope that friends across the way will come to
realize that bills like Bill C-28 are simply a symptom of the
sickness of the government's perverse idea that it has to justify
its existence by taxing people ever ever more. I ask them to
reflect on the irony of a finance minister who has put his assets
offshore so he does not have to pay the staggering level of
taxation that we have in this country.
Surely there is a lesson for the House in this example. I would
expect that friends in this House would come to appreciate that
this is ridiculous. It is time to bring this to an end. I urge
my friends to support the Bloc motion to oppose the inclusion of
clause 241. We can no longer have taxation levels that are among
the highest in the world, ones that not even the finance minister
can afford.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I will
not take as much time as my hon. colleague from the Reform Party.
I would like to return to the matter raised by the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
I believe the motion he has moved is important. It is significant
that all opposition parties have joined together in recent months
to raise the problematical issue, or potentially problematical
issue, relating to the Minister of Finance and have demanded
clarifications. I believe this is important.
The Minister of Finance has very great responsibilities. The
entire credibility of the Canadian tax system is at stake. He
must provide answers to all questions raised by the opposition
parties.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has done an excellent job
on this, and we in this corner of the House wish to congratulate
him on it.
We are, therefore, going to support this motion, and hope our
friends opposite will do likewise. Why? In order to avoid any
problematical issues around reputations and credibility. If the
Liberals understand their Minister of Finance, and are so fond
of him, so much the better. If they are so fond of him, let
them go along with the parties in opposition in voting in favour
of this motion, in order to settle the question of potential
conflict of interest for once and for all, at least in connection
with Bill C-28 and the way in which it was introduced, as far as
Canada Steamship Lines and foreign holdings are concerned.
If the Liberals understand their Minister of Finance, and are so
fond of him, they will support this motion and we will be able to
defer any discussions on this issue to a later date.
It is up to the Liberals, today or whenever we vote, to decide
whether they support their Minister of Finance or whether they
are prepared to delay part of Bill C-28 to ensure that their
Minister of Finance will never be in a conflict of interest—real
or potential.
It is the responsibility of the opposition to raise this issue,
but it is the responsibility of the House as a whole to support
the motion of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
We must remember that Bill C-28 is a great fat volume that
Canadians will find muddling. It requires research, and the
role of the opposition parties is to ensure that everything is
proper and to raise any problems before the House so Canadians
will understand what is really happening with their government.
I hope those opposite will join with the members of the
opposition in unanimously supporting the motion of the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I am sure that, basically, all members
in this House want the Minister of Finance to be exonerated of
all blame. That is what we want as well, because the country's
fiscal credibility is at stake.
So they should hold up this part of Bill C-28, and all the members
should join together so the Minister of Finance, the government
and all Liberals can rest easy with this matter. We will
eventually get back to the issue of international shipping
companies in this country.
1350
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is interesting to speak to this amendment by the Bloc Quebecois.
It highlights an area of income tax policy that is a bit of a
lark. We have had some fun with it in question period.
The hon. member opposite was feigning a little bit of outrage
here a minute ago saying that these are all false accusations
about the finance minister. He does not think we should be
talking about that and I can see why he does not want us to.
However the member for Medicine Hat hit the nail on the head. I
have asked this question of the minister during question period.
It goes something like this.
The minister has registered some of his vessels offshore. They
sail under the Bahamian or Panamanian flags. Why does the
minister not offer tax relief for all Canadians, including
himself, so that we could all keep our business in Canada instead
of offshore? The Liberals get up, beat around the bush, say how
indignant they are, say that it is a terrible thing to say and it
hurts their feelings. I am sure they will soon sue us for that
because they like to sue as soon as they get into a bit of heat.
In essence it is a fair question. The question is exactly that.
There is nothing wrong with the minister doing what he is doing.
There is a member here who cannot understand what is going on.
An hon. member: I have many years in provincial
parliament.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know she is going to sue me in a
minute but if she would just let me continue to speak.
Before the member sues, just let me repeat again, there is
nothing wrong or illegal with what the minister does. He is a
business person. He looks at it and says “Let me see. If I
register my vessel here in Canada I have to pay through the nose
in taxes, registration fees, hidden taxes” and taxes below the
water line no doubt. There are all kinds of taxes in Canada
because the vessel is registered here. When he registers a vessel
offshore, there is nothing wrong with that. I hope the member
does not have an apoplexy on us here, Madam Speaker, but there is
nothing wrong and I will say it again for her benefit.
What kind of message does that send to Canadians who are also
looking for tax relief and do not have the advantage of an
international company where they can parade some of their assets
out of the country. What kind of a message does it send? It
sends them the message that the finance minister knows the truth,
that taxes in Canada are way too high.
The taxes here are a disincentive for investment. The taxes
here do not create wealth. They suck the wealth out of the
economy. The taxes here in Canada mean that the average family in
British Columbia spends $28,000 or more just paying taxes to
governments. How are they supposed to plan for their kids'
education, put a little money aside for retirement and maybe if
they are lucky have a holiday every decade or two?
How are they supposed to get investments going on their own to
start a small business, an in home business, or to invest in
mutual funds and take advantage of any of those things? They
cannot because they are so busy paying taxes to all levels of
government.
With this government the Hoover sound can be heard across the
land from the minister opposite. There have been 37 tax
increases since the Liberals took power. There were many more in
the 35th Parliament that we did not even get into. Every single
time the inflation rate goes up even a couple of per cent, does
the government change the personal exemption amounts, the bracket
creep? It just cuts right in and sucks a little more out. You
can hear the slurping noise as the economy gets sucked dry and
the initiative gets sucked dry and the entrepreneurs head south
or east to anywhere where tax relief is possible. Is it any
wonder that the finance minister does what he does. He does what
he has to to get ahead.
I face this time and again in my own riding. My riding includes
the Sumas border crossing which is one of the busier crossings in
Canada. Between the United States and Canada there are billions
of dollars of trade per day, not all through Sumas, but in total.
People bring a tale of woe to my office that goes something like
this. They say “Listen. I was down in the United States and
they gave me the following deal. All the other prices are much
the same but you know their other taxes are much lower.
I do not have to pay the sales tax. I do not have to pay all the
hidden taxes along the way. It is cheaper to buy the same
product down in Washington state even with the exchange rate as
it is, than it is to buy it at my local store because the taxes
in Canada are too high”.
1355
What am I supposed to say to a young couple who is trying to get
ahead, to feed their kids and do all that stuff? Do I say
“Listen here young man, I expect you to pay through the nose.
Forget looking after your family. Forget planning for your
future. Forget about your children's education. Pay through the
nose and pay it here in Canada because that is what makes Canada
great”. Because I fear for my own safety, I do not say that. I
say “Yes, is it not too bad that in Canada our taxes chase your
money out of town and out of the country”.
I tell them to please shop Canadian if they can and all that
good stuff. However that couple is struggling and when they come
in with their hands held out, what do I say to them? I tell them
that they are responsible for their family and they should do
what they have to do. That is what the finance minister does
when he looks after his business, which is in a blind trust, but
it registers vessels offshore. This is not illegal and nothing
is technically wrong with this.
Why is it happening? It is happening because taxes in Canada
are too high. Registration fees are too high. Regulations are
too onerous and too difficult. That is why those things happen.
The government across the way would be well advised to take a
look around the world and see how we compare tax wise with the
other developed countries. Our income tax rates are 50% higher
than the G-7 average. Does that not strike a little bit of fear
into the Liberals' little cold economic hearts? Does it not make
them think that perhaps they could kill the goose that laid the
golden egg if they just taxed it long enough?
Do the Liberals not understand the old parable of the little red
hen? We keep beating that little red hen on the head with a tax
booklet. The chain drags out for dozens of metres behind the
poor person who is trying to get ahead, sucking their energy and
distracting them. They finally ask themselves what the point is
of even trying because they have all this weight dragging them
down in the income tax system, the regulatory system and the
bureaucracy that this government seems to promote. They finally
realize they cannot cut the chains because the government keeps
adding more books on the end of this ever loving thing. It
becomes the chain from hell. It just goes on and on off into the
distance taking the energy out of the system. They finally wish
they too could go to the Bahamas, register there and get ahead.
That is why this amendment in not so nice a way tweaks the nose
of the government to point out why this is a problem for
Canadians. High taxes kill incentive, kill jobs and kill the
future for not only people raising families now but for future
generations to come. That is why this government would be well
advised to listen up during today's debate, quit adding more
taxes to the system and allow Canadians the opportunity to get
ahead the way they should, which is without government help but
without government hindrance.
I wish the government would listen up and support this amendment
during the vote that we will have later this evening.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 2 p.m., the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NOWROOZ
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, last Saturday, March 21, was the first day of spring.
At least 10 nations celebrate nature's rebirth and renewal on
this day. This celebration is referred to as Nowrooz and it is
commemorated in one way or another in Azerbaijan, Turkey,
Tajikistan, Khazakistan, Pakistan, Ozbekistan, Iran, Afghanistan,
Armenia and Georgia.
1400
This traditional celebration is rooted in the ancient Persian
civilization. As nature renews itself and prepares to bloom the
people contemplate new efforts for a more promising future.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all
nations celebrating Nowrooz, especially all those Canadians
commemorating this holiday. May this new time of the year bring
productivity, growth and great health to all.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this following is a list of reasons why British Columbians ignore
the Liberals.
The Liberals leave B.C. under-represented in the Senate. They
will not let B.C. elect our senators.
The Liberals are killing B.C.'s salmon fishery, mining industry,
tourism industry and softwood lumber industry. They are killing
jobs in B.C.
The Liberals have cut transfer payments affecting B.C.'s
education and health services. They do not give B.C. our fair
share of government contracts.
The Liberals will not get tough on crime. They leave B.C.'s
streets and homes unsafe.
The Liberals are killing B.C. with high taxes.
They shutdown B.C.'s coast guard. They turned off B.C.'s
lighthouses.
The Liberals closed CFB Chilliwack and left us without emergency
preparedness.
The Liberals have ignored British Columbia and British Columbia
will ignore the Liberals.
* * *
KEN KOYAMA
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Ken
Koyama, a constituent in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, for
his contributions to international development.
Mr. Koyama worked as a Canadian Executive Service Organization
volunteer in Georgetown, Guyana where he was asked to conduct
training seminars for senior management by a consultative
association.
He shared his knowledge and expertise in the area of human
resource management by presenting a five day intensive
lecture/participant involvement workshop for senior management
from 17 organizations in Guyana.
Mr. Koyama's work in Guyana speaks to the commitment and
willingness of Canadians to stimulate social and economic growth
in developing countries.
On behalf of my constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore I am proud
to take this opportunity to congratulate Ken Koyama for his
voluntary efforts. Congratulations to Ken.
* * *
[Translation]
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
March 21 was International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination.
In this context, I am proud to recognize the role played by the
Quebec department responsible for relations with the public,
which identified a number ways to deal with racism: raising
awareness of people's rights and freedoms through public events
such as this international day; funding research to shed light on
the root causes of racism; supporting community initiatives
through the new program promoting public participation; and
finally, promoting jobs for young members of visible minorities.
The tolerance and openness displayed by Quebec society are
recognized by all. Yet, like elsewhere, racist and
discriminatory acts do take place in our province. Thanks to
these measures, we will be able to fight all forms of racism and
build a more just society.
* * *
[English]
WORLD WATER DAY
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1992 the general assembly of the United Nations
designated March 22 as world water day, a special day set aside
each year for the people of the world to reflect on the
importance and the value of water in their daily lives.
This year's theme is groundwater, the invisible resource. It
reflects the concern that our planets groundwater supplies are
increasingly being threatened. In Canada more than 20% of our
population depends on underground water sources for its drinking
water. It is one of our most vital natural resources.
Groundwater is essential for our continued health and economic
well-being.
Water efficiency requires a full commitment of all people.
WaterCan is an Ottawa based non-profit organization which, along
with several partners, has demonstrated its commitment by
organizing world water day activities and by raising public
awareness on the wise use of our precious water resources.
A little more than a week ago, in celebration of world water
day, more than 500 students from the Ottawa-Hull area took a
pledge to conserve and protect Canada's water resources. Only
by—
1405
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
* * *
JANE URQUHART
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian novelist Jane Urquhart, winner of the 1997 Governor
General's Award for fiction, will received France's highest arts
and literature award today.
Jane Urquhart, who lives in Wellesley, Ontario which is part of
my riding of Waterloo—Wellington, will be honoured with the
Chevalier des Arts et Lettres as a recognition of her literary
achievement.
Jane Urquhart, who won the Governor General's Award for her book
The Underpainter, won France's prestigious best foreign novel
prize in 1992 with her novel The Whirlpool.
I ask all Canadians to join with me in congratulating Jane
Urquhart for her many achievements. Canada is very proud of her.
* * *
RACISM
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if equality is the ultimate goal that a civil society
aspires to, then racism is its implacable foe.
Canadians have struggled and fought hard against the vile enemy
of social cohesion and although we have been enormously
successful in integrating almost 200 different nationalities, we
are far from perfect.
The ghettoization in large centres, the enormous difficulties
aboriginal people face in integrating into Canadian society, the
politically correct reverse discrimination that occurs still
demonstrate that much needs to be done.
We must continue to enforce laws that penalize the purveyors of
racism, ensure that racism labels are never falsely used,
strengthen the level playing field where opportunities exist and
the responsibility to take advantage of those opportunities rests
with the individual, and that people are judged on their merit
and not on the colour of their skin.
On this international day of elimination of racial
discrimination I would like to thank Canada for the opportunity
that Canada has given to me to be judged not on the colour of my
skin but on my abilities.
* * *
SULPHUR
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Ontario gasoline has the highest sulphur content in Canada, over
500 parts per million. In California, by contrast, sulphur
content in gasoline cannot exceed 40 parts per million.
Sulphur damages catalytic converters because of increased
pollution by other polluting substances in gasoline.
Sulphur harms the respiratory system with resulting health care
costs which are high.
In addition, sulphur in the air creates smog. Large numbers of
premature deaths are attributed to smog.
In Canada gasoline registers the highest average sulphur levels
of all developed countries. Canada should set strict standards
for sulphur in gasoline, as was done in the European community,
the United States and Japan, and ensure Ontario and every other
province adopts them in the interests of public health and
environmental quality.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last weekend during our biennial convention the
Liberal grassroots demanded that the Canadian government do its
utmost to protect Canada's health care system. As well, the
resolutions on this issue prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
we are listening and that we are taking effective action by
proposing appropriate measures for responding to the needs of
Canadians.
The Prime Minister of Canada made a firm commitment to
protecting and improving the Canadian health care system.
[Translation]
Our government has already announced a reduction in cuts to
transfer payments to the provinces. The provinces also have a
responsibility in this regard. They must make sure that the
resources allocated by the federal government are in fact used to
improve health care in Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
our first vote on the budget, vote one of the estimates,
establishes the operating budget for the Senate.
This year our unelected, unaccountable Senate has asked
taxpayers for a 10% raise to increase its budget from $40
million to $44 million. Yet at the same time it refuses to
account to Canadians on how it spends our money.
Last year when the House requested that the Senate account for
its budget the Senate openly and defiantly refused to appear
before this elected House to justify its budget.
Clearly the unelected Senate has demonstrated to Canadians once
again that it has absolutely no accountability to the taxpaying
public.
Accountability in the Senate can only be achieved in one way, by
making our other house of Parliament democratically accountable
to the people it is supposed to represent. This can only be done
by electing, not appointing, our senators.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
Party of Canada's convention last weekend was an odd event.
I am not talking about the Prime Minister's Bill Clinton
imitation with a rendition of “Love me Tender” on the trombone,
but about the shadow of the Conservative Party's leader hovering
over the proceedings all weekend.
We all know that the Conservative leader's best volleys have been
against the Liberal Party of Canada. There is something not
quite right about all these Liberal ministers unconditionally
supporting the Conservative leader as the replacement for Daniel
Johnson in Quebec City.
The member for Sherbrooke will undoubtedly make a good valet for
the federal government in Quebec City. The Liberals should not
be too hasty to break out the champagne however. The
Conservative leader promised 40 seats in Quebec during the last
federal election. He delivered five. And it is certainly not by
becoming a Liberal that a Conservative—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Brossard—La Prairie now has the floor.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Liberal Party of Canada held their biennial
convention in Ottawa last weekend.
What set this convention apart was the unanimous support of the
2,500 or so delegates present for the Calgary declaration, which
was designed to promote national unity in a concrete manner.
Of particular interest among the resolutions passed were those
seeking to consolidate the Canadian health system and social
safety net, in a spirit of constructive co-operation with the
provinces.
I would like to say how delighted I was to co-chair this truly
fine convention. It was a convention that saw the election of a
young woman from my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, Véronique de
Passillé, to the position of president of the Liberal Party of
Canada's youth wing.
It was an exciting and stimulating convention that ended on the
very upbeat note that the Liberal Party of Canada has renewed
support for its leader, in a confidence vote of over 90%.
It is impossible—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has the
floor.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, tonight Atom Egoyan's film The Sweet Hereafter will
be considered for not one but two academy awards.
My New Democrat colleagues and I believe the Canadian film
industry is essential to our unity as a country and to our sense
of ourselves as Canadians.
We understand that without the support of public grants, many of
these films could not be made.
Mr. Egoyan has thanked the Canadian public for supporting his
work.
However, I believe we should not be surprised if this government
is not included in his anticipated acceptance speech. It is this
Liberal government that has systematically cut the support of
Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board to the tune of $109
million.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party and citizens of Canada,
best wishes tonight to Atom Egoyan and The Sweet Hereafter.
* * *
CHILDREN IN WAR
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week's issue of the Ottawa Citizen
exposed the grim reality of children in war.
Today in Ottawa a roundtable on children soldiers is further
probing this issue.
It is indeed appalling that children have been made direct
participants in armed conflicts.
Whether they are kidnapped and indoctrinated to harm and kill or
legally forced to go to war by their own government or pressured
to volunteer because society has given them no better
alternative, just the same it is a tragedy that pierces the heart
of humanity.
Those who do not die return from war damaged psychologically.
Civilized nations have a duty to convince the world to stop
making soldiers out of children.
Canada should campaign as a standard bearer to advance this
objective using the fora of the United Nations, the Commonwealth,
La Francophonie, APEC and all diplomatic engagements.
Let us put a stop to robbing children of their childhood.
* * *
LENNOXVILLE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak of pride, the pride of Lennoxville, a small
municipality in the beautiful eastern townships of southern
Quebec with 6,000 citizens, and the pride of Bishop's, a small
but beautiful university in Lennoxville with 1,700 students from
all across Canada.
You see, yesterday in Halifax one of Canada's smallest
universities won the Canadian university national basketball
championships for the first time, a dream come true.
Last year Chatelaine magazine listed Lennoxville as one
of the top 10 cities in Canada for all around sports.
A couple of years earlier, Lennoxville was named one of the 10
best places to live in Canada.
Mayor Doug Macauly and university chancellor Alex Patterson and
over 200 anglophone and francophone fans travelled to Halifax to
cheer our Bishop's Gators to glory.
1415
We are a community that supports our people and institutions.
We are what Canada is all about, proud to be Canadian.
* * *
LEAHY FAMILY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night the musical group Leahy won a Juno award as instrumental
artists of the year. The nine siblings of this talented troupe
hail from Douro-Drummer Township, formerly Douro Township in
Peterborough riding. While the population of Douro is small in
number, it is large in musical history and tradition.
As the Celtic musical tide reaches an all time high, Canada's
Leahy family is at its leading edge. The Leahy children, five
girls and four boys, have been performing since they were old
enough to walk. Today they are reaping the rewards of a lifetime
of tight-knit stage work.
In years past the Leahy family would criss-cross Ontario to
admiring fans. Today they perform their brand of Celtic music on
stages around the world.
I ask my colleagues to stop fiddling around for a moment and
join me in saluting Canada's famous Leahy family and the
community of Douro which produced them.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for years fishermen, scientists and outside observers
have been attributing much of the collapse of the east coast
fishery to mismanagement by the department.
The Prime Minister and the minister always dismissed these
charges, but now we have Liberal members of the Liberal dominated
fisheries committee saying exactly the same thing.
Will the government finally acknowledge that departmental
mismanagement is responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in
the Atlantic fishery?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member may well be referring to a report of a
parliamentary committee. If he is, I respectfully suggest he is
out of order because it has not yet been tabled in the House and
we are not permitted to comment on it until it is.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, members of the government caucus have been vocal on this
subject in the corridors of the House and not simply in the
committee. Theirs is not the only voice charging mismanagement.
Last year the auditor general did an exhaustive investigation of
that department and came to exactly the same conclusion. They
say that when a fish rots, it rots from the head down.
How many more scathing reports will it take before the
government acknowledges that the fisheries department has become
part of the problem, not part of the solution?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I were unkind I could say now we know what is wrong
with the Reform Party, but I do not want to be unkind because the
hon. member has raised an important issue. We are concerned
about the issue. We will have a lot more to say about the
subject once the committee report is tabled.
Until that time both the hon. member and I are out of order to
comment on the report which has not yet been tabled in the House.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government, the minister, the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister have been dismissing these charges for
years. These excuses are simply not acceptable. Mismanagement
of the east coast fishery has now spread to mismanagement of the
west coast fishery and is causing many of the problems now in
British Columbia.
What will the government do about mismanagement at the fisheries
department?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly
not get into the finger pointing and witch-hunting members
opposite want to get into.
We on this side of the House want to be proactive in moving
forward and building a system of trust that we can build on for
the future so that we have a fishery of the future that
communities and people can depend on.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when people lose confidence in the people who are the
managers, they change the managers.
Canadian observers on foreign boats fishing within Canada's 200
mile limit have reported many violations of Canadian fishing
regulations. DFO is not only aware of these infractions but has
instructed its own people not to press charges against those
foreign boats.
Who is accountable for this decision?
Did the minister instruct his officials not to lay charges and
enforce the law?
1420
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly the
minister did not instruct his officials not to lay charges. The
member should be congratulating us on the in depth analysis of
those observer reports which show some irregularities but not
necessarily violations of our regulations.
DFO has investigated all those irregularities and if in places
the law had been broken they would have been charged, but they
did not find the law had been broken.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, those are the very reports the committee has been
denied. The federal government is continuing to approve foreign
fishing in Canadian waters on the basis that these are fish in
surplus of Canada's needs.
Meanwhile, there are unemployed fishermen and plant workers in
Atlantic Canada. No other country declares fish surplus to its
own needs. When will Canada stop this resource giveaway?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
talked many times in the House about Canadianizing the fishery.
We on this side of the House recognize that we have many
international obligations in terms of our discussions with
foreign countries as well.
We are trying to move forward on an international basis. At the
same time the minister has made it very clear that where
possible, where fish are not surplus to our needs, we will
Canadianize the fisheries.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following in the steps of numerous health stakeholders, the
Government of Quebec and every provincial government, supporters
of the Liberal Party of Canada are now expressing concerns about
the drastic cuts made in health, cuts that have literally
devastated health systems across Canada.
Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that he has gone much
too far with his cuts to transfer payments to the provinces and
that these cuts, totalling in excess of $6 billion a year, are
causing irreparable damage to the various health systems across
Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly, transfers to the provinces have already been increased.
In fact, a few months ago, the Minister of Finance introduced in
the House of Commons a bill to increase transfers by $1.5 billion
a year.
Over the next five years, this will mean an extra $7 billion
available to the provinces for health.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health gave me the same answer the Prime Minister
gave Liberal supporters, admitting that his government is
maintaining a $12.5 billion cash floor for transfers.
Indeed, by admitting that this is the cash floor, did the
Minister of Health not just admit, as did the Prime Minister,
that more than $6 billion have been cut from transfer payments,
much of which go to health care in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have set at $12.5 billion a year the amount of cash transfers to
the provinces based on the recommendation of the National Forum
on Health.
The situation was studied for almost two years. They considered
all factors and recommended that the transfer be maintained at
the level of $12.5 billion a year. We have accepted the
recommendation.
Health really is a priority for us and, in the coming years, we
will continue to work with the provinces to strengthen the
health system across Canada.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some Liberal
supporters found out that it is the government, through its
excessive cuts, that created, to a large extent, the problems
experienced in hospitals across Canada.
Has the Minister of Finance finally understood that his own
supporters are, like us, asking him to use the government's
financial margin to restore the level of the transfers to the
provinces, transfers that are used to fund health care, among
other things?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
convention of the Liberal Party of Canada held this past weekend
confirmed this government's wisdom in making health care a
priority.
1425
Improving Canada's health care system is truly one of our key
priorities, and the delegates obviously shared our view during
the weekend.
I hope that my provincial counterparts, including the minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Drummond.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when one makes
a mess, one has a duty to clean it up.
Does the Minister of Health not realize that it is not by
getting involved in home care, which is a provincial
jurisdiction, that he will clean up the mess he created with his
cuts in Canada's health sector?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
said, we adopted the recommendation of the National Forum on
Health and we established a corresponding level of transfers.
As for home care and community based services, these are truly a
key component to solve the issues confronting us in Canada's
health care system. Last week I visited the Fleury hospital, in
Montreal, and I saw for myself that a number of problems in
emergency rooms result from a lack of infrastructures in
community based health care services.
We intend to act on this.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Minister of Health.
The Liberal convention of the past weekend passed a resolution
calling on the Liberal government to “develop a process to
continuously measure the quality of health care in Canada”.
Later today the House will be debating an NDP motion to amend
the CHST to set up exactly such a process to require the
government to table a regular assessment of whether the cash
floor for the CHST transfer is capable of sustaining quality
health care in Canada.
Would the Minister consider supporting this amendment? It seems
to me that it goes a long way toward implementing the very
resolution that was passed this weekend at his party convention.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the weekend it became clear that the delegates to the
Liberal convention support the government's choice of health as
one of its key priorities in the coming year. Indeed it confirms
we are on the right track with the change to the level of
transfers over the coming years making more money available and
picking areas of priority for action such as home and community
care.
May I also say that the federal government must do its share but
the provinces must also choose their priorities wisely. We would
hope the provinces would make health their priority so that
together we could—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I asked the minister a very direct question. There is
an opportunity available today for the minister, by supporting
our amendment, to implement the process whereby he could
regularly table an assessment of how well medicare is working.
Why would he not rise today and say that he would support this
amendment? Clearly Liberals at the convention shared NDP
concerns about what is happening to our health care system. This
is an opportunity for the minister to show some leadership and
some consensus building on how to deal with this issue. Will he
accept the amendment?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
quite simply the amendment in our view is unnecessary because the
government continuously reassesses the sufficiency of all its
actions in relation to health care. We went through that very
process in changing the amount of the CHST cash transfer during
the past few months.
I assure the House both in terms of the transfers and in terms
of other steps we are taking in relation to health that we will
constantly be involved in reassessing the sufficiency of the
support for what we believe is an essential service for all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, a very
important activity took place on the weekend, which could be
described as the second national forum on health.
I ask the Minister of Health whether he will listen to members of
his own party—Liberals—after not listening to Canadians, or the
provinces or the people working in the health field, and
immediately reinstate the system of cash transfers to the
provinces, which are in desperate need of them?
1430
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the
weekend, the delegates were not advocating spending for the sake
of spending, but rather investing in order to strengthen Canada's
health care system.
That is what we intend to do. At this point, the whole issue of
home care and of community health care—a vital part of Canada's
health care system—is under examination.
We intend—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to know from the minister whether he listened to people in
this second national forum on health, which took place this
weekend. Before setting other priorities, his first priority
should be to provide services and transfers to the provinces,
since the provinces look after health care in Canada.
If he considers health a priority, just imagine what sort of
priority the government is giving to employment. Health is sick
in Canada.
Will the minister make a commitment in this House to listen to
members of his own party and give the provinces more money in
transfers than they are currently getting?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the hon. member that the first thing we did after
resolving the financial situation was to increase the amount of
transfers to $12.5 billion a year, the exact amount recommended
by the National Forum on Health.
They looked at the situation for over two years and recommended
we transfer $12.5 billion, which we did. This testifies to the
government's commitment to Canada's health system.
* * *
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the Prime Minister was out of office in 1990 he told Canadians
“I am not interested in patronage because I'm a Liberal”.
Excuse Canadians for seeing the irony in this. The Prime
Minister is rapidly becoming the king of patronage appointments.
Robert Fung, his latest appointment, hired the Prime Minister to
work for him when the Prime Minister was out of politics. That
would be fine except that now Mr. Fung has been rewarded with an
appointment to the Export Development Corporation.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to appoint his friends? Is
that not patronage, appointing friends to these plum patronage
positions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Fung is a very distinguished Canadian businessman.
He has great expertise in business, especially in dealing with
Pacific rim countries. The Reform Party should thank Mr. Fung
for being willing to give up his time to lend his expertise in
the promotion of Canada's exports.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe I should be asking what is their definition of a patronage
appointment. It seems they are on a bit of a roll.
First, Robert Fung hired the Prime Minister when the Prime
Minister was looking for work. That is fine, except that in
return the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Fung first to the team
Canada advisory board and now to the Export Development
Corporation with a healthy retainer. It is starting to sound
like déja vu.
Given the recent record, how many more announcements can we
expect where the Prime Minister simply appoints his former
employers to plum patronage positions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Fung has agreed to serve part time on the board of
the Export Development Corporation. We should be grateful that
somebody with his expertise is willing to take the time away from
his business activities where he would earn an awful lot more
than he would attending a few meetings of the Export Development
Corporation.
Instead of criticizing Mr. Fung, the Reform Party and all
Canadians should praise him. The fact that he may be a supporter
of the Prime Minister does not take anything away from his
competence.
If the Reform Party had its way, there would be only one type of
appointment. That would—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Repentigny.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as time goes
on, more and more people are developing concerns about the
eventual outcome of the clandestine negotiations on the MAI.
Even the Liberal faithful expressed concerns about it at their
convention, pointing out once again the enormous implications of
the negotiations.
1435
Since the MAI will impact upon provincial jurisdictions in many
ways, does the Minister of International Trade intend to call the
premiers together to discuss the various aspects of the agreement
before it is signed?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal delegates had a great
convention and are solidly behind our leader and our government.
There were two resolutions on the MAI. The first was to exclude
culture from the negotiations for the purpose of Canadian
culture, which is exactly what our government is doing. The
second resolution was to ensure that we are engaging Canadians.
Again, the party is clearly in sync with its government.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of International Trade submit his government's position
on the MAI to the House for debate, as soon as possible, so that
it can be discussed before it proceeds any further?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, where has the member been? A couple of
weeks ago we had a six-hour parliamentary debate in this House.
Not only did I participate, but members of Parliament from all
sides of the House participated.
Secondly, we have had a parliamentary report.
Thirdly, we have given speeches publicly as well as at committee
outlining the whole position of the government. Obviously he is
the only member in the House who is not aware of the government's
position.
* * *
LIBERAL CONVENTION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
public should be aware that it was the Reform Party which
proposed that supply day motion, just so the member knows.
This weekend the Liberals were busy patting themselves on the
back, conveniently forgetting about the economic trouble spots in
the country, such as British Columbia. In case Liberal members
do not know, British Columbia is a large mountainous area just to
the west of Calgary.
I should point out that B.C.'s economy has slipped from first in
the country to tenth. We have a situation where business and
consumer confidence is at a new low and the federal government
has absolutely bungled the fishery.
What specific plan does the government have—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear the degree to which the Liberal Party
convention is representative of Canadians from coast to coast to
coast given the fact that it has dominated the debate. I am glad
the debate on the Liberal convention has been able to bring some
life to the shadows and the darkness that exists on the
opposition benches.
I would simply point out that there were over 300 delegates from
British Columbia.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously everyone who voted for them was there.
I point out that the minister obviously has no plan for the
people of British Columbia. If there is any province in the
country that needs broad based tax relief it is B.C. High
federal and provincial taxes are making it impossible for B.C. to
compete with the United States and the Pacific rim.
Why will the government not introduce broad based, substantive
tax relief to help the people of British Columbia and all
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again because this convention represented a broad centre
of the country and not the extremes, what happened was, yes,
there was support for tax reductions and, as the Prime Minister
said, they will come.
However, there was also support, as we have just seen, for
health care, for resolving the problems of children in poverty
and for dealing with the fundamental social fabric of this
country. This is all because British Columbians, like the rest
of Canadians, have a broad view and understanding of the needs of
this country, unlike the narrow extreme views expressed by the
member opposite.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN AMBASSADOR JACQUES ROY
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
At Nice, France on March 12, Ambassador Jacques Roy made the
following statement: “People must realize, however, that
francophones represent only a small minority of Canadians”.
Do these words by the ambassador represent the opinion of the
Canadian government?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would point out one basic fact that may have
escaped the hon. member. There are over one million francophones
outside Quebec as well as several million in Quebec itself.
1440
The difference between his party and ours is that we treat all
francophones equally, with equal respect, right across the
country. That is the difference between his approach and ours.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to be embarrassed by Ambassador
Roy's words.
He ought to be embarrassed as well by the ambassador's actions
when he came to Quebec to support Canadian unity and boasted of
the important role francophones play in Canada, while now back in
France he is relegating francophones to the ranks of a small
minority.
How can the government explain this doublespeak by its ambassador
to France?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
very proud of the work the ambassador did here in Canada. He
represents us very well.
I would venture the opinion that, instead of trying to crush the
francophones outside Quebec, the Bloc ought to be encouraging us
a little. We have done an extraordinary job and will continue to
do so.
* * *
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while the finance minister has been busy talking about Canada
heading into a new golden age, B.C. has been headed into a
recession.
Last month the B.C. unemployment rate was increased by a half a
percentage point. B.C. property values are plummeting. B.C.'s
economy has gone from the fastest growing to the slowest growing
under this government's mandate.
What does this government plan to do about the emerging economic
crisis in B.C., give British Columbians more transfer cuts, more
taxes and more happy talk?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the government is concerned, as
are Canadians, about the state of the British Columbia economy.
That is why we reduced employment insurance premiums from $2.90
to $2.70 to help employment. We forgave employment insurance
premiums for young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24. We
brought interest rates down. They are now at lower rates than
they have been decades. We balanced the books and gave Canadians
confidence in the future.
That is what British Columbians require. It is confidence in
the future and they are getting it as a result of the actions of
this government.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here is a news flash for the finance minister. What British
Columbians are getting from this government is a recession, more
and more people out of work, more and more businesses going
bankrupt, more and more people not able to make ends meet because
of the tax burden.
B.C. has the highest marginal tax rates in North America, in
large part because of the highest personal income tax burden in
the G-7 imposed by this government.
What does this government do? It raises CPP by $10 billion. It
threatens foreign investment through its foreign assets
disclosure. It imposes a head tax on immigrants. It killed
thousands of jobs.
When is this government going to stop delivering rhetoric to
British Columbians and deliver a real economic plan through
substantive tax relief, to give—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because this country has been able to balance its books,
the first of the G-7 countries to do so, we will be able to bring
in $7 billion of tax relief over the course of the next three
years.
What is happening is that the balanced policies of this
government are giving this country a very strong financial
foundation. What I would simply say to the people of this
country is not to vote for extremes.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILEAN REFUGEES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a group
of Chileans in Montreal has been on a hunger strike for several
days now. A number of people have been trying to find a solution
to the situation that has prompted this strike, so that it can
end.
Would the Minister of Immigration agree to suspend the
deportations and to meet with a committee of Quebec leaders, as
proposed by Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte and CSN President
Gérald Larose, in order to try to find a humane solution, so that
the hunger strikers can put an end to their protest?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present time, Chilean refugee
claimants are receiving fair treatment that is in keeping with
Canada's obligations. I cannot help but sympathize with the
situation some of them are in at the present time.
I must, however, point out that I myself have been in contact
with the Archbishop of Montreal. I have spoken with Monsignor
Turcotte, and have made it very clear that we will do everything
in our power to provide them with access to the various programs
and recourses available under our legislation. There is,
however, no question of giving them special treatment, or the
right to permanent residence, outside the present legislation.
* * *
1445
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, if the Minister of Health is really sincere that health
care is one of the key priorities for his government, then surely
he can agree to a simple mechanism that would allow him and his
government to report back to Parliament about the adequacy of
cash transfer payments for health care and ensure that we have a
mechanism for compliance to the principles of medicare.
Now that the minister has had a couple of minutes to compare his
party resolution with our amendment, would he agree today here
and now to support this mechanism?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I mentioned to the hon. member's colleague, assessing the
sufficiency of transfers, assessing everything this government
does in support of health care is a continuous process in this
government.
The reason we regard the amendment however well intended as
unnecessary is it is part and parcel of this government's
approach to health care and its responsibilities in that regard
to monitor constantly whether the health care system and
particularly the transfers for health care and related services
are sufficient. It is indeed this government's intention to do
exactly what the amendment proposes.
* * *
THE SENATE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister recently stated
that the Prime Minister should be praised for appointing more
women to the Senate.
In 1973 Thelma Chalifoux ran for the council in Slave Lake,
Alberta, whose population was over 50% aboriginal and Metis. She
lost that election to me.
Is the Prime Minister so paternalistic that he believes the only
way a woman can hold public office is if he appoints them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the hon. member has to do is take off her Reform
blinkers, look at the government side of the House, see the women
ministers, see the women MPs and know that women are recognized
by the Liberal Party. They are recognized by the electorate in
greater and greater numbers due to the leadership of this Prime
Minister. Her assertions are absolutely false and she had better
withdraw them as soon as possible.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister
also appoints female nominated candidates. But the most recent
female appointee of the Prime Minister, Joan Cook, also sought
public office. She ran twice for the Newfoundland assembly and
was defeated. She is noted for strongly supporting the Prime
Minister's leadership candidacy.
Who does Senator Cook represent in the Senate, the people of
Newfoundland or the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it so happens that the Senate is a partisan political
body. It is organized along party lines. Why should the Prime
Minister not appoint people who would support his party and the
government program?
For that matter, the hon. member is worried about people
supporting the Prime Minister. It is clear from the polls that
most Canadians support the Prime Minister. Why does she not wake
up to that reality?
* * *
WOLF HUNTS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the last few weeks Canadians from coast to coast to coast
have expressed their grave concerns over concentrated wolf hunts
in the Northwest Territories.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell this House what she and
her department are willing to do with the Government of the
Northwest Territories and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
to ensure the population is not endangered?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since this issue has come to the
attention of Canadians, I have had the opportunity to communicate
with my territorial counterpart on a couple of occasions, the
last being last week.
My department has offered resources and personnel to assist the
minister to do an assessment of the population of wolves in the
area affected. As well, we are very concerned about the fact
that native peoples in the north are dependent upon living off
the land. We want to ensure, with the minister in the Northwest
Territories, that their practices are sustainable. We have
agreed to help him in meeting with aboriginal peoples to make
sure that they are so.
1450
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to the
next question, which would be the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre, we have a supplementary for the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre which I missed. The hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Health.
If the Minister of Health is already doing what Liberal
delegates called for this weekend and is establishing a process
to measure the quality of health care in Canada, why will he not
agree to a formal process as proposed in our amendment to ensure
that there is an annual medicare check-up and that there is a way
for members of Parliament and all Canadians to participate in
that process and to be assured that medicare is on solid footing?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my point is simply that this government engages continuously in
that process.
The appointment of the National Forum on Health was itself a
formal way of asking a blue ribbon independent panel to look at
the state of the health care system, to examine the dynamic of
the transfers and to assess whether the transfers were sufficient
for the purpose. In fact the forum recommended that the cash
floor be moved to $12.5 billion which of course we have done.
In the months ahead we will continue to assess, as we have
always done, the needs of the health care system to ensure that
we are fulfilling our responsibility to keep it strong.
* * *
ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
over two years more than 600 workers at AECL Pinawa have been
living with the uncertainty of the sale of the company to the
private sector company CNPL.
The sale is delayed yet again and hundreds of layoffs are
scheduled for March 31. As it stands, hundreds of these workers
could lose their access to early retirement initiatives and
resettlement packages.
Will the minister responsible for the Treasury Board guarantee
the workers at AECL that they will not lose their right to ERI
because of stalled negotiations that are clearly beyond their
control?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman and also the people
in the Pinawa district of Manitoba that the Secretary of State
for Western Economic Diversification, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance
and myself have been seized with this issue. We have been
working very hard to find the best solution for all concerned.
The most immediate issue relates to the employees' status in the
circumstances of the potential layoffs to which the hon.
gentleman referred. He may be assured that we will take all steps
necessary to make sure that their positions are protected.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, at a
meeting with provincial health ministers, the Minister of Health
stressed how important home health care was. He reiterated this
conviction at the Liberal convention on the weekend, and
repeated it in the House.
Can the Minister of Health tell us why he is always saying that
home care is a priority, when his cabinet colleagues do not seem
to agree with him? And if they do share his view that it is a
priority, why is money not being earmarked for it right away?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
the election campaign almost one year ago, we stated the
Government of Canada's position regarding the priority of home
and community care.
In Halifax a few weeks ago, we organized a pan-Canadian
conference. Representatives from hospitals, provincial
governments and professional service providers were there to
discuss home care. There is recognition for the importance of
such care, not just by the Government of Canada, but throughout
the country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately, the Minister of Health seems to be the only one
who thinks it is important, and his view is not shared by his
colleagues, because this program will not take any sort of
concrete shape before at least the year 2000.
But if the program ever were to get off the ground, could the
Minister of Health make sure that it is run by the provinces,
and that they are treated with the respect they deserve, and not
say, as the Prime Minister did, that they are unable to run the
health sector, and that any health problems in Canada are their
fault?
Will the minister promise to respect the provinces' jurisdiction
over health with respect to the home care program?
1455
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Of course, Mr.
Speaker, as always.
Right now, we are contemplating such an approach, and I naturally
intend to discuss it with my provincial counterparts. In the
months ahead, I will be there to discuss needs and the best way
the federal government, in partnership with provincial
governments, can meet those needs.
* * *
[English]
WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification.
Many rural areas of western Canada are suffering from high
unemployment rates and the needs of potential entrepreneurs are
not being met. What is the government doing to help business in
rural areas out west, particularly for people who want to start
new businesses and provide jobs for others?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, western economic diversification has a rather extensive
service network throughout western Canada. For example, over 90
community futures development corporations cover virtually 100%
of non-metropolitan areas in western Canada. These corporations
last year gave out over 1,200 loans, over $25 million in loans
which created over 3,200 jobs. In the non-metropolitan areas,
western economic diversification has offered info fairs which
have given information to over 18,000 western Canadians.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every time
we have asked the justice minister when she is going to amend the
Young Offenders Act we get the same pathetic unacceptable answer
that she will move in a timely fashion.
Everyone except the justice minister has done their job.
Hundreds of witnesses submitted briefs or appeared before the
standing committee. They have done their job. The committee
submitted its report together with its recommendations to this
House almost a year ago. It has done its job. The AGs have
submitted their recommendations. They have done their job.
I ask the justice minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as perhaps you have noticed,
this is Academy Awards evening and the hon. member is rehearsing
his part.
Mr. Speaker, more seriously, the hon. member raises a very
important issue. As I have said before in this House, the
government will respond to the standing committee's report in a
timely and thorough fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, morphine is
derived from heroin, a hard drug which was legalized for
therapeutic uses and is very beneficial to the sick.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is a soft drug whose use for
medical purposes is outlawed, despite the fact that many
physicians consider it could be used to alleviate pain.
My question to the Minister of Health is the following: In light
of these facts, could the minister tell us when he plans to set
the process in motion to ultimately legalize the use of marijuana
for medical purposes?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister
of Health and I have said on a number of occasions, our officials
are at work reviewing this very important question. When we have
recommendations to make to this House, we will bring them
forward.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board will know that
tomorrow the Senate agriculture committee begins hearings in
western Canada on amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Bill C-4 includes an inclusion clause that would admit new
grains to the board's jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, the
inclusion clause has been bitterly opposed in an attack by the
business lobby and the transnational corporations.
Can the minister assure this House that he will not accept any
attempt to delete or in any way weaken the inclusion clause by
the unelected—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. minister
responsible for the wheat board.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Senate is indeed beginning its work with respect to
Bill C-4. It is obviously not up to me or any other member of
this House to reflect on the work of the other place.
It will conduct its hearings and make its recommendations
in due course.
1500
I think the thing that is fundamental with respect to that
legislation is to ensure that farmers, not politicians, not
bureaucrats, not minority interest groups, have the democratic
authority to shape their marketing agency as they would see fit.
That is the kind of result I am looking for.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILDREN'S HEALTH
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1998, there
are nearly 1.5 million children living in poverty. Consequently,
their health is at risk, they are malnourished and their living
conditions are inadequate.
The Minister of Health said health was his priority. What does
his department intend to do to help these children, who are more
likely to have health problems?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, and I
are currently helping children throughout Canada in co-operation
with the provincial governments.
There are, for example, the changes introduced by my colleague
with the child tax benefit. There are also the community action
programs for children, which are under way in community centres
across Canada.
We have plans for helping children and their families. These are
currently being developed all over Canada and I am sure the
situation will improve in the months to come.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present to the House the first
report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, a
most excellent report.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans just tabled the report in the House. I just have a
short question.
I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the
recommendations as a whole, but there was a printing problem.
Could the committee chairman confirm that the additional note
from the Bloc Quebecois will be included in the report? Could he
confirm that?
[English]
Mr. George S. Baker: Mr. Speaker, yes, we do have that
attached to the report, a statement by the Bloc concerning the
translation. We did have problems and we do have that attached
to the report
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
for Bonaventure satisfied?
1505
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the committee chairman is
telling me that the additional note is included, I am prepared
to overlook the technical problems.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Thank you.
[English]
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 24th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 24th report later this day.
* * *
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-383, an act to amend the Food and Drugs
Act (warnings on alcoholic beverage containers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that
containers in which alcoholic beverages are sold display a
printed warning that would warn pregnant and other persons of
certain dangers associated with the consumption of alcoholic
beverages.
The containers would also be required to display illustrated
warnings that would enhance the message contained in the printed
warning.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is just one of the tragic consequences of
alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
Finally, in introducing the bill I want to pay particular
tribute to one of my constituents, Ms. Joy Gilmore, for her
dedicated leadership on this important issue over many years.
(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, I move
that 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have before me a petition with about 500 signatures.
Basically my constituents are concerned that the government's
intervention in the regulating of certain products is deemed to
be interfering in their personal lives.
They are asking the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation
against designating herbs, teas and vitamins as drugs. I support
this resolution.
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my first petition is from thousands of people from the lower
mainland of British Columbia. On November 12, 1996 in British
Columbia, the honourable Judge Harry Boyle sentenced Darren Adam
Ursel to two years less a day to be served in the community under
section 742 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Ursel was convicted of a
very violent sexual assault.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament exempt all
physical and sexual offenders from the provisions in section 742
of the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing.
My second petition deals with violent crime. Violent crime has
increased by over 40% since 1984. Youths aged 12 to 17, although
representing only 8% of the population, account for 23% of all
persons charged with Criminal Code offences. Canadians from coast
to coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act and
for heavier penalties for those convicted of violent crimes.
1510
Therefore the petitioners ask Parliament to amend the Young
Offenders Act to provide that young offenders charged with murder
be automatically tried in adult court; that if convicted they be
sentenced as adults and that their identities should not be
hidden from the public.
My final petition states that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms protects all Canadians, including those convicted of
crimes. Victims of crimes require specific rights in the justice
system as it is they as members of society for whom our laws are
designed to protect. Our justice system must give victims
specific rights as it does with the criminals to make our justice
system fair for all.
Therefore the petitions call on Parliament to support the
development of a victims bill of rights.
HEALTH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by more than 100 people in the Peterborough
riding who are concerned about the price of prescription drugs.
They point out that Bill C-91 gives the brand name multinational
drug companies 20 years of protection from competition and up to
an extra two and half years with the notice of compliance
regulations.
The petitioners call on Parliament to immediately withdraw the
notice of compliance regulation, introduce legislation to lower
patent protection from the present 20 years and implement a
national pharmacare program based on the recommendations of the
Prime Minister's national forum on health.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition signed by several score of citizens from the
Peterborough area who are concerned about the MAI.
They point out that the most recent draft of the MAI indicates
that if adopted it will have a major impact on many important
areas of Canadian life.
The petitioners call on Parliament to impose a moratorium on the
ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the
proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians
can have an opportunity to express their opinions.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too wish to present a petition on behalf of the
constituents in Burnaby and other British Columbians on the
multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI.
The petitioners note that the MAI will disproportionately expand
and entrench unprecedented rights to transnational corporations
and foreign investors at the perilous expense of the Canadian
government's ability to direct investment policy as a tool for
the benefit of all Canadians.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to consider the
enormous implications to Canada of the signing of the MAI and put
it open to debate in the House and place it for a national
referendum for the people of Canada to decide.
PENSIONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition which has been signed by
residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas.
It notes concerns about the future of the Canadian retirement
system, the CPP, old age security and guaranteed income
supplement.
The petitioners call on Parliament to rescind the CPP
legislation which imposes massive CPP premium hikes while
reducing benefits and changes the CPP financial arrangements to
provide a payoff for Bay Street brokers and bankers. They
further petition the House for a national review of the
retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of
Canada's retirement system today and in the future.
* * *
STARRED QUESTION
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 42. Due to the
length of the answer, I ask that it be printed in Hansard
as if read.
.[Text]
<*Question No. 42—Mr. Jim Hart:
With regard to the Canadian forces: (a) what preparations has
the government undertaken to ensure their integrity during and
after a secession attempt; and (b) what policies, procedures
and regulations has the Deaprtment of National Defence prepared
to guide its members during a future referendum or negotiations?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
(a) The government has made no preparation for what remains a
highly hypothetical scenario. That being said, Canadian forces
members swear an oath of allegiance and are subject to the code
of service discipline contained in the National Defence Act. In
addition, the mission of the Department of National Defence, DND,
and the Canadian forces, CF, to defend Canada and Canadian
interests and values while contributing to international peace
and security is clearly outlined in numerous documents including
the 1994 defence white paper. Canadian forces members understand
their role and are proud of their contribution and
accomplishments in promoting Canadian interests. At a time when
the continued existence of the nation is being debated and
national symbols take on more importance than ever, the unifying
role of the department and the forces can only build a stronger,
more dynamic and prosperous country.
(b) The Canadian forces must always act and be seen to be acting
in an apolitical manner. There is no intent to limit healthy
discussion of a private nature, however, public announcements and
discussions that could lead to the assumption that any such
statements are CF or DND policy must be avoided, and CF members
are made fully aware of this through various regulations and
orders which govern political activities on defence
establishments and personal political activities of CF members.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-28, an act to amend
the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act,
the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age
Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate
Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western
Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the
Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee;
and of Motion No. 2.
1515
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
clarification. I am unclear as to what motion we are on now.
Are we still debating Motion No. 2?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is correct.
According to my list the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin by saying what a great pleasure it is for
me to speak to Bill C-28.
As I am the Bloc Quebecois transport critic, some of my
colleagues might be wondering what lies behind my interest in
this bill introduced by the Minister of Finance.
As I was saying, there are aspects of this bill that I, as
transport critic, find very important, one of them being a
clause to which my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
has drawn wide attention during oral question period, in the
media scrums and in earlier debates. I am talking about clause
241.
The Minister of Finance is the sponsor of this bill, clause 241
of which improves the tax treatment of offshore shipping
companies held by Canadian companies.
For several weeks now, the government has denied that this
measure will benefit the Minister of Finance's companies, but
senior finance department officials and the government's ethics
counsellor have admitted that Canada Steamship Lines could
indeed benefit from this measure. Important questions remain
unanswered.
The opposition is unanimous, and this is not some Bloc Quebecois
fabrication.
The four opposition parties on this side of the House have
indicated clearly to the chair of the Standing Committee on
Finance, in a letter from the four finance critics dated
February 12, that they would like to see a special subcommittee
of the Standing Committee on Finance struck as quickly as
possible for the purpose of clarifying the situation with respect
to the interpretation of clause 241 in Bill C-28. That was clear.
It is our contention, and we are supported in this by the other
opposition parties, that the Minister of Finance is trying,
through Bill C-28, to get the House to pass a bill that could
very well give his shipping company, Canada Steamship Lines Inc.,
of which he is the sole owner, certain tax advantages.
Even if the Minister of Finance defends himself by saying that
his company has been in a blind trust since he became the
minister, he will not remain the minister for the rest of his
life and could eventually benefit from these tax changes.
The Minister of Finance and representatives of his company
contend that Canada Steamship Lines does not intend to use this
provision to benefit from the measures in clause 241. While it
is not their intention, that does not mean that they are not
entitled to, and that is the subtlety we must watch out for.
Let us have a look at the holdings and the assets of the Minister
of Finance. We will look at the ships. I had information on
certain ships obtained from the Lloyd's Register of Ships. Let
us see if we can untangle things a bit.
1520
A look at the Minister of Finance's assets reveals that CSL owns
a number of companies registered in Barbados: CSL Cabo Shipping
Line Barbados, wholly owned; Innovaforce Shipping Inc.,
registered in Liberia; CSL Asia Investments Inc., also
registered in Liberia. He is up to his elbows in tax havens.
Over his head in tax havens.
I decided to track the registration of the ships belonging to
Canada Steamship Lines. My research revealed that Atlantic Erie
was called, in 1988—and I know I am not allowed to name the
Minister of Finance, but perhaps it was his father—the
Honourable Paul Martin. It was probably his father, who was a
minister.
This ship is registered in the Bahamas.
We also learned from Lloyd's Register of Ships that the Atlantic
Superior—
[English]
An hon. member: Why don't you just get in the gutter?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: So that got a reaction on the other side, did
it? When a sensitive spot is touched, it is a bit like a visit
to the chiropractor, when he hits a sensitive nerve. It makes
one holler, like the Liberals are doing now. Let them. If what
I was saying was totally meaningless, the Liberals would not feel
obliged to defend themselves. Moving on, let us look at another
ship.
The Atlantic Superior is owned by Atlantic Superior Shipping Co.
Inc., which is also registered in the Bahamas.
Two others are also registered in the Bahamas: CSL Atlas, owned
by Canada Steamship Lines, and CSL Innovator, also owned by
Canada Steamship Lines.
I see time is passing, and I will have to conclude in a few
moments.
My purpose with these comments is not to carry out a witch hunt
and formally accuse the Minister of Finance of conflict of
interest. What we want to demonstrate is that there is an
apparent conflict of interest. The meetings between my hon.
colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Finance Canada officials,
and his contacts with the government's ethics counsellor,
indicate that there is an apparent conflict of interest.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Apparent.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Apparent, yes. I hear the hon. member for
Ahuntsic yelling “apparent” at me, but I would remind her that a
minister of the crown has a duty to avoid any suspicion of an
apparent conflict of interest. Any suspicion, precisely so as
to not end up with a conflict. One must protect oneself from
this.
There are still many questions without answers. Why was the
Minister of Finance the one to sponsor this bill? Why did he
not have the Minister of State for Financial Institutions, the
hon. member for Willowdale, do it? Why did he do it himself?
We consider this an imprudent act, one exposing the Minister of
Finance to criticism. These 4 CSL vessels registered in the
Bahamas clearly indicate that someone can, if enterprising, take
advantage of tax havens.
When we know that the company in question belongs 100% to the
Minister of Finance, it is no wonder ordinary citizens, the
people watching us today on television, have lost confidence. It
is because such loopholes exist.
This does nothing for the credibility of this institution. Most
members here try to do a good job.
We try to thoroughly research the issues and when something like
this is thrown in our faces, how do you think we feel?
1525
One might also wonder why Canada Steamship Lines does not
register its ships to Canada, as would normally be done. The
Desgagnés group bought the Rio Orinoco, which was wrecked off
île d'Anticosti, and renamed it the Thalassa Desgagnés. The
Thalassa Desgagnés carries oil between Miami and certain islands
in the West Indies and the Gulf of Mexico. It is registered to
Canada and has a Canadian crew.
I think there are shipping companies that show they are capable
of assuming their responsibilities by hiring people from this
country and paying their taxes here. We see that the Minister of
Finance says one thing and does another.
Everyone claims to be lily-white, but when we see this sort of
sleight of hand, it worries us. That was what I wished to say.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak to Motion No. 2 at report stage of Bill C-28.
The motion addresses the perceived conflict of interest the hon.
Minister of Finance finds himself in with respect to certain
provisions of the bill, principally article 241 which would
change the tax treatment of shipping companies.
It is well known to members of this place and the public that
the Minister of Finance holds through a blind trust principal
ownership of Canada Steamship Lines, a major international
shipping company. Members of the opposition have raised the
question as to whether or not he may be in a conflict of interest
by having acted as the sponsor of this bill.
Let me say at the outset that I believe the hon. Minister of
Finance is a honest and diligent member of this place and is
deserving of respect. Even though I often disagree with him, I
personally do not believe that the Minister of Finance acted as
the sponsor of this bill in order to derive any kind of personal
financial benefit. I rather suspect, given the nature of his
responsibilities, that he likely never read the bill. I suspect
very few members of the House have actually read a technical tax
bill such as this one. What we read are summaries provided to us
by either the department or by our research staffs. Oftentimes
those summaries do not stipulate a particular provision such as
article 241. It is entirely plausible that the Minister of
Finance was not aware that article 241 posed a potential conflict
of interest for him.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon ministers, when they bring
bills forward to parliament, that they be well and thoroughly
advised about the contents of such legislation. They should know
whether or not they may find themselves in a potential conflict
position vis-à-vis their own personal business interests and
whether or not those interests are managed through a blind trust.
In this case it would appear to me that the Minister of Finance
was let down by his advisers, by his bureaucrats who recommended
that he act as the principal sponsor of the bill but who did not
flag, did not highlight, did not emphasize the potential conflict
between his private business interests and article 241 which
deals with the tax treatment of shipping companies.
Rather than simply dismissing the criticism which opposition
members have levelled at the finance minister out of hand as he
has done, rather than suggesting that this is some kind of
mean-spirited smear campaign, I suggest the government members,
and the Minister of Finance in particular, should take to heart
in a constructive way the criticism that has been levelled with
respect to this perceived conflict.
The minister should go to his officials, if he has not already
done so, and say “You have put me in a very embarrassing
position by giving me bad advice. I should not have acted as the
principal sponsor of this bill”.
Another minister, say the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions could easily have brought the bill
forward.
The Minister of National Revenue could have brought this bill
forward. The Minister of Finance should have gone to his
officials and said, “You gave me bad advice. There was clearly
at least a perceived conflict here between myself and this
legislation. My name ought not therefore to have been that of
the sponsor of the bill”, and somebody should be held to
account.
1530
That is really the issue I want to address. It is one of
ministerial accountability. It is a principle which is
absolutely central to the traditions of Parliament.
We have inherited from our mother Parliament in Great Britain a
remarkable institution. It is an institution where the executive
branch of the government represents the authority of the crown
and has the enormous power of the state vested in it. Police
powers, taxing powers and military powers are vested in the
executive branch. In this case they are manifested in the
cabinet, the governor in council. Members of the cabinet have a
fiduciary responsibility to this legislative body to ensure that
they are never even in a perceived conflict between their
ministerial responsibilities, their responsibilities on behalf of
the crown, and their business affairs as private citizens. They
also have a profound responsibility to this legislature and to
the people that we as MPs represent to take responsibility for
what happens in their departments.
I am greatly disturbed by the increasing pattern of ministerial
unaccountability, where we find instances like this which come to
the surface where ministers refuse to take responsibility for
what admittedly may be bad advice given to them by their
bureaucrats, but advice which they accept and for which they
ought to be held accountable.
If the ministers are not held accountable, who is? The
ministers represent their bureaucracies, their departments, which
are creatures of this legislature. If they slough off
responsibility and they say, “It was just an error. It was just
a mistake. It was a small oversight. I cannot be answerable for
it. My bureaucrats cannot be answerable for it”, then what is
the point of having this Parliament? Why not just have an
executive branch of government that is answerable to no one?
That is the ultimate logical conclusion of this kind of
incremental diminishment of the principle of ministerial
responsibility and accountability which ought to have been much
more clearly respected by the Minister of Finance in responding
to the criticism levelled at him with respect to Bill C-28.
It is not just Bill C-28 where we see a recent example of
conflict of interest. In this House in recent days the official
opposition has raised the very troubling example of the recent
appointment to the Senate of a certain Ross Fitzpatrick by the
Right Hon. Prime Minister. I do not know Mr. Fitzpatrick. I
have no reason to believe that he is anything but an honourable,
diligent and loyal Canadian citizen. I have no reason to believe
he will not be a hard working and responsible senator, fulfilling
his constitutional responsibilities.
However, it is a fact that Mr. Fitzpatrick was chairman of the
board of a corporation on which the current Prime Minister sat as
a director. It is furthermore a fact that the Right Hon. Prime
Minister, when he was a private citizen in 1987, exercised a
stock option which was given to him by Senator Fitzpatrick which
generated a personal profit of $45,000 in the space of one week.
It is furthermore a fact that when initially questioned about
this stock deal, initially questioned about his corporate
position on the Viceroy Resources Board, the Right Hon. Prime
Minister claimed that he had received no compensation.
I know the rules of this place and would never suggest that the
Prime Minister has misled the House. But the facts show a very
clear incongruity between the reality and what the Prime Minister
said. It is another shocking example of where we see a
perceived, if not real, conflict of interest which government
members just expect us to walk away from.
1535
I know there are members on that side who were once in
opposition. I know that if Prime Minister Mulroney had appointed
the chairman of a board on which he served and from which he
received a substantial financial benefit that Liberal members of
Parliament in opposition would have raised a bloody furore that
never would have stopped until somebody's head was on a platter.
I say good on them because the role of an opposition party is to
hold the government to account.
I was in the Liberal Party in 1987. Every single person in the
Liberal Party, every political observer in the country, knew that
the Prime Minister, who was then a private citizen, was likely to
run again for political office. He received a personal financial
benefit. It is clearly, in my view, a conflict of interest for
him to have appointed to the Senate somebody from whom he
received a personal financial benefit.
These examples carry on. Just today we raised another case of a
former employer of the Prime Minister who received a remunerative
government patronage position.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I do not know why hon. members are
heckling. This is how Parliament functions. The opposition
raises questions. They are supposed to answer.
In closing, I want to say that we need to reinforce the
tradition of ministerial accountability and stop these conflicts
of interest which are undermining Parliament and its
institutions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are now in
the final stage of debate on Bill C-28, which has made headlines
since the House reconvened last month.
However, just hours before the vote on this legislation, the
public is still not reassured about clause 241, which would put
the Minister of Finance in an apparent conflict of interest.
In spite of the questions asked by the Bloc Quebecois and the
other opposition parties, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime
Minister have avoided any debate by refusing to provide answers
to the opposition, which wanted and still wants to have the
situation clarified.
Moreover, all the efforts made to have the Standing Committee on
Finance hear witnesses on this issue have been vain, except for
the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor, who appeared before the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, on a point of order.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, our fellow members from the
Reform Party and the Liberal Party should show some respect
toward my Bloc Quebecois colleague, who is making an eloquent
speech.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has made a very good point.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Drummond.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I realize this speech is
hurting the Liberals, but I would ask for a modicum of respect
during this debate.
The Prime Minister basically gave a gag order to his caucus and
it was complied with. Since February 5, when the Bloc Quebecois
showed what—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If hon. members want
to carry on a conversation, please do so in the lobby. The hon.
member for Drummond has the floor. If you are going to keep this
up, go outside.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate getting
back the time I was deprived of because some members do not
respect my right to speak in this House.
We are still debating Bill C-28 and, as I was saying, the Prime
Minister gave his caucus an order to silence the opposition, and
that order was complied with.
Since February 5, when the Bloc Quebecois showed what is really
behind Bill C-28, the opposition has been facing systematic
obstruction co-ordinated by the Prime Minister's office. If the
Liberal government has nothing to hide, why is it stubbornly
refusing to respond to the opposition on this issue?
The ethics counsellor himself said that Bill C-28 had not been
drafted according to the rules and that, if they had to do it
again, some measures would have to be taken to avoid this
conflict of interest situation.
1540
He recognized, as we do, that there were serious problems with
the way the finance minister was doing things and that the code
of ethics the government had adopted in 1994 was not observed.
On the basis of this statement and in an attempt to get to the
bottom of the matter, the four opposition parties took the
unprecedented step of joining together both in the House and in a
press conference to demand that light be shed on this nebulous
matter.
Once again, the Prime Minister did not accede to the
opposition's request, thereby confirming what we suspected all
along: it is in the interest of some individuals that the truth
never be known.
To resolve this impasse caused entirely by the government, the
Bloc Quebecois is proposing a sensible alternative, which would
be in keeping with expressed wish of the various opposition
parties.
The Minister of Finance, who is in an apparent conflict of
interest situation, should delete from Bill C-28 clauses 241 and
242, which have led to so many questions that have remained
unanswered for more than a month now. The minister could include
these two clauses in a different schedule of the bill or in a
different bill altogether, as suggested by the Prime Minister's
ethics counsellor.
In this respect, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot proposed
an amendment that I fully support, as it responds to the many
representations made by the opposition, including a request for
a special subcommittee to provide answers to some of the
questions the government has refused to answer so far.
The ethics counsellor, who works for the Prime Minister,
contends that it is not important to know whether or not CSL, the
company owned by the Minister of Finance, would benefit from the
provisions contained in Bill C-28. In that case, why did Mr.
Wilson contact CSL the very day this matter was brought up to
inquire as to whether the company was taking advantage of these
provisions or contemplating to do so?
In addition, Mr. Wilson has admitted that he was not an expert
in tax planning. However, he seems to accept at face value,
without outside opinions, the statement from CSL to the effect
that the company had no intention of using the provisions
contained in Bill C-28.
For several weeks, the government has been denying that the
Minister of Finance is at the very least in an apparent conflict
of interest situation, arguing that the minister is not the one
who introduced the provisions on shipping.
Yet, the ethics counsellor contradicted the government by
admitting that the Minister of Finance had sponsored Bill C-28 and
that that creates an appearance of conflict of interest.
Mr. Wilson says, in this regard, that procedural problems in the
Department of Finance put the Minister of Finance in an awkward
situation and that things would have been done differently had
he been advised, as he should have, before C-28 was introduced.
Since the ethics counsellor admits that the Minister of Finance
is in a position of appearing to be in a conflict of interest,
how should the federal government's June 1994 code of ethics
apply in this case?
Mr. Wilson also suggests that the Minister of Finance was not
aware of the content of Bill C-28 before the Bloc raised these
issues in the House a number of weeks ago.
Could the minister responsible for the Income Tax Act so easily
have shirked his responsibilities in connection with a bill he
was sponsoring and how does the public view a Minister of Finance
who did not know what was in his own legislation?
Is ministerial accountability not a fundamental principle of our
parliamentary system? The least I can say is that the
government's stubborn refusal to open up the entire matter does
little to lighten the suspicions hanging over the minister, on
the contrary.
1545
I would like to turn my attention to another point in Bill C-28,
which concerns transfers to the provinces.
What this bill confirms is the unfortunate plan for making cuts,
which the Minister of Finance dreamt up to reduce his deficit on
the backs of others. What they are saying is that $48 billion in
savage cuts to transfers for education, health and social
assistance will be reduced to $42 billion. What a relief. This
is no increase in transfers to the provinces. It is less of a
cut.
In this regard, changing the cash floor for transfer payments to
$12.5 billion is nothing more than a vulgar election promise,
legitimized by the National Forum on Health, in order to fool
the people into thinking they are giving more, when in fact the
provinces and Quebec have to work with $42 billion less, while
the federal government rubs its hands together at the prospect of
encroaching on provincial jurisdictions with the money it saved.
Who is going to pay the social cost of the budget approach of
this Liberal government? The sick, the unemployed and the most
disadvantaged of our society. They are the real artisans of the
first balanced budget. The Liberals have nothing at all to be
proud of.
When one sees this Liberal government unable to admit it made a
poor choice in its last budget, when one sees the federal
Liberals encouraging the government to poke its nose into
education, is it any surprise that the Prime Minister is trying
to conceal the truth in the case of the Minister of Finance and
the apparent conflict of interest?
On the eve of a provincial election, even the Quebec Liberals are
asking their federal big brothers to be discreet and to respect
the traditional demands of Quebec, but it is a bit too late for
the Liberals.
With such eloquent examples as Bill C-28, which once again dumps
the deficit onto the provincial governments, while offering the
Minister of Finance some attractive tax opportunities, Quebeckers
understand better and better whom the federal government is
working for.
They understand that government decisions will never bear any
resemblance to their wishes until those decisions are all made
where their interests are really taken into account: in the
Quebec National Assembly.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like our
last speaker said, I am sure the finance minister may not have
had any ill intentions in bringing forward this bill. Certainly
Motion No. 2 which we are talking to would suit to chastise the
minister for this. Probably he could blame a civil servant for
not advising him correctly.
I put forward another concept which might be one of arrogance.
Across the way we see a lot of arrogance. We see arrogance which
leads to not considering what the real facts are, in fact not
really caring much about the kind of perception that is created
by the bills put forward in the House. When that level of
arrogance reaches all the politicians right from the front bench
to the back, we know what usually happens. Possibly that golden
age we heard talked about this weekend might well be at its peak
at this point when we witness that sort of arrogance across the
way.
Politics is so much perception; what people think is happening
is almost as important as what really is. I put forward that the
perception that is being painted by the government at this point
with its patronage appointments, with its special committees,
with taking care of all of its members so well certainly starts
to resonate among the people. I will relate a few incidents which
will bring this point out.
I was at the APEC meeting in Vancouver last fall. It was very
interesting. I was sitting at a table talking to foreign
delegates from the various APEC countries.
At the table were two defeated Liberal candidates.
1550
Just to give an idea of the patronage and the kind of thing that
goes on, these two gentlemen made it very clear that they had
received two nights accommodation at the Waterfront hotel in
downtown Vancouver. Those who know that hotel know the cost.
They had received transfers in a limousine to the hotel. They and
their spouses had been invited to these various high class
banquets.
These men were defeated Liberal candidates. One of them had run
in Esquimalt. He said to the gentleman next to him “So you are
from Papua. What is a Papua?” This candidate said “Why are
you here?” “I am from New Guinea and we are actually a member
of APEC”. You can see the perception. All of us at the table
said he had just insulted a representative of another government.
The guy from northern B.C. was even better. He said to the guy
beside me “So you are from Australia. You are not an Asian. You
cannot be here. This is just for Asians. Sir, what are you here
for?”
Perception. Patronage. That is what this is all about. That
is what this motion is all about. Remember that perception is
everything.
We could go on to the Senate appointments we have just seen and
the sort of arrogance there. Certainly when we go through that
whole thing regarding Mr. Fitzpatrick the perception is not what
actually happened. That happens in business. I understand that.
I come from a business background.
It is the perception. You do not name the guy to the Senate.
You do not appear to be rewarding that person for something.
Maybe it is more honest in Alberta where Nick Taylor says “I
worked for the Liberal Party for 40 years and so I deserved it.
Yes it is patronage. Yes I took the patronage. Yes it is part
of this whole thing and I do not mind finally getting my
freebies, my return for that sort of patronage”.
It is perception. It is why people have so little respect for
the today's politicians. We could go on. In the area I
represent we talk about Mr. Fowler, a good friend of mine who is
our representative at the United Nations. This guy got himself
in lots of trouble. We even had to shut down the Somalia inquiry
because it was getting too close to him. He was rewarded with
patronage. Perception is what it is all about.
We all know that the minister I shadow is the godfather of
Winnipeg. Nothing happens in Winnipeg without the godfather
knowing about it.
Patronage. Perception. That is what it is all about. That is
what hurts this place. That is what hurts this country. That is
what hurts what we do here. It is perception. What the finance
minister is doing might be just fine, but the perception is that
something is not working properly there.
When I am in my constituency I talk about planet Ottawa. I talk
about the place that is not related to anything to which the
normal person might relate. There is little accountability. There
is little transparency. There is little worry about perception
and there is a great deal of arrogance. Seldom do the Liberals
listen to the people. Seldom do they ask the people what they
think because of the confidence and arrogance that is built here
does not tend toward that.
With respect to Bill C-28 and taxation, what are people saying
about taxation? What are they saying in the streets? They are
saying the government should take care of that debt, lower the
taxes and stop spending.
1555
We look at it from a business perspective. As I said I come from
business. As soon as the business grew too big, there was no
more incentive. The government took more and more and more and
finally one would say “Why should I keep working for the
government? Why should I keep risking my capital for the sake of
paying more in taxation?” This government is destroying people's
initiative.
What about young people? Twenty thousand young people leave
this country every year, PhDs and masters graduates. Why do they
leave? They leave because we have the highest tax levels in the
G-7. They leave because they see no light at the end of the
tunnel. They see a doomed pension plan. They see an
insurmountable debt. They start looking around. It is a brain
drain we as a country cannot afford.
Going on to payroll taxes, there has been a 73% increase in
payroll taxes. What will that do for jobs?
I have to tell this House about visiting with people in three
countries where there was a different method for pensions. A
method was there for them to look at and to be part of their
system. They had a private plan where they could look at their
investment and see what it was worth to them. We must provide
that initiative, that incentive, that whole thing which makes
this country such an important and workable unit.
Very briefly, this is a snapshot of this country looking from
outside. We have a $583 billion debt. We have a $45 billion
interest payment which is destroying our social programs, our
educational programs and is creating unemployment. In our
military we discipline the guys at the bottom but none at the
top. Our dollar is down in the tank. We have not learned very
much. Everything we are doing is hurting our future generations.
I plead with this government to start being concerned about
perception, about transparency. Start doing things as the
Canadian people ask it to.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am the member for
Lévis. Everyone knows that we have an big shipyard in my riding.
I felt an obligation to take part in the debate on Bill C-28.
Although not all its clauses deal with shipping, there is one
that does, and that is clause 241.
The purpose of the motion now before us moved by the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is to delete this clause. Why? For a number
of reasons, one in particular. In our view, there appears to be
a conflict of interest, because this bill was introduced by the
Minister of Finance.
Although his interests are held in a trust, he administers
several shipping companies under one holding company known as
Canada Steamship Lines.
This company has several ships, but also has subsidiaries. The
main feature of these subsidiaries is that they are all over the
map internationally. Clause 241 of the bill reads as follows:
241. the corporation has as its principal business in the year
the operation of ships that are used primarily in transporting
passengers or goods in international traffic—
I asked myself why tax benefits were being given only to those in
international shipping and with offshore interests.
1600
In my opinion, this did not seem fair to the others because,
ideally, a country's policy should promote its citizen's
interests.
A number of companies administer the finance minister's
interests in the shipping sector. The minister's interests are
held in trust. The minister has companies in various sectors, but
primarily in the shipping sector, and he has had them for a long
time.
Some who made comments in this House said the Minister of
Finance may have made a technical mistake by introducing the
bill, since only one clause deals with international shipping.
And we are told the minister did not take part in the drafting of
that clause.
Instead, he is said to have asked the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions to do it. Therefore, the minister would
not be in a conflict of interest, or in an apparent conflict of
interest.
This explanation leaves a bad taste in the mouth. We did not get
clear answers to the questions we asked in the House and in the
finance committee. We noticed that Mr. Wilson, the ethics
counsellor, sometimes made statements that differed from what he
wrote. All this does not seem very open, consistent or logical.
The issue deserves a closer look. We were told it was a
technical mistake, but the whole issue must be put in the proper
context.
Clause 241 of Bill C-28 is similar in every respect to clause 151
of Bill C-69, which was introduced last year and which, oddly
enough, died on the Order Paper when the election was called.
The Minister of Finance or his officials cannot claim it was an
oversight, since Bill C-69 was also sponsored by the minister,
which means the same mistake was made twice.
Talking about the election, I will tell the House a short story.
During the election campaign, someone phoned and asked me to
point out, during my campaign, that one of the ships belonging to
Canada Steamship Lines was flying the flag of the Bahamas. When I
checked the next day, things had suddenly changed: the ship was
now registered in Canada. As members can see, one's image is
important during an election campaign.
But the election is now behind us and we can see that the
precautions taken were short lived. The Liberals forgot about
being cautious, with the result that the Minister of Finance is
again sponsoring a similar bill.
Clause 241 is a small provision. It should have been the concern
not only of the Minister of Finance, but of all ministers who are
allegedly concerned about Quebec's interests, especially those
who were elected in Quebec. This matter should also have been a
concern in the maritimes, for everyone with an interest in the
shipyards. In 1993, the Liberal candidates at the time made a
formal commitment to hold a summit on Canada's shipping
industry. It was to be held during the Liberals' first mandate,
but they did nothing.
About a month before he resigned, the New Brunswick premier, Mr.
McKenna, was the chair of the provincial premiers' conference in
St. Andrews. What did he do in the face of the drop in the
number of jobs in Saint John?
There is a major shipyard there too. When the work on the
frigates for national defence ended, the number of jobs at Saint
John Shipbuilding also dropped, as it did in all the small
shipyards the company had bought in the maritimes. The same
thing happened in the west. The same thing happened in the Great
Lakes region, where Ontario's two remaining shipyards are to be
found.
1605
In four years the government has not held a summit and has not
developed any new shipping policy. This is why Mr. McKenna
along with all the other provincial premiers called for a real
policy on shipbuilding.
The member for Mercier, who kept a close eye on the deliberations
at the Liberal convention on the weekend, told me that the young
Liberals moved a resolution to have the government establish a
policy on shipbuilding.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to remind those
on the other side, the party in power at this time, of their
promises of 1993, of the resolution passed by the young
convention delegates this past weekend, of the adoption of a
common position by all premiers at Saint Andrews last fall,
promoted particularly by the former premier of New Brunswick, Mr.
McKenna.
It seems to me that, in response to all that, the Minister of
Industry ought to ask the Standing Committee on Industry to
examine closely a new policy on shipbuilding. This policy ought
to take into consideration the suggestions the Shipbuilders'
Association of Canada has been making for at least a year, which
boil down to four points.
First of all, an improved export funding and loan guarantee
program, similar to the one in the United States, should be
implemented. Second, they call for new vessels built in Canadian
shipyards to be exempted from the present Revenue Canada leasing
regulations.
There should also be a reimbursable tax credit, somewhat similar
to the Quebec government's measures on ships and drilling
platforms that have been in place for at least a year. Finally,
they call for elimination of the unilateral aspects of NAFTA
which allow the Americans to send their ships here while we are
not allowed to do the opposite.
I would point out very briefly that the United States has a very
advantageous policy for shipbuilding. They do not,
unfortunately, want to join with the countries calling for an
end to subsidies.
Consequently, for the past 20 years at least, the European
countries involved in shipbuilding continue to subsidize their
shipbuilders, as do the Asian countries.
Canada wants to play a lead role by saying that it will not do
what they are trying to negotiate internationally. But, since
we are one of only a few countries who do not, our shipbuilding
industry is in the worst position of any in the world.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be fairly brief but I feel I have to rise to
correct some perceptions.
The member for Red River talked a long time about the
perceptions of our plan in Ottawa. I can only say that we have
some little green men in the House who have trouble with
perception. They occupy the benches of the Reform Party.
Surely nobody would expect the government not to follow through
on its agenda, particularly when we are following a federal
election. We went forward, put our plan to the electorate and
were elected on it. To make such comments about the Canada
pension is totally wrong.
It is totally preposterous for members of the opposition to talk
about perceptions and the brain drain after we tabled the budget
in the House very recently. We did a whole lot to try to counter
the brain drain. We put forward the millennium scholarship fund
and extended money to the granting councils.
The reality is that the electorate has the perception and
elected the government because it expected that it would carry
out its promises.
I do not want to get in on a long discussion about perceptions
and what kind of perception is given to the country when people
say they will not move into Stornoway and the next thing they do
is move into Stornoway, or what it means when people say they
came to Ottawa to do politics differently and to establish a
better decorum and then exhibit virtually the worst decorum in
the House of Commons.
1610
The perception of the Canadian public in terms of the job we are
doing as a government in carrying out our mandate is good. All I
can say to the member is that he really wants to check out his
perception to make sure that he, as the government has,
undertakes the kind of official opposition role the public
expects from the official opposition.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we proceed, I
have been following the debate and I have to tell hon. members
that from time to time it has been a real struggle to figure out
how we are staying relevant.
I put everybody in the House on notice right now that if you are
not going to be relevant in discussing the debate at hand, do not
bother getting up.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak to Motion No. 2. The Bloc motion
is one that we support. We think it is a good idea. We think
the government should be put on notice, as you have put us on
notice, Mr. Speaker, that conflict of interest is completely and
utterly unacceptable.
The motion was put in an effort to make sure that all members of
the House would not benefit from the position we have today. I
think we would all agree. That is why the motion was put forward
and the Reform Party strongly supports it.
Be that as it may, the issue strikes at the heart of what has
been mentioned repeatedly in the debate today, the confidence of
Canadian people in the government and this institution. Conflict
of interest or even the perception of conflict of interest erodes
public confidence in this institution. If it erodes the public
confidence in this institution, we as an institution cannot carry
out our duties. If the public does not have confidence in us the
public will suffer, we will suffer and our nation will suffer.
The government has demonstrated that cracks are developing in
its midst. Motion No. 2 not only speaks to the issue of conflict
of interest but also the repeated efforts by the government to
use patronage as a way of solidifying its political base, its tax
and spend sentiment, and its way of doing business that was
thrown out by countries around the world. As we can see from the
Liberal convention last weekend they are now looking at doing it
again.
When will the government see that tax and spend ways will not
only compromise the country but its ability to stay in power, not
that we mind that incidentally? Taxes have been increased. The
government, though, stated that taxes had gone down. This goes
back to the root of the confidence of people in the government.
It cannot say on the one hand that it will decrease taxes and on
the other hand increase them.
My colleague from Medicine Hat eloquently demonstrated in the
House that the government has repeatedly increased taxes and
through bracket creep has taken more and more money out of the
pockets of Canadians and put it in its own pocket for uses it
sees fit, not for uses the public sees fit.
The government has shown a disregard for Canadian people. It
will pay a political cost as well as a social cost for doing so.
The social cost will result in its erosion in the eyes of the
public. It will erode our economy and our social programs. The
government does not have to go back to its tax and spend ways.
Motion No. 2 illustrates in microcosm that the government
repeatedly failed to earn the respect of Canadian people. The
government failed to do a number of things in Bill C-28. It has
nibbled around the edges of our tax system rather than actually
deal with it in a substantive way.
1615
A few things can be done. We should improve the skills of our
workforce. We should enable the private sector to put enough
money into its research and development and hiring practices.
Then we would have an improved workforce which would allow the
private sector to be competitive in the 21st century.
We should lower taxes. The Reform Party has been fighting for
lower taxes for a long time, and yet the government has failed to
do it, even though other countries around the world have been
doing it and demonstrating the fruits of this action.
The government says that by lowering taxes we are going to
compromise the ability of social programs. It is the
government's high taxes which are compromising the social
programs that the have not people in this country have come to
rely on. Therefore the government is compromising the very
people it professes to want to help.
The government needs to lower taxes and decrease the rules and
regulations that repeatedly strangle the private sector. The
government needs to ensure that we have a pension plan which is
privatized and effective. We need a health care system which
will provide Canadians with the care they need when it is needed.
We do not have rationing on the basis of economics, we have
rationing on the basis of the government choosing to withhold
moneys and therefore services because it sees fit. Therefore
Canadians from across the country who are poor are going to be
compromised in their health care; not the rich because they can
afford to go south.
This is another example of the erosion of public confidence in
government. Motion No. 2, which we support, demonstrates very
clearly that we need to have this motion if the public is going
to have its confidence in government restored.
I have just returned from the United States. There are many
things we can learn from the Americans and there are many things
they can learn from us. They did not nibble around their tax
situation. They took the bull by the horns and dealt with it in
an effective way. As a result, their taxes are much lower. As a
result, Canadians have been fleeing this country in droves.
The best of the best have left our country and gone south. As a
result, they are pervasive everywhere from Wall Street to
Hollywood. They are giving the United States the best of what we
have trained them to do. Why has this occurred?
This has occurred because the government has failed to provide
an environment in which the private sector can function in an
effective way and by doing so enable Canadians to have jobs that
are high paying, that are interesting and that contribute to our
economy.
We need to lower our taxes. The government needs to regain the
people's confidence by doing that. The government needs to take
a lesson from other countries. It needs to see what they have
done in order to buttress our economy. Lower the taxes. That
would give the private sector money to invest in education,
research and development, and that would put Canadians back to
work.
Government members say that if we do that we will compromise
health care. That is bunk. By taxing and spending, raising the
amount of money the government spends on the basis of taxes,
people are prevented from having money in their pockets to
provide for themselves. The social fabric of the country is
actually eroded and the very people the government professes to
help are compromised.
Fiscal responsibility and having a social conscience are two
halves of the same whole. One does not exist without the other.
The government should take a leaf out of the Reform Party's
book. Our plan for fiscal responsibility is to spend within our
means. That will enable us to have enough money to spend on
social programs for those who need them. It will enable us to
have enough money for health care. It will enable us to have a
pension plan that works.
It does not take money out of Canadians' pockets to put into
government coffers, thereby compromising the very people who keep
the country strong, the private sector of our economy and the
people who slave away day in and day out in the trenches of our
country trying to make a living.
Instead of helping those people, as my colleague for Medicine
Hat has said many times, the government has brought in over 39
tax increases and taken thousands of dollars out of their
pockets.
1620
We can have strong social programs, we can have fiscal
responsibility, we can have a stronger economy, we can put people
back to work and we can have lower taxes. The government needs
to look at the plans we have put forward, look at plans that have
been put forth around the world and, for heaven's sake, act. Do
not nibble around the edges with measures such as Bill C-28, act.
The government's repeated failure to do this might make it look
good, but what goes around comes around. I can tell hon. members
this much. When more and more people die while they are on
waiting lists in emergency departments, when more and more people
fail to get needed heart surgery, when more and more pensioners
fail to have enough money in their pockets when they retire, when
more and more Canadians become unemployed and look south of the
border where there is a 4.8% unemployment rate, when more and
more Canadians get an education in this country and leave to go
south to make a living, we will recognize once and for all that
the policies the Liberals have put forward have been an abysmal
failure.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before I recognize
the next speaker, I thought for the benefit of the House that I
might trace back to just exactly where we are today because I was
a little confused.
We are on Motion No. 2, which is in the name of the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which requests that the bill be
amended by deleting clause 241, which has to do with the
registration, the head office and the residency of ownership of
shipping companies.
It would be a lot easier for me if every once in a while someone
might, even obtrusively, refer to shipping companies' head
offices. If we do not do that we are really making a mockery of
this debate.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with the greatest respect to the Chair, may I suggest for your
consideration that, if there is an issue of relevance, under
normal circumstances government members will take on the
responsibility of raising the issue of relevance. I must admit
that I am a little curious as to why the Speaker felt compelled—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Speaker felt
compelled because it is the Speaker's responsibility. That is
why the Speaker did it. Very often members of other parties will
call the attention of the House to relevancy, but ultimately the
responsibility for relevance is vested in the Speaker.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
your direction.
The NDP supports the amendment to delete clause 241 because it
calls into question not just the finance minister; it calls into
question every single MP in the House.
We were elected to come here to serve the common good, not for
our own agenda or our own benefit.
The finance department has put forward amendments which it says
will accomplish two things. They will improve the 1991 residence
rule by applying the same test to all foreign shipping companies
whether they hold their ships directly or in separate foreign
subsidiaries. Second, they will confirm the longstanding policy
that the exemption applies to capital gains as well as to other
income.
Concern has been raised because the finance minister tabled the
bill and he has a direct relationship with a shipping company,
the Canada Steamship Lines. At no time did the minister's
department let the ethics commissioner know about the tax
amendment and its relationship to the minister.
Earlier the Reform member for Fraser Valley said that the
motivation to do this was because there is a connection to
business. Even though it is in a blind trust it is important that
business people make decisions based totally on good business. I
disagree and say that decisions to avoid and evade Canadian taxes
are based on greed.
We are not talking about a small business person with a little
income who is trying to keep as much as possible to continue the
business; we are talking about a multinational corporation which
is evading taxes in Canada.
1625
It really worries me when I hear members of Parliament implying
that it is all right to evade Canadian taxes. As citizens we
agree to pool our resources and then redistribute them for
medicare, for education and for social programs.
When people evade taxes, those who can pay, and who pay a
substantial amount—and we are talking about millions of dollars
in taxes every year that will not be coming from Canadians—it
makes it harder and harder for the rest of Canadians to make up
for what we are not receiving.
It is really shameful that this kind of aspersion should be cast
on our finance minister. I bring it back to the point that, as
members of Parliament in this House, if an aspersion is cast on
one MP it falls upon all our shoulders.
On that basis alone it is important to delete this clause so
that the House of Commons can maintain a good reputation. People
will know that we are here for their good, not our own or not for
some interest separate from those of our citizens.
Although decisions taken by the Minister of Finance have an
effect on all Canadians, it is still imperative that at no time
should any public office holder appear to be in a position where
there is any suggestion that they would benefit from their public
office. Canadians should not be put in the position of thinking
that we are all here as crooks or dishonest—
An hon. member: Order, order. Withdraw.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am listening to this debate. While I am sure there is an amount
of respect for each and every member of Parliament, I completely
and very strenuously object to the fact that this hon. member is
standing in her place and essentially saying that members of
Parliament in this House, our Minister of Finance in particular,
are crooks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, I was
reading Standing Order 11(2) which has to do with relevancy and
the Speaker's responsibilities thereof. I did not hear the hon.
member for Yukon. If the hon. member for Yukon did say what the
parliamentary secretary has suggested has been said, I would ask
the hon. member for Yukon to withdraw either the words or the
intent.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, I guess what I would say
is that I included all of us. If there is any impression of
wrongdoing by one, it is wrong for all of us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the member for
Yukon would just finish her thought then I will be able to
respond. Would you finish your thought please.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if there was
any misunderstanding. I did not mean to cast any aspersions on
anyone in this House. But actions that anyone takes here,
whether they are good or bad, reflect on every member of
Parliament.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the operative word that the member used was tax evasion.
If she withdrew the term “evasion”—
An hon. member: Crooks.
Mr. Jason Kenney: It was crooks as well. Perhaps she
could withdraw both of those words.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Will the hon. member
for Yukon withdraw the word “crooks”.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
If there are measures such
as the tax measure outlined in clause 241 of Bill C-28 which put
the Minister of Finance in the light of giving the appearance of
going beyond our bounds of ethics, they should be withdrawn.
Again it reflects on every member of Parliament. The minister
should not have tabled the bill—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I am having great
difficulty sitting here listening to this member talk about a
member of the House going outside the bounds and casting a light
of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary is quite right.
By tradition and established custom of the House we do not,
although sometimes we skate perilously close to the edge, accuse
other members of things we would not want to be accused of
ourselves.
1630
I would ask the hon. member for Yukon if she would be kind
enough not to get this close to the edge of the water. It is
pretty thin ice we are on right now.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is
that I would agree with you. I do not want aspirations cast on
any member of this House. There is the appearance of a conflict
of interest in this bill and the purpose of the amendment is to
delete clause 241 so that there will not be an appearance of
conflict of interest. It is a difficult issue to discuss. If you
have to go close to the edge, you have to.
It has to be talked about because every member of Parliament
then gets painted with the same brush whether it is good or for
ill. I will say no more. However, we do support the Bloc
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon.
member for Yukon for her consideration in this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to
take part in this debate and particularly to refocus the debate
on what really matters. Indeed, in spite of what the hon. member
who spoke before me said, this is much more about the beam in the
finance minister's eye than about the mote in the eye of the a
rookie member of Parliament.
Why debate today a motion asking that a special committee be
struck to look at the international shipping legislation to try
to resolve an apparent conflict of interest involving the
Minister of Finance?
I think it is important to establish from the start that this
situation came about because the Bloc Quebecois found in this
bill two clauses, including clause 241, which raise many
questions as to a potential conflict of interest involving the
Minister of Finance.
This apparent conflict of interest has been recognized by the
director general of the tax legislation division of the
Department of Finance, who stated before the Standing Committee
on Finance on February 10, 1998 that the changes to the
legislation might apply to those companies the finance minister
has put in trust.
Ethics counsellor Howard Wilson went further on February 17,
1998, when he said that “Mr. Martin sponsored this bill and there
may be an apparent conflict of interest. However, this prior
consideration of our options did not take place as it should
have”.
We are therefore facing a problem, an apparent conflict of
interest involving the Minister of Finance. Why does the Bloc
Quebecois dwell as it does on this issue and why does it have the
support of all opposition parties in this respect? Because the
Minister of Finance is the one who tabled the budget a few weeks
ago. He is partly responsible for the country's financial health
and for social equity.
When a decision is made, for example, to tax people in a
particular bracket, this decision has economic and social
implications for society as a whole. It is therefore important to
ensure that the person holding the office of finance minister
cannot in any way be accused of an apparent conflict of interest.
In the present case, very clear and unequivocal statements were
made by the ethics counsellor.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to let the
member say anything, but nobody is being accused of anything. I
would appreciate it if we went back to the bill, because the
comments we are hearing now are a shame.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe the Speaker who
just left the Chair had already asked the hon. member to stick to
the issue before us this afternoon. Resuming debate.
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I remind the member for Bourassa
that I am dealing directly with the motion under consideration.
1635
The Bloc Quebecois' motion, which is supported by the opposition
parties, says that the Minister of Finance put himself in an
apparent conflict of interest. A solution must be found. What we
are saying is that a special committee should be set up to settle
the issue. This, I believe, is something that should have been
done in the first place.
Had the government wanted to show openness, it would have said
“We are in a rather unusual situation. The Minister of Finance
has a great deal of experience in the shipping sector. He is a
shrewd businessman, he is successful and he is wealthy.
His assets are being held in trust while he is acting as
Minister of Finance. He is making sure that his position cannot
put his company at an advantage. But now we must legislate on
international shipping”. If the government had been open, it
would have informed the Standing Committee on Finance, or any
other appropriate parliamentary authority. A solution to the
problem could then have been found.
But the government did not do that. It tried to hide two
paragraphs in a clause of Bill C-28. Had it not been for the
vigilance displayed by the Bloc Quebecois, this would have gone
unnoticed. We started asking questions in the House. The Bloc
Quebecois raised the issue, and as the weeks went by, people
realized the seriousness of the situation.
I say this because the Minister of Finance is a key member of
the government.
It is he who, at the time of the budget, hands out equity and
wealth, decides who will be taxed and who not and establishes
the tax tables for businesses. This person must appear beyond
reproach and infallible in delivering the budget speech. He must
be able to show clearly that his decisions were made honestly and
in the best interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.
This is not the case in the present situation. Our fellow
citizens are wondering whether in the decisions made in
Parliament some things are inappropriate and whether there is not
a double standard. The Bloc Quebecois wants this corrected.
We want to find a fair solution that will appear just and be
appropriate to the level of debate we want in this House.
In the current situation, if only the Bloc members had raised the
issue, it could have been said it was something raised by one
party, which is entitled to its opinion. If there were only the
opposition parties, it could be said that it was something
between the opposition and the government.
However, the director general of the tax legislation division at
the Department of Finance, Len Farber, and the ethics counsellor,
Howard Wilson, are people outside politics. As public servants,
their opinion should be neutral. In any case, what they have
both said is that there does in fact appear to be a conflict of
interest.
The government would do well to support the Bloc Quebecois'
motion, which is very dynamic and which would enhance the
finance minister's credibility in this situation. Let us put the
whole situation on the table. Let us look for a solution with
all those involved. Together, we could find a solution that
would preserve the finance minister's integrity as well as allow
international shipping legislation to be implemented properly to
the benefit of the Canadian economy.
But today, and for several weeks now, because it has stubbornly
stuck to its guns, the government itself is feeding into this
appearance of conflict of interest.
The government itself is creating doubts in the minds of all
Canadians as to whether or not the Minister of Finance is in a
situation where he is creating an undue advantage for himself,
one he would not have had if he did not occupy his present
position. It is essential that this situation be clarified.
It must be clarified in this particular situation, but it must
also be clarified for all the future actions of the Minister of
Finance. The Minister of Finance has decisions to make every
day concerning many Canadians.
1640
It is important that there be a situation in which these
decisions can be defended, in which it can be said: “Yes, it is
a good decision” or “No, it is not a good decision”, but based on
underlying arguments, on the relevance of decisions, and not on
undue influence, which should have no place in such a bill.
The Bloc Quebecois' motion deserves the House's attention. It
deserves serious consideration, so that this special committee
that will review the situation can make a recommendation on how
to go about resolving the matter. Instead of passing a lengthy
bill with a very specific clause quietly slipped in, the
situation could instead be clarified.
When the situation is drawn to the attention of all Canadians by
the Bloc Quebecois, it will be possible to say: “Yes, the
solution recommended by the special committee restores the
finance minister's integrity, enables him to avoid the appearance
of unfairness, of conflict of interest”. Such a decision would
enhance the reputation of Parliament as a whole.
All members of the House must realize how important it is to pass
the motions introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
important that this motion by the Bloc Quebecois be adopted. I
will try to convince my Liberal colleagues and, if the finance
minister himself were here, I would try to convince him also that
it would be in his best interest.
This motion is designed to suspend section 241 of the bill
before us until a committee has examined and shed some light on
this matter. Section 241 would allow shipping companies with
foreign interests to benefit from tax rebates. That is all we are
saying.
A lot of people know that, in his previous life in the private
sector, the Minister of Finance owned a very successful shipping
company. We can applaud the fact that he has chosen to go into
politics, a career which certainly does not pay as much as his
previous career. We can applaud that fact, but in the bill before
us, the finance minister appears to be acting in his own
interest.
He appears to be favouring the interests he put in trust. Until
we get to the bottom of this, the minister and all politicians
will suffer the consequences.
The Minister of Finance had the courage to tell this House that
he had made a mistake when the Liberal Party announced that it
would scrap the GST. He had the courage to make this admission
even though the Prime Minister did not follow in his footsteps.
He had the courage to do it.
The finance minister has a reputation, but I would also remind
him that he is very much identified with the cuts in social
programs, including the first drastic cuts in unemployment
insurance in 1994. That first reform, which was followed by the
1996 reform, was the toughest. The 1994 reform was the one that
hurt Canadians the most.
In 1995, the Canada social transfer also brought drastic cuts to
social programs in health, education and welfare. These cuts
have been maintained. The government says it is investing in
these areas when it is in fact cutting back.
1645
The money invested in the CHST has dropped from $19 billion to
about $11 billion. The government has raised the floor to $12.5
billion, but that still leaves a huge gap.
The same finance minister who has made these cuts, and written,
sold and promoted the budget is granting fiscal benefits to
himself.
For ordinary taxpayers, this makes no sense. It is detrimental
to their perception of politics.
The minister was not happy because the media did not jump on the
bandwagon.
The minister has a great deal of personal prestige, and we are
ready to admit that, although we do not approve of his policies,
he deserves our respect. But with this bill, we have to ask
whether he really is the person he appears to be.
He has the obligation to clear up this matter, both for him and
in the interest of Canadian politics. It is of the utmost
importance.
But there is another consideration, and I know it means a great
deal to him. His father, Paul Martin Sr., is very much
associated with the creation of our social programs. He was an
important progressive figure in the history of Canadian politics.
I am sure it would be unthinkable for him to have his son
involved in something that is less than transparent and on which,
for some obscure reason, he refuses to shed light.
Maybe he was not aware of these provisions. But then it would be
a matter of concern if the finance minister did not know what is
in his bills. He should have the fortitude to admit it. It would
lay to rest a matter that will not go away, but only get worse.
In politics, it is much easier for people to believe in
wrongdoing than in the opposite.
Everybody has a responsibility to avoid this.
To preserve people's trust, because people cannot accept that
the minister who has cut social programs and unemployment
insurance should appear to line his pockets through a bill he has
introduced himself, and for the sake of his father, the minister
should clear up this situation, and that is why—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for Bourassa
on a point of order.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I find it
objectionable that members of the Bloc Quebecois are attempting
to attack the integrity of one of the greatest parliamentarians
we know, as well as his family. When a party like the Bloc
Quebecois erases tapes in order to conceal information concerning
Quebec's Ministry of Revenue, its members should not—
Mrs. Pauline Picard: That is false.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: On the contrary, I honoured the memory of
Paul Martin Sr., saying that he had a responsibility toward the
public, toward his own career, but also toward the lineage he—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to
inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Portneuf,
Asbestos.
1650
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to essentially
clarify a number of things that were said this afternoon.
Let me start by saying that the motion would remove a clause
that clarifies the rule on the deemed residence of foreign
incorporated shipping companies. It has nothing to do with tax
policy, shipping policy or any other policy. It has everything
to do with political rhetoric, nothing more than that.
Let me go back and talk a bit about the clause itself. To look
at the clause we have to go back over 70 years. In the 1920s
Canada decided that non-resident shipping companies should not
pay Canadian tax on their income from international shipping as
long as companies' home countries gave Canadians the same
treatment. The reciprocal agreement greatly simplified a complex
double tax problem.
Around 1990 some foreign shippers, especially in Asia, wanted to
open offices in Canada that would create jobs and economic
activity. If we look at Vancouver, that was exactly the impact
this policy had.
These foreign shippers were concerned that the 1920s tax rule
was not clear enough. To benefit from the rule a foreign shipper
had to be a non-resident.
The Asian companies were concerned that if they opened Canadian
offices they would fall under this definition and be found to be
resident in Canada. They would not benefit from the rule and
would be subject to tax on all their international shipping
income.
Therefore shippers along with a British Columbia government
agency called International Marine Centre Vancouver persuaded
the government of the time in 1991 to clarify the rule in the
Income Tax Act.
The clarifying rule was enacted in 1991. It gives foreign
shipping companies the assurances that they are not resident in
Canada provided their principal business is international
shipping and that is where substantially all their revenue comes
from.
When the rule says international shipping, it specifically
excludes Great Lakes and St. Lawrence shipping between Canada and
the United States.
In 1994 IMC Vancouver suggested some fine tuning of the 1991
rule. In April 1995 the government responded by announcing the
technical change that is now in this clause.
The change says that in counting a foreign shipper's revenue and
in deciding what its business is, we can look through to the
revenue and business of its wholly owned subsidiary. Why? The
shipping companies are organized in different ways. It would
hardly be fair to treat foreign shippers differently, depending
on whether they hold their ships directly or in a subsidiary.
The clause that we are debating is not new policy. It goes back
to 1920. It is not even a new rule. The rule was enacted in
1991. It is just a minor improvement of an existing provision,
the sort of improvement that makes the tax system work better.
We heard a lot about that, but for several weeks allegations
have been made in this House and repeated both in this House and
elsewhere about the origins and the effects of this clause.
In the beginning, it was stated categorically by certain
opposition members that this clause would help Canadian companies
beat what are known as the foreign accrual property income or
FAPI rules. That was complete nonsense.
It was not enough to be wrong once. These members, in effect,
accuse the Minister of Finance of being in a conflict of
interest. That, too, was utterly discredited. The fact is that
the minister was kept entirely apart from this issue at all
times.
The original inquiry from IMC, Vancouver and all subsequent
discussions along with the decisions made on this issue were made
and handled by the secretary of state. Then the allegations
shifted.
We are told by these members that the minister could somehow
benefit from this technical amendment. Exactly how was never
explained. Why? He cannot benefit. The allegations persisted
even after it was made amply clear that this clause, indeed, the
whole policy that has been in place since 1920 has to do with
foreign incorporated companies, not Canadian companies.
Now we get this motion. I might be a little emotional about
this because I had the unfortunate experience of having to sit in
this House all afternoon and listen to this political rhetoric
that had absolutely nothing to do with what was before us.
Therefore, having totally misunderstood the amendment, having
failed to show the slightest impropriety on the part of the
government, having ignored all the information it has been given,
the Bloc Quebecois wants to remove the clause from the bill.
1655
This is not policy. It is politics. It is an attempt to
discredit a respected minister with innuendo by repeating
unfounded charges in the hope that they could cast him in a bad
light. It is an attempt to taint with suspicion a man of honour
who happened to have a successful business career before entering
public life.
Let us be clear. The hon. member for Medicine Hat sits there
and ridicules. I had to sit here and listen to his rhetoric. He
cannot stand the facts. He has to sit there and ridicule. Let us
be clear. The Minister of Finance has always exceeded the
requirements for disclosure for members of Parliament and cabinet
in 1998 and 1993. When he became a member of cabinet he
voluntarily disclosed all his business assets, his personal
holdings and registered them with the Clerk of the House. They
are available to the public, including the media and members of
the opposition. That is not a requirement of a member of
Parliament.
The ethics counsellor has totally rejected, unequivocally, the
Bloc's claims entirely. I will say this ever so slowly because
this is what I have had to listen to all afternoon. He said no
conflict of interest exists and therefore no appearance of
conflict exists.
The member for Drummond said today that the ethics commissioner
actually said this clause should be put in the annex of a bill.
He never said that. I do not know where they get this
information. He said there is no conflict of interest and
therefore no appearance of conflict of interest exists.
It was quite a sad day today to sit here and listen to these
people in opposition go on and on attacking a member of this
House, attacking the finance minister who is very well respected
in this country, who did more for this country and whose family
did quite a bit for this country. I tried to remain calm. I am a
little excited now but I think for a very good cause.
If there was ever any doubt that the opposition party charges
are about politics at its worst, that was clearly demonstrated by
the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster who told the Ottawa
Sun when asked if he thought the minister behaved
unethically, and I quote because I think this really puts it in
context: “Personally I don't believe so. I think Mr. Martin is
a man of integrity. I really do”. Those are not my words.
Those are the words of a member of the opposition.
I only hope that the members opposite would listen to that
member so they understand in effect that what these members in
the House today did was essentially to go on a political witch
hunt after this minister for their political gain. I do not
believe for one second that there is a Canadian who believes the
Minister of Finance has nothing but the best interests of
Canadians in mind first and foremost. He has demonstrated it
since 1988, since he was elected to this House. He will continue
to do so.
I hope we will see this clause defeated. I also hope these
members at some point throughout this mandate will stand up and
apologize for the kind of behaviour we saw today in this House.
1700
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is not infrequent in the House that we have a lot of sound and
fury signifying not much. Unfortunately that is exactly what we
just had from the member. There is an issue here of the
integrity of the minister which is not in question by me. It was
certainly not in question by the member for Calgary Southeast.
We are talking about the issue of how appropriate it was for the
legislation to be introduced by the minister who has interests in
shipping. The issue is that simple.
The irony is that the finance minister who gets to set the
affairs of Canada, in particular the affairs related to taxation,
is a good businessman who takes full advantage of all rules and
decides to put assets offshore so he will not have to pay taxes
like everyone else. The irony of the finance minister arranging
his affairs in this way is not lost on the viewers of this
program or on the readers of this transcript. The irony of the
finance minister being able to do that with impunity speaks to
the issue of the government's policies and indeed his policies.
I reject the assertions of the parliamentary secretary that the
conflict of interest commissioner said that because there was no
conflict there was no appearance of conflict. We remember that
this commissioner was supposed to be the watchdog that would
answer to parliament. The Prime Minister and the Liberal red
book very clearly and unequivocally stated that the conflict of
interest commissioner would be answerable to parliament, as he
should be. However it is yet another Liberal broken promise
because the conflict of interest commissioner is answerable to
the Prime Minister. The watchdog becomes the lap dog of
parliament. Therefore I am sorry but I take no—
An hon. member: Don't take shots at the commissioner too.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, I will take shots at the
commissioner too because of the position the government and the
Prime Minister have put this very honourable gentleman in. The
Prime Minister and the government have created this situation.
The perception about the affairs of the the finance minister is
that he can do things offshore legally, completely above board
and within the rules. That is an accurate perception. However,
what do we do with the fact that he also makes the rules which
permit him to do that? At the same time virtually all Canadian
taxpayers do not have that option. That is the irony and therein
is the appearance. Therefore we will be supporting the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1705
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-28, in Clause 285.1,
be amended by adding after line 13 on page 454 the following:
“(3) Section 15 of the Federal Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act is amended by adding the following after
subsection (3):
(3.1) The Minister of Health shall table in the House of
Commons, in September of each year commencing in the year 1998
and ending in the year 2003, a report assessing the adequacy of
the cash portion of the total entitlement referred to in
subsection (3) to sustain the principles of the Canada Health
Act, and where the House of Commons is not sitting in September
of that year, the Minister of Health shall table the report in
the month in which the House next sits.”
She said: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following amendment to the motion. I move:
That the words “of health” be inserted after the words “the
minister” wherever those appear in Motion No. 3 of Bill C-28.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, we are proposing
a motion this afternoon which we believe warrants the serious
attention of the House and makes a very serious proposition to
all members for support consistent with the statement of the
Minister of Health and consistent with the call of government
Liberal members who at their recent convention made a very strong
plea for the government to put in place a mechanism to assess the
adequacies of cash transfer payments for health care systems.
Today we offer a motion in the spirit of constructive
suggestion. It is a motion that is made in the spirit of
co-operation and which deserves the support of each and every one
in the House.
It is interesting that the amendment coincides in spirit and in
intent with the resolutions adopted at the previous Liberal
convention. I make a plea to members across the way to assess
very carefully the motion before them and to look at it as
something that will be absolutely consistent with the wishes of
the members of their party.
The motion is very clear. It calls on the government to report
on an official basis annually to parliament about the adequacy of
the way in which we finance health care.
It provides a way for parliamentarians and all Canadians to have
a say in the future of medicare and to have the means by which
they can assess the effectiveness of government programs which
uphold this most important national program, our most treasured
national institution.
I do not need to tell the House that health care has been a
matter of very heated and intense debate in the Chamber. The
discussion in the House has evolved from the concerns about the
extent of the health care crisis in Canada. It has flowed from
questions about the appropriate level of federal support. It has
arisen from concerns about the degree to which our health care
system is being privatized.
It has emerged from a deep commitment by all involved Canadians
everywhere to medicare. It is not simply an issue of partisan
debate. Concerns being raised cross party lines in the Chamber
and as we saw on the weekend are very much alive and well in the
Liberal Party of Canada.
1710
Concerns have been raised by members on the Liberal side of the
House. By all accounts we know there is a battle within the
government, that there is a division within cabinet, around the
best approach for supporting health care.
The health minister's recent public plea for support to back up
his efforts at the cabinet table for more dollars for health care
has to be one of the most significant developments in parliament
over the past six months. It is certainly an unusual position to
be taken by a member of government. It speaks to the seriousness
of the issues at hand.
The clear debate that is going on among members of the Liberal
government, the appeal from members at the recent Liberal
convention and the call for action from many in the House arise
from several very critical developments.
First, and I need remind no one in the Chamber about these
developments, there has been a growing body of incidents about
hardship, suffering and even death directly related to the level
of funding of our health care systems. Those incidents have
given us all a sense of urgency to act now before it is too late.
Second, it is very clear from the outpourings of Canadians and
from the polls that have been taken of public opinion that
Canadians remain committed to a single payer, universally
accessible, publicly administered health care system. They
understand clearly the need for federal funding, for national
standards and for government leadership. Canadians when probed
through public polling techniques agreed that any federal
budgetary surplus should go first and foremost to federal cash
transfer payments for health care. This shows a tremendous level
of sophistication and an unwavering commitment to medicare.
Third, the debate before us today needs to be dealt with on an
urgent basis because each and every province has called with one
voice for the federal government to begin a process of
reinvestment in health cash transfers. Each and every province
is trying to adjust almost overnight to massive reductions in
federal transfers, to the biggest bite in the history of medicare
taken out of health care financing by the federal Liberal
government. They are attempting with all their remaining funds
and creative abilities to reform their health care systems to
achieve savings commensurate with the federal cuts.
It is the contention of every province and the two territories
and certainly the belief of many in the House that federal cash
transfers have dropped to unacceptably low levels. There is a
vacuum of leadership at the federal level. It rings hollow for
the federal government to claim that the cancelled cut of $1.5
billion is new money.
There is a clear understanding about the dramatic shift in
federal support from the days of 50:50 cost sharing to the
present day where federal support using full tax points and cash
transfers is down to 20% at the most. If one looked only at the
cash element of the financing system, federal participation is
down to between 10% and 15%.
1715
All Canadians, provincial governments included, recognize the
need to shift our health care system from one that is
institutional based and illness focused to one that is based on
prevention, wellness and which is community delivered.
That is our goal. That is why we are here today. We are here to
find a way to help this government ensure that we can preserve
medicare, reform it in terms of making it better and not just
achieving a fiscal bottom line and to provide a measure of
accountability involving Canadians in the whole process.
The motion before this House is to help the health minister, to
help the Liberal government, come to grips with this debate and
these concerns before everyone, to make decisions based on the
facts. This motion gives the government a tool to assess the
adequacy of federal transfers. It gives the Minister of Health a
mechanism to achieve his plea for support from Canadians. It
gives Parliament a meaningful role and it gives the public a say
in this whole process.
In conclusion, I would ask all members to consider this motion
as something constructive and positive in the debate and I hope
it is adopted.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond
to this motion and restate this government remains firmly
committed to the Canada Health Act.
Bill C-28 strengthens the federal government's ability to
enforce the Canada Health Act. This legislation guarantees that
the cash portion of the Canada health and social transfer will
never fall below $12.5 billion in each and every year over the
next five years. That is an increase of $1.5 billion over the
previous cash floor of $11 billion.
In other words, the bill before the House means there will be
more cash to uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act. It
responds directly to the recommendations by the national forum on
health that CHST cash be set at $12.5 billion to sustain the
principles of the Canada Health Act.
The member's motion recommends yet another annual report to
examine the adequacy of the CHST cash and upholding the CHA. I
would like to remind her that the Minister of Health is already
required under the Canada Health Act to table an annual report on
the administration of the act and provincial compliance with its
conditions.
Quite frankly I think the last thing Canadians need is another
report. Canadians asked us to take action and we have. We have
taken real concrete action. Bill C-28 ensures that there is more
cash to uphold the principles of this act, $1.5 billion each and
every year. The first thing this government did was put back
$1.5 billion as the fiscal environment changed, and we are well
on our way as the Minister of Finance said back in February. We
will continue to balance the books, we will continue to invest in
Canadian priorities and we will continue to uphold the Canada
Health Act.
I want to assure the hon. member that I certainly look forward
to her interventions to help us ensure that Canadians receive the
kind of health care they want within the fiscal means we have set
and the conditions we have set forward. I am sure Canadians all
across this country will continue to support this government as
we continue to provide for them as we move into the next century.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the intent of the motion but regrettably I cannot
support it. I would like to take a moment to explain why.
Essentially the motion is calling for the Minister of Health to
table a report assessing the adequacy of the cash transfer
portion of the Canada health and social transfer.
1720
I wonder why we have any confidence that the federal government
will be a great protector of health care. Given the past history
of the federal government, why in the world would we have even a
shred of confidence in the government to protect health care?
I remind members once again what the Prime Minister said when he
was in the 1993 leadership debate. This is exactly what
transpired in that debate. The leader of the Reform Party said:
“What specifically is your commitment to the level of federal
transfer payments for health care? Would you keep them at the
current level?” The Prime Minister responded: “I said yesterday
in reply to Mr. Bouchard that I promised that they will not go
down and I hope that we will be able to increase them”. I guess
that did not happen, did it?
I heard the parliamentary secretary say a moment ago that the
government has increased transfers for health care by $1.5
billion. He forgot to mention that the government cut transfers
for health care and higher education by $7.5 billion, the largest
cut to health care in the history of the country. The Liberal
government closed more hospitals, shut down more hospital beds
than all the provincial governments combined. Why in the world
would we think for a moment that somehow the federal government
will be some great protector of health care in this country?
We know that when the provincial ministers brought down their
budgets this spring in each and every case they increased
spending for health care.
I point out to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that
the NDP government in Saskatchewan increased spending for health
care. All provincial governments did that because they are
closer to the people. They know that if they make bad decisions
about health care, people will be protesting on their lawn, not
on the lawn of Parliament Hill, which incidentally is probably
where they should have been protesting when the government
blatantly broke its 1993 election promise not to cut transfers
for health care and higher education.
The provinces know that people will be on their lawn protesting.
They know that when there is a newspaper story about people
having to wait in hallways to get treatment for health care it
will be the provincial health ministers who feel the heat first
and most.
That is why I cannot agree with this motion. I think it is
ridiculous to ask the very people who took the broad axe to
health care to be the protectors of health care, to somehow give
them some new power and to give people a false sense of security
that somehow the federal government has the best interests of
Canadians in mind. It simply does not, it did not and we know
the record is very clear that given the opportunity the first
thing it does when there is a crunch is cut health care and
higher education. Then when the budget was brought down,
government members said “we are not going to cut it as deeply as
we said we were, so now we should be honoured and deserve
applause from people”. It is absolutely ridiculous.
I want to repeat the Prime Minister's quote. He said during the
1993 leaders debate: “I said yesterday in reply to Mr. Bouchard
that I promised they will not go down and I hope that we will be
able to increase them”. That is what he said about the Canada
health and social transfer. What a joke. Just another one of a
dozen important election promises that the government has
absolutely broken, and I guess it does so with impunity.
I do hope that my friends in the NDP and in other political
parties will not be drawn in to believe that somehow the Minister
of Health will be a great protector of health care when he has
proved over and over again that he cannot be counted on to do
that.
I also encourage my friends in the NDP to remember that they too
have colleagues at the provincial level who have added money into
budgets for health care precisely because the level of government
that is closest to the people is much better able to gauge public
sentiment.
I encourage my friends to rethink this motion. Remember that
the real protectors of health care in Canada are the people at
the lower levels of government, primarily in the provinces.
1725
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, like
my colleague from the Reform Party, I did not plan to speak on
the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party, but what I
have heard the secretary of state and member for Stoney Creek say
just made my hair, or what is left of it, stand on end.
I have heard things that verge on misleading statements. I have
heard things that totally contradicted—I hope it was by
ignorance, not by maliciousness or to be dishonest either—the
facts and figures that have been presented to us since 1995 in
the successive budgets brought down by the Minister of Finance.
My colleague from the Reform Party touched on the issue. I would
like to go into it in a little more detail.
In 1995, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget,
it provided for cuts to be made systematically every year until
2003 in what came to be known as the Canada social transfer. This
Canada social transfer was designed to fund provincial
initiatives in higher education, social assistance and health.
In 1995, the Minister of Finance pressed the start button for
systematic cuts to be made year after year until 2003, cuts
totalling $6 billion each year in higher education, social
assistance and health.
Now they come up with this Bill C-28. What does Bill C-28 say? It
says, and I agree with my colleague from the New Democratic
Party on this, that instead of cutting a total amount of $48
billion between now and the year 2003, cutting $48 billion in
higher education, social assistance and health, the government
will only be cutting $42 billion.
And we are supposed to applaud! I find it totally abhorrent to
present things in such a way, to use them to trick the public,
because that is what is being done right now.
It is not true that there is $6 billion more for health care. It
is not true that there will be $1.5 billion more in the coming
years for health care. There will, instead, be $6 billion in
cuts for every year between now and 2003, and a sizeable amount
of that will be in health care. That is reality.
At the same time as health care is being slashed, we are being
told that $1.5 billion is being added yearly for the next three
years.
The truth is that they are cutting $6 billion per year in social
programs and health. Let them stop trying to fill the public's
heads with nonsense, let them stop expecting the public to
swallow any old thing they present it with.
The cause of the present sorry state of the health system is not
Minister Rochon in Quebec, nor the other provincial health
ministers. The main responsibility lies with the federal
government. The little band-aid solution offered during the last
election campaign in response to the heavy pressures for
something to be done, that $1.5 billion was just a drop in the
bucket, barely remedying an iota of the pillage the government
had wrought in the health field. That is the reality.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, the reason
we need this amendment is we cannot trust the Liberals to look
after our health care system.
We used to have a Canada assistance plan that reflected the
needs of the regions. It would match health care. It would
match education. It would match social assistance. That is no
longer in place. We have a Canada health transfer that is a
chunk of money which the provinces can do with whatever they
like. A sympathetic provincial government will make sure there
is health care.
Systematically Liberal decisions and policies have undermined
health care and now we are in a position where we are forced to
debate whether or not we will have health care in our country.
At their convention the Liberals passed a resolution that Canada
would ensure a national standard of health care for all
Canadians.
We are chipping away at the foundation instead of putting in the
windows and doors of our health care system. We are not
providing pharmacare. We are not providing home care. Health
care in rural and remote areas is not a given. There may be a
health station in these areas which is what is in Old Crow. It
is an incredibly expensive flight to get out. You may see a
doctor once a month or you may not. We have a situation where
the Canadian Medical Association says that for Canadians the CHST
has meant and continues to mean less federal government
commitment to our health care system and has compromised the
federal government's ability to preserve and enhance national
standards.
1730
It went on to say that the accumulated reductions now total
$18.9 billion, that the government is giving back 1.5% of the
total reductions in cash payments to the provinces, and that this
is supposed to fix the mess that has been made. Another comment
was that the CHST cash payments need to factor in other things
than just the economy, such as the age of the population.
Our elderly parents and elders in our communities are not going
to go away. We know that elderly people need more health care.
Sick children are not going to go away. Mothers and fathers are
still going to have to stay home to look after those children.
When they do that, it is a cost to our economy and to our
society.
We need a mechanism that will hold the Liberal government to
account so that it does not continue cutting and sneaking its
cuts in through the back door. Canadians everywhere want a
health care system they can count on. If the government cannot
go at it by direct cuts—and it was forced to stop cutting and
not putting anything back—it is going to go at it another way
around.
The recommendation of the Canadian Medical Association is to
increase the amount. The government should take in a combination
of factors such as technology, economic growth, population growth
and demographics. The government should establish national
targets, what our health care will be, where we will go with it
and what we will do with it.
Obviously we cannot give the government a free hand because we
know what it does with it. It tears our medical system apart.
We want a mechanism to hold it accountable, whatever government
is in place, to a standard of medical care that we can all be
proud of. Then we can rest at night knowing that no one will die
in a corridor or on the street because we did not care enough to
make sure the money was there to look after them.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Madam Speaker, I
would like to speak very briefly to the motion introduced by one
of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, the first thing I would say is that it is a bit
weak. I am not convinced that they have really addressed the
problem of whether the transfer payment system is adequately
funded. Why? Quite simply because I do not believe that a
report by the Minister of Health will speed up the recovery time
of people in hospitals throughout the country.
I am not convinced that the Minister of Health or even his
officials have the time to go and see what is happening in the
regions. I think that all members know what is happening there.
The provinces, health care groups and community groups are also
well aware of what is happening. Unfortunately, although the
stated purpose, which is to inform the House whether health is
being adequately funded, is important per se, I am not sure that
we will achieve our goals at this time.
Of course, there were the massive cuts in health, post-secondary
education and social services. The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot made this point very well. I can perhaps
make a small correction. The federal government is not the only
one making cuts. The provinces are doing so too. They have
difficult choices to make. Let us say that Ottawa set the ball
in motion.
There are certainly things being done in Quebec City that impact
on municipalities, among others. The provincial government has
difficult choices to make.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. André Bachand: It has had to make them largely because of the
federal government.
It is obvious that my hon. colleague is worried that there will
be a new leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec with a greater
chance of winning the election. He is perhaps getting started on
his provincial campaign. Who knows? We might lose the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. If he were to move to the
provincial level, it would be a great loss to the House of
Commons.
One really important thing to bear in mind with respect to health
is that, since 1993, the government has not kept up its end of
the bargain. The public was led to believe that the system was
in great shape, and assistance to the provinces was cut, but the
government had not put its own house in order. This is
important.
The unilateral cuts completely destabilized Canada's
health care system. Afterwards, when finances returned to an
adequate level, the government began spending again, without
regard for the criteria which make Canada's health and education
system a shared federal and provincial responsibility.
Education is certainly provincial.
1735
What I mean is that the government, as the minister was saying in
the House today, plans to incorporate new services in the health
care systems. So while everyone is saying that the transfers
are inadequate, the government is preparing to set up a home care
system. This is entirely a provincial matter. And it has not
mentioned the cost.
Currently, we spend between $2.4 and $2.8 billion a year in
Canada on home care. The government is preparing a proposal,
but, as we have seen today, not too many of the Minister of
Health's colleagues are giving their support to this new
structure.
They are sending out messages saying “We are looking after
health; it is a priority. We are cutting, but then we will set
up new programs”. But the problem of the cuts made in the first
place has not been resolved.
Not so long ago, during the election campaign last year, there
was talk of a national pharmacare program. What has become of
it? We hear no mention of it these days.
However, we hear “We are not sure that the provinces will go for
a drug plan. It may not be popular. The aging of the population
is a popular topic. We will talk about home care. That should
grab them”.
They are talking endlessly about home care. However, we do not
know what it will cost nor who will manage it. And in the
meantime, there is no mention of a drug plan—nothing.
Today, the minister told us that the figure of $12.5 was
recommended by the National Forum on Health. I am not talking
about the one this weekend, but of the one from a few years ago.
This figure was recommended by the Forum, but we must be careful.
The Forum also called for new health care measures, new funding
for health care, for home care and for pharmacare. That meant
that the government's contribution was not $12.5 billion, but a
lot more.
The $12.5 billion is strictly for transfers. But knowing that
home care currently costs billions of dollars, the Forum said
more money had to be invested. They are not quite saying that in
the House.
Health is a very important matter. Even the Liberal Party
members said so on the weekend.
Unfortunately, the minister does not seem to want to listen, nor
do his cabinet colleagues, because there is nothing new on the
table.
We are asking for some stabilization and guarantee for the
provinces. The provinces must be the ones that manage Canada's
health care sector, to avoid any federal government involvement.
As we know, our Liberal friends have a tendency to take over
various responsibilities and to do a bit of politics in the
process.
Health is a provincial matter. We hope that if the federal
government finds some money, it will transfer it to the
provinces. One possible source is the $2.5 billion. An amount of
$2.5 billion was set aside in the budget this year for a program
that will begin in the year 2000 or 2001, and that will cost
about $200 million annually.
The government could have taken $200 million, starting in the
year 2000 or 2001, and put the $2.5 billion back into the health
sector, through the transfers to the provinces. This would have
shown that the government truly gives priority to the issue.
It could have used the money to give a tax break to taxpayers
and help them face the music. But the government did none of
that. It is setting some money aside. It is taking $2.5 billion
and will put it there. The interest should normally go to the
millennium scholarship foundation, but we are not sure whether
that will happen. We will have to wait and see.
The Reform Party member who chairs the public accounts committee
pointed this out last week.
The New Democratic motion is good for the health sector. Its
purpose is to make sure we know what is going on. However, it is
ineffective, because even Statistics Canada releases figures and
standards on Canadians' health.
It is very difficult to check in the field to see if the
transfers are adequate. However, we do know that they are
currently inadequate. Some unilateral cuts were made. The
shortfall will continue for the next few years and this must
absolutely stop.
1740
The government must secure the transfers to the provinces with
tax points, and it must maintain an equalization system to make
sure that the poorest provinces continue to get help.
I will conclude by reminding members that, with the $12.5
billion, seven out of ten Canadian provinces will get less money
than they did last year.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad to speak in favour of this amendment to the resolution
put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. It is a
very good idea and one of a series of very good ideas that have
come from the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
As has been pointed out already, it is interesting to note that
the language of this amendment finds its origins in a priority
resolution passed at the Liberal policy convention this past
weekend. It seems a lot of us were glued to the TV set watching
this convention. It obviously has an impact on all of our lives.
We had to keep a very close watch on the things that happened at
that convention because they have a severe impact on a lot of us.
It warrants reading the resolution that was adopted at the
policy convention. I can find no fault in the language, the tone
or the content of the resolution. It states:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada encourage the
federal government to develop a process to continuously measure
the quality of health care in Canada and at the same time to
ensure a national standard of health care for all Canadians.
It has a lot of merit. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance said that this amendment was not necessary
because there was already a provision. The Minister of Finance
already does an annual analysis of the CHST's spending. He may
in fact do an analysis of how the money is being spent, but
nowhere in that analysis will it record or review whether it is
an adequate amount of money to uphold the standards of the CHA.
That is where the amendment stands separate. It is necessary,
still has merit as a resolution and should be adopted.
The resolution adopted on the weekend merely indicates that the
Liberals cannot help but listen to what the Canadian people from
all walks of life have been saying: young, old, across all party
lines, interprovincial. When asked their top priority in the
spending patterns of the Canadian government, what they wanted to
see money spent on, to a person quality health care ranked in the
top three priorities.
I can back this up with two recent surveys. The first one is a
scientific survey conducted by the Angus Reid pollsters on behalf
of the Canadian Medical Association. The second one was my own
informal and unscientific survey of voters in my riding of
Winnipeg Centre.
When I sent out a survey to the people of my riding and asked
them to list in order of priority the issues they found most
pressing and the issues they wanted the government to act on in
the near future, every one of the people who chose to answer
listed quality health care as their number one priority in the
list of eight or nine things we asked about. The other items
included job creation, education, health care, crime and urban
violence, and a number of other issues. The top three were
health care, education and job creation, followed shortly after
by crime and urban violence which is another issue.
It is difficult to ignore that kind of response. When people in
a riding are asked what they care about and all of them come back
with the same answer, we cannot help but listen. I have a
feeling that similar surveys are being done by other MPs and they
are getting the same answers. Therefore it comes as no surprise
and does not indicate any great enlightenment on behalf of the
Liberal Party that the resolution should show up at its policy
convention. It is simply due to the fact that the Liberals are
finally listening to what the Canadian people really want.
1745
The other survey is more scientific and perhaps has more merit.
It was done by the Angus Reid research group for the Canadian
Medical Association. Specific questions were asked in that
survey.
Results indicated that in 1997, 65% of people reported that
waiting times in emergency departments had worsened. That figure
is up from 54% in 1996. Sixty-four per cent reported that the
availability of nurses in hospitals had worsened. That figure is
up from 58% in 1996. Sixty-three per cent reported that waiting
times for surgery had worsened. That figure is up from 53% in
1996. It is no secret that this issue weighs heavily on the minds
of Canadians.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stood up
and argued that the floor of the Canada health and social
transfer is actually being increased to $12.5 billion. This is
an illusion. It is creative financing to the worst degree. As
has been pointed out by others, when you go from $19 billion down
to $11 billion and then crank it back up to $12.5 billion, you
are not giving anybody anything. You are simply lessening the
amount of cutbacks. Many figures have been bandied about to
describe the cumulative effect that has. All we really need to
know is that it is the biggest single cutback in the history of
Canada's medical system.
I cite these things to point out that the well-being of our
health care system is of prime importance. The amendment put
forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is on behalf of
Canadians to try to accurately reflect what their real concerns
are.
I will speak about the Canada health and social transfer as an
aspect of this whole picture. We must remember what the National
Council of Welfare said about the Canada health and social
transfer when it was first introduced. It called it the most
disastrous social policy initiative in the post-war era. It felt
very strongly to use language of that nature.
Many of us view the redistribution of wealth through federal
transfer payments as the single greatest achievement of Canadian
federalism. We all know that we have a very tenuous grasp on the
concept of Canadian federalism. One of the things which has kept
this country united is that the have not provinces could expect
the support of a strong central government as it redistributed
the wealth of the nation. We have seen that eroded slowly but
surely in recent years.
In my own political life we have seen the established programs
financing, EPF, change to CAP, then a cap on CAP, then ultimately
the Canada health and social transfer. Every step of the way has
resulted in less and less operating capital for the provinces to
deliver the services wanted by Canadians. Slowly and surely we
have seen that erosion. The figures have been pointed out that
50:50 funding has been lowered to somewhere between 10% and 20%
funding.
The argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance is that this amendment is not necessary
because this type of review is already under way annually. The
review that is under way will not answer the fundamental question
of whether the level of funding is adequate to ensure the health
and viability of the Canada Health Act. It may study the way the
money is being spent but it does not study the fundamental
question of whether it is enough.
We suggest that this amendment should be adopted as broad
interests, certainly those who voted for us, are very concerned.
It would serve them well if we adopted this amendment.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 3 regarding the
proposal to establish an annual report from the Minister of
Finance on the adequacy of the cash portion of the Canada health
and social transfer to sustain the principles of the Canada
Health Act.
1750
As the hon. member for Medicine Hat indicated, the Reform
caucus, the official opposition, is opposed to this motion. I
recognize there is a worthwhile principle at play here, namely an
attempt to increase transparency and accountability in the
federal government's management of the CHST cash transfers.
Ultimately however we are concerned that this motion would
increase the federal government's meddling ability in what is an
area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction under our
constitutional framework, namely health care.
I do think it is an opportune motion for us to reflect, as the
member who spoke just before me did, on the way in which the
government has managed the cash transfers to the provinces under
the health and social transfer.
In the leaders debate during the 1993 election the current
Leader of the Opposition asked the then Leader of the Opposition
and now Prime Minister specifically what the Liberal Party's
commitment was to the level of federal transfer payments for
health care. He asked the now Prime Minister if he would keep
transfers at the current level and the now Prime Minister
responded “I said yesterday in replying to Monsieur Bouchard
that I promise that they will not go down and I hope that we will
be able to increase them”.
The current Prime Minister running for office in 1993
representing the entire Liberal Party of Canada and all of its
candidates said that he hoped that they would be able to increase
them and the health care transfers would not go down. Those were
the words he said then, words that were echoed in Liberal red
book one which spoke about maintaining the health care transfers
at their current level. That came from the leader of a party that
spent four and a half years in the House, from 1988 to 1993,
relentlessly criticizing the then government for having cut the
very same health transfers.
This government has excelled in its acts of political hypocrisy.
Among those many acts of political hypocrisy, from the GST to
free trade, to NAFTA, perhaps the greatest one of all was for the
Liberals to trumpet their traditional Liberal commitment to
health care funding but then proceed, once having taken the reins
of power, to ruthlessly slash those transfers not by 5% or 10%
but by 35%. It was done unilaterally and without consultation or
input from the provinces that have to deliver those programs. The
$7 billion cut in those transfer payments was passed on to the
provincial premiers, governments and legislatures who have to
administer those programs.
Very few things get me more upset than hearing Liberal MPs and
ministers rise in this House and criticize people like Premier
Harris of Ontario for his management of health care. I hear
Liberal MP after Liberal MP criticize Premier Harris for having
increased health care funding by $1 billion, all the while
reducing taxes for Ontarians, while absorbing $2 billion in
transfer cuts for health care imposed by the federal government.
The hypocrisy is truly shocking.
Hon. members opposite know that it is shocking. I had the great
misfortune of attending the Liberal Party of Canada convention
down the street. I sat and listened to the resolutions brought
before the floor. Very few of them were debated of course.
After all, the delegates to that convention know that policy for
the Liberal Party is made in the dark backrooms of the Prime
Minister's office and not in the front rooms of any convention
where the public could actually monitor it.
Liberals were asking “Why did we cut these health care
transfers?” That is a good question because there are very few
members of this House who are more in favour of cutting
government spending than I and my colleagues in the Reform Party.
1755
We believe that when it comes to cutting government spending we
have to create priorities. This government chose to make the
wrong priorities. When it came to the cash transfers from the
CHST the government cut $7 billion instead of cutting $7 billion
out of subsidies to crown corporations, out of subsidies to
businesses, out of regional development programs, out of hundreds
of millions of dollars in grants and handouts to the Liberal
Party's favourite special interest groups.
That is the choice the Liberal Party made. Yes, it had to cut
spending, but no it did not have to cut it from what was the
highest priority program area of all Canadians, which is public
health care. This government should really hang its head in shame
when it comes to considering what it has done to health care in
this country.
The other thing I find so remarkably galling is to hear the
Minister of Health and his cabinet and caucus colleagues
pontificate about the great Liberal commitment to the federal
role in health care and that they are going to penalize those
provinces if they do not keep in compliance with the Canada
Health Act. They are going to protect health care they say.
What have the Liberals done? They and the previous government
together have managed to cut the federal government's role in
cash transfers for health care from 50% of total acute health
care spending to under 20%. The Liberals talk tough but they
have taken away the only leverage they have with the provinces to
ensure compliance with the Canada Health Act.
I am not sure that that is necessarily a bad thing. I believe
as I said in speaking to Motion No. 1, in the principle of
subsidiarity, in the principle that says the level of government
which is the lowest and the closest to the people is generally
the best order of government to deliver services. Senior levels
of government, more distant and remote levels of government such
as the federal government ought only to be involved in the direct
delivery of programs when such delivery needs to be done on a
national basis.
I think that MLAs, MPPs and MNAs and provincial governments
elected by provincial voters and provincial taxpayers know better
than we do in this remote place in Ottawa how to deliver quality
health care, public access to universal health care than we do.
We ought to give them the flexibility to make the choices they
need to reform health care, to ensure quality health care for all
Canadians. That is why this motion would simply extend the
meddling influence of the federal government in a field which the
Fathers of Confederation in their wisdom properly attributed to
the provinces.
In closing I hope that if any of the Liberals speak on this
motion they will explain to us, to their constituents and to all
Canadians how it is they can talk about increasing health care
transfers in this budget by $1.5 billion when in fact it is not
an increase at all. It is a reduction in the decrease.
It reminds me of the old days when the Tory government would say
that it was cutting spending when in fact all it was doing was
reducing the increase. Now the Liberals say they are increasing
spending on health care when all they are doing is reducing the
decrease.
Why can we not just look at these numbers straight and simple?
After the so-called $1.5 billion reinvestment in health care in
this recent budget, health care transfers, cash transfers to the
provinces will still be less than they were four years ago when
the Liberals took power in 1993. The Liberals have abdicated
their ability to dictate health care policy to the provinces. We
say let the provinces be responsible and accountable to their
taxpayers, to the real consumers of health care.
That is why I call on my hon. colleagues to defeat this motion.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of brief comments I would like to add on to the issues the
hon. member for Calgary Southeast just touched on.
1800
I want to touch on a few points that were brought forward by the
member for Calgary Southeast because I think they are very
prudent points.
A lot of the discussion that has been going on today and over
the course of the weekend at the Liberal national convention
surrounded the issue of health care. Under the current mechanism
where the government has raised the ceiling for health care from
$11 billion to $12.5 billion one would think that was actually
trying to inject more money back into one of our true priority
areas, that being health care.
But in my province of New Brunswick over the next few years the
transfer payments with respect to the CHST will actually plummet
from $322 million down to $311 million. Health care is going to
be cut in the province of New Brunswick.
I challenge the government. If it seriously wants to make
health care a priority under the mechanism for the funding of
health care, not only should three provinces have increased
funding under the CHST—those being British Columbia, Alberta and
Ontario—but the other provinces should have increased funding as
well. I am speaking on behalf of my home province of New
Brunswick.
I am making this point in a very constructive fashion. When the
government revisits the issue in terms of what its true priority
areas are it should revisit the amount of money being allocated
toward some of the smaller provinces, including New Brunswick, to
ensure that we have more money for health care and not less.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the motion
before us this afternoon is:
The Minister shall table in the House of Commons, in September of
each year commencing in the year 1998 and ending in the year
2003, a report assessing the adequacy of the cash portion of the
total entitlement referred to in subsection (3) to sustain the
principles of the Canada Health Act—
The member for Medicine Hat indicated that he and his caucus
were opposing the motion because they believe that these kinds of
programs should be delivered closer to the people, a point that
was added to a few moments ago by the member for Calgary
Southeast. The member for Medicine Hat said that otherwise there
would be protesters on the lawns of the legislatures. That is
not why the member for Winnipeg North Centre is introducing this
motion this afternoon.
My adopted province is the province of Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewanians feel very strongly about medicare. We feel it
is our gift to this country. The CCF introduced medicare and
funded it on its own back in 1962. It was then adopted as a
national program by the Liberal Party under Prime Minister
Pearson in 1967 and was funded by the federal government.
Under the Canada assistance program and established programs
financing appropriate funds were delivered to ensure that we had
a national quality health care program from coast to coast to
coast.
What we are seeing, to our chagrin, in recent years is that the
health care program is becoming more and more strained at the
edges. To go back to the province of Saskatchewan, with the
sharp reductions in federal funding to health care beginning in
1994 and onward, the Saskatchewan government has backfilled every
cent that the feds have withdrawn from health care.
As previous members have pointed out, all that is being
suggested now is that the cuts are not going to be as deep as
were originally envisaged. The government is not actually
putting more money in, it is just not taking as much out.
I said that we backfilled in Saskatchewan. The budget was
tabled last week. Once again health tops the agenda in terms of
the amount of money that is spent. It is now $1.7 billion in a
province with just over one million people. It is a significant
amount of money. It makes it very difficult for the province to
do some of the other things that need to be done because this
government is not living up to its financial obligations in this
area and has not done so for several years.
1805
I think there is a serious debate going on in this country
whereby larger, wealthier provinces which do not have such a
large percentage of their budget going to health care are going
to begin, in effect, to thumb their noses at the carrot and stick
approach—mostly the stick approach—taken by Ottawa. The
carrots are getting increasingly smaller and the provinces will
say that they will go it alone, that they will provide the kind
of health care they think is appropriate.
That will be the end of any kind of national health care program
in this country. We will be into a two-tier system, which is, I
suspect, really why the Reform Party is opposing this motion
today.
We have acknowledged and given credit where credit is due in
this House. The government has set, over recent years, deficit
targets to reduce and now eliminate the deficit in this country.
I believe I am correct in saying that the government is also
establishing debt reduction targets. We fail to see why it is
hesitant to introduce a target for health care; to do an annual
check-up on health care, if you will, to see how it is performing
and what is required to ensure that this gift from Saskatchewan
continues well into the next century throughout the country.
There is not only a debt and deficit problem in this country,
there is also a social deficit that we are very concerned about.
Medicare has been the declaration that all Canadians deserve
quality health care, regardless of how much money they have. We
have said consistently that a family's health should never have
to depend on a family's wealth. That is the point we are trying
to make here, except we will substitute province or territory for
family. The wealth of a province or a territory should not
depend on the health of the people who live in that province or
territory.
In recent years the Liberal government has cut health care by
almost $4 billion. It has opened the door to privatization, as I
have suggested. It has indulged in restricted service and user
fees that signal the arrival of a two-tier system: the best care
for the rich and a lower quality of care for everybody else.
It has cut the promotion of good health, including programs to
prevent domestic violence, to control the spread of AIDS and even
to discourage smoking.
Three quarters of all health care costs are funded through
medicare or other provincial plans. Many important services
remain unavailable to those who do not have private insurance or
who are not eligible for provincial or territorial programs.
The Canada Health Act requires provincial health plans to be
universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and publicly
administered in order for them to receive federal funding.
Both the National Forum on Health and the Canadian Health
Coalition have determined that the current $11 billion, which
will increase to $12.5 billion, minimum payment to the provinces
promised by the Liberals is simply not enough to maintain those
principles.
Canadians know all of this. Canadians who were at the Liberal
Party convention last weekend know this as well. That is why
they are concerned about the direction or the lack of direction,
the inability or the refusal of this government to set targets.
I submit that members opposite should be supporting this very
reasonable proposal put forward by the member for Winnipeg North
Centre.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, certainly
the major points that I think need to be made were made by the
member for Medicine Hat and the member for Calgary Southeast.
However, I cannot help but comment on what the last member, the
member for Palliser, mentioned when he said that Saskatchewan was
one of the few places that had put all its money back into health
care.
My mother happens to live in Saskatchewan. I left Saskatchewan
around the medicare issue.
Certainly the complaints I have heard on returning to
Saskatchewan indicate something quite different from what the
hon. member just told the House.
1810
The key issue is the fact that the federal government has cut
30% plus from health care transfers to the provinces. While it
has done that it has kind of hid under a rock when it comes to
taking any credit for the cuts in health care and has left it
totally to the provinces to bear. I will not say whose
responsibility that is, but Canadians should be aware of the fact
that this federal government cut those massive amounts of
dollars.
The reality we need to be aware of—and certainly they tell us
this every time we meet—is that our constituents are extremely
concerned about health care. They want the very best of health
care for themselves and their families. We would be missing the
boat if we did not take that message to heart and did not
seriously look at what we should be doing to maintain and improve
our health care system.
No matter whom we talk to, they would agree that the health care
system was in desperate need of reform. There were too many
hospitals. There were too many duplications of services, too
many boards and too many extremes in the health care system. It
did need some major reform.
The bottom line is that in creating that system the people
closest to the system know what they want. They know the
standards they want and they should be the ones to make that
determination.
We had better get on record as mentioning that the biggest
threat to our health care and our social programs is the $45
billion interest payment we waste every year. While we will
spend $12 billion plus on health care this year, we will spend
$14 billion on education and $22 billion on pensions. We do not
get any services for the $45 billion in interest payments. Until
the government recognizes and deals with that we will not solve
that social problem.
We must also look at how to fix the health care system. The
bottom line is not that we spend more money. We need to
reorganize our spending and all the waste that occurs in Ottawa.
That would provide lots of money to fix the health care system.
I would propose to the House and to the provincial governments
that would be delivering this service that they involve health
care providers.
On a fairly frequent basis I meet with nurses in my constituency
who tell me the sorts of things that are wrong with the health
care system. They know as they are delivering that service on a
daily basis. I also meet with doctors in the constituency. They
know exactly what is wrong and exactly what needs to be fixed.
The most important people of all, the grassroots people, also
know what they want and what they want the health care system to
deliver.
Rather than asking the federal government to do this, we should
let health care givers as well as the people receiving the
service be involved.
The feds cannot expect to control the health care system when it
gives less than 20% of the funds. They cannot control the system
if they do not provide the money. It is a matter of put up or
shut up and a matter of opposing this amendment because we do not
need more federal involvement. We need to get the provinces and
the people receiving the service involved.
In conclusion, health care is the number one issue. I think all
of us agree with that. Getting the very best health care is what
we should be concerned about.
In terms of who can deliver that, I am putting to this House that
it is the actual care givers in the community, the provincial
responsibility and the people who are getting the service who
will make it all happen.
1815
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have had discussions with representatives of all parties opposite
and I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I
move:
That any recorded divisions requested on report stage motions of
Bill C-28 be deemed deferred to Wednesday, March 25, 1998 at the
end of the time provided for Private Members' Business.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Motion No. 3 put forth by the NDP member is something we
do not agree on. I am not going to support it. As my colleagues
mentioned before very eloquently, it speaks to a larger
involvement in the federal government in an issue, according to
our Constitution, that is a provincial issue.
I would like to get to the heart of this problem on health care.
It is something that has been used for decades as a political
football in this country. If you defend the status quo you are
looked on as being a white knight, a hero. This government and
other governments have done that. They have said they champion
the Canada Health Act, that we have the best health care system
in the world and anyone who disagrees with that is bad, an enemy
of the poor, an enemy of health care and wants a U.S. style
health care system.
That is absolute and utter nonsense. The cold hard reality in
our country today is that health care is not being provided to
Canadians at a time when they need it. In our country from coast
to coast, from emergency departments to operating theatres, from
old age homes to chronic care facilities, to out-patient
departments, Canadians are not getting their health care when
they need it. The reality is there simply is not enough money in
the system.
Certainly cuts have had to be made. They were made wisely and
they were made judiciously. Cuts are continuing to be made
today. They are not cutting the fat out of the system, they are
cutting into the muscle and bone of a system that Canadians rely
on in their time of greatest need.
When you are sick and realize that our health care system is not
there for you, you do not have time to politically lobby because
you are fighting for your life. This government and previous
governments have stayed with the status quo in spite of the fact
that Canadians are not getting their health care system when they
need it.
People who are old and in need of a new hip and are in severe
pain wait a year and a half for that new hip. People who need a
simple 20 minute surgery on their wrist wait nine months to get
that surgery. People who are elderly and need new knees will wait
nine months to a year. People who need bypass surgery can wait
six months. People are waiting two days to get into the intensive
care unit while they sit in emergency departments or, worse, they
sit waiting for a bed in a cold, dark hallway in a hospital. By
any stretch of anyone's imagination that is not health care when
a person medically needs it.
There is a myth put forward that we have enough resources in the
system that people are getting their health care when they need
it and the Canada Health Act and its five principles are being
upheld. That is completely untrue.
Canadians are not getting their health care in a timely fashion.
Furthermore, if you have the bucks, you get the health care.
Twenty-five per cent of the money that is spent today in health
care comes right out of the pockets of people. It is money that
is paid by them to get health care. If you do not have the
money, you do not get the service. These involve surcharges for
physiotherapy and they involve extra charges for a wide variety
of services.
1820
This is the most graphic example of the multi-tier system we
already have. If a person is injured and on workers compensation,
the government will take their money. The workers compensation
board will pay to have that person put at the head of the line in
a public system to get his or her surgery done ahead of somebody
else who is not injured in a WCB case. In other words,
preferential treatment is given to those on WCB.
The system we have today favours the rich and compromises the
poor. The examples I gave demonstrate very clearly that
Canadians are not getting their essential services when they need
them, which demonstrates again that the Canada Health Act
principles are being violated in a most egregious fashion. In
the rich country we have today we do not have to accept that.
There are solutions and ways to make a better Canada Health Act
system, a made in Canada health act system that enables Canadians
to get their health care when they medically need it.
We do need more resources in the system. Critics from the other
side say there is enough money in the system right now. When
pressed for answers, they can only say that we need to put more
efficiencies into the system. No other specifics are forthcoming.
We have to face the facts that not enough resources are in the
Canada Health Act today to provide for the services Canadians
need. When we look into the future, when we see a population
that is getting older as demographics change, when we see how few
people will be in the workforce, we recognize there will be fewer
resources available.
How do we provide the resources to provide the essential
services Canadians need without raising taxes, because raising
taxes is not an option? If we amend the Canada Health Act to
allow private clinics and private services where only private
moneys are exchanged, completely separate from the public system
and where there is no interchange, then people would have an
option. They would be able to access the public system when they
chose to and access the private system when they wanted to. There
would be no mixing.
That way two separate systems would be created and there would
be more money on a per capita basis in the public system, as some
people would take some of their services into the public system.
In other words, there would be more money in health care in
Canada without raising taxes. The people who chose to be in our
public system would get better health care than we have today.
Is it unequal? Yes. I would argue that first of all we have an
unequal system today. Is it not better to have an unequal system
that provides for better health care access for all people than
the system we have today that provides for unequal access,
particularly for the poor?
The rich will always be able to get health care when they need
it, for they go south. In fact, we spend over $1 billion a year
south of the border for health care that should be given here.
If we were to amend the Canada Health Act, if we were to allow
private clinics and private medical services in an entirely
private setting where there is no mixing of the private and the
public, not only would people have a choice, not only would all
Canadians have better access to health care, but we would also
bring patients from the United States to buy their services here
at two-thirds the price of services in the United States. This
would provide for employment, nurses, physicians and health care
personnel. In other words, we would be able to drag a huge
amount of capital from the United States and have it spent in
Canada, which would dramatically create a lot of jobs.
We do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We do
not want an American style health care system which is deplorable
in many ways. We want to make sure that people in our country,
particularly those who are poorest, will have access to health
care when they need it.
Good health care is not waiting a year and a half to see an
orthopaedic surgeon. Good health care is not waiting nine months
to have a 20 minute operation so a person can go back to work.
Good health care is not being turfed out of hospital 24 hours
after having a baby. Good health care is ensuring that Canadians
get the health care services they require in an affordable
fashion and in a medically necessary and timely fashion.
1825
That is what the Canada Health Act is all about. These are the
principles that were wisely fought for decades ago. These are
the things we stand for as Canadians. However, that is not what
is happening out there today in our country.
For heaven's sake, I ask the government to please listen to
alternative solutions in order to build a better, made in Canada
health act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
adopted earlier this day, the recorded divisions stand deferred
until Wednesday, March 25 at the end of Private Members'
Business.
May we have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock
as 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ASBESTOS
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just a few
weeks ago, I had the opportunity to question the government on
the asbestos issue, asking the government why it was not showing
more haste in lodging with the World Trade Organization a
complaint about France's ban on the use of asbestos on French
territory.
The answer I was given was definitely insufficient, and that is
why, this evening, I am giving the government the opportunity to
make up for it by clearly stating its position.
Let us briefly review the facts. First, a commission of the
European Council recently recommended that asbestos be banned
throughout Europe, in all European countries.
Needless to say that the consequences of such a ban would
adversely affect our asbestos industries, particularly those in
Quebec.
In addition, last week, we learned that the federal government
would rather go the diplomatic way and that it had signed with
five other asbestos producing countries, namely Russia, Brazil,
South Africa, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, a memorandum stating the
merits of this substance.
What I find somewhat strange and regrettable at the same time is
the fact that, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for natural
resources, to this day, I still have not received any document
explaining what this document signed with five other producing
countries is all about. Therefore, I welcome all the more this
opportunity, tonight, to ask that the government provide us with
information, so that we know exactly what is going on.
Members will recall that, last week, Belgian reporters toured
the Bell mine in Quebec. Here is what they had to say. Peter Van
Dooran said “Either the Belgian people are crazy to be afraid of
asbestos or the people working in this mine are.” Obviously, they
were impressed by what they saw. We have a good case on the
asbestos issue.
1830
I will also quote what a departmental official said: “The issue
is not whether or not Canada will file a complaint before the
WTO, but when”.
Finally, I will conclude with a quote from another Belgian
journalist, who said: “Three or four years ago, asbestos was not
an issue in Belgium, but Canada's representations are one year
too late”.
The federal government dragged its feet on the Pacific salmon
issue and on the Atlantic cod issue, and it has imposed quotas on
softwood lumber. Canada has shown a flagrant lack of courage. It
would be possible to go before the WTO. The smallest countries in
the world will be respected through the mechanisms put in place
by the WTO.
If Quebec were a sovereign state, we would have gone before the
WTO a long time ago to ensure that our asbestos is protected.
I am looking forward to hearing what the government has to say
on this subject.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the objective of the
Government of Canada in partnership with Quebec, the industry,
unions and local communities is to maintain market access for
asbestos. The Prime Minister raised this issue last fall with
his counterparts from the U.K. and France.
The issue was also raised on a number of occasions between
senior Canadian officials and their counterparts. Our officials
held exploratory discussions on WTO options with interested
partners as early as September 1997. On November 26 and again on
January 28 the deputy minister for international trade held
subsequent consultations with these same partners. On February
10 the deputy minister also held a conference call with
stakeholders to discuss the next steps on this file.
It was made clear that the Canadian government would prefer to
seek a resolution of this issue through diplomatic means as
opposed to moving right now to the WTO. We are prepared to go to
the WTO at the right time but we prefer to continue our crucial
dialogue with the French government.
We organized gatherings of producers in London in December and
in Brussels in January and February to work on a common strategy
for the defence of chyrsotile asbestos. We believe that
scientific data favour a controlled approach. A recent European
technical paper raises questions about the growing use of
asbestos bans in Europe as a means of protecting public health.
Canada attaches the highest priority to protecting export
markets for chyrsotile asbestos and we will pursue every option
available.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.)