The House met at 10 a.m.
The committee reports that it has considered and adopted the
votes of the main estimates of 1998-99 for the Office of the
Auditor General of Canada.
The great constituents of Hamilton West request that parliament
support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000
of an international convention which will set out a binding
timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
They are asking for the government to offer a compensation
package to all victims of hepatitis C just as the premier expert
in the blood system in Canada suggested, that being Horace
Krever.
These individuals are from the Ottawa area. The flow of
petitions is starting today.
Given that veterans of Canada's Merchant Navy who served in
World War II do not receive the same benefits as veterans of the
army, navy and airforce, what actions, if any, has the Minister
of Veterans Affairs taken to make equal benefits available to
Merchant Navy veterans?
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I should inform you that I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Today, the agreement on multilateral investment is being
negotiated in Paris. Today is the deadline. Fortunately, and it
is indeed fortunate, it looks like there will not be an
agreement, but we all know that negotiations will eventually
resume one way or another.
To debate this agreement, the MAI, is to raise the whole
question of a global economy.
On two or three occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has asked the
government to hold a special debate on this issue. Each time,
the government has refused.
Last week, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean dragged out the topic
again, so to speak. But his action highlighted a fundamental
issue, because a discussion of the MAI, of globalization of the
economy, raises the issue of the gap between rich and poor.
The number of low income earners in Canada jumped from 14.2% of
the population in 1975 to 17.9% in 1996, twenty years later. On
a global scale, the share of total revenue earned by the top
20%, i.e. the planet's richest individuals, increased from 70%
to 85% between 1960 and 1991, while the share of the bottom 20%,
i.e. the planet's poorest inhabitants, dropped from 2.3% to
1.4%.
There is a very private club of 358 billionaires—not
millionaires, but billionaires, as in 1,000 times one million—who
control an amount equal to 45% of the entire world's revenue,
while poverty continues to grow.
There are two possible attitudes to this alarming situation.
One would be to sit back, give up, say nothing or, worse still,
even contribute to the problem. The other would be to roll up
one's sleeves and try to do something about the widening gap
between rich and poor. In raising this issue and including it
in its platform, the Bloc Quebecois has opted for the second
course of action. The action taken by the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean has shown where he stands; this is the issue he
raised. This struggle is one that concerns me as well, and has
always concerned me since my earliest involvement in social and
political affairs.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the present Liberal
government.
Its recent EI reform has plunged more of our fellow citizens
into poverty. Promises, supposedly made for the purpose of
eliminating child poverty, have never been more than base ploys,
election slogans, calculated to bring in votes. Yet the
Liberals have substantial play in the budget, with a surplus of
$21 billion above and beyond the 1997 estimates, an amount that
once again was not forecast.
The Minister of Finance is not good with figures. The
government has an extra $4.4 billion and he did not forecast any
surplus this year. But, instead of using this money to reduce
the gap between rich and poor, the government is squandering
$750 million on submarines and interfering in provincial areas
of jurisdiction, in particular by investing $2.5 billion on
millennium scholarships.
We will see it this afternoon. In spite of all the statements
made by Liberal members, who claim they want to protect
hepatitis C victims, the government refuses to allocate money
for this issue, but it is discussing with professional sports
tycoons to reach a tax deal with teams whose players make
millions of dollars. How nice.
The concept of globalization is not just theory and ideology.
There are concrete numbers associated with it, and these figures
are telling. In 1997, world exports totalled US$5,295 billion,
while commercial services totalled US$1,295 billion. It is a
daily reality.
Does this mean that we oppose the globalization of economies?
Definitely not. However, discussing globalization does not mean
talking strictly about money. We must also talk about
establishing fair and just rules for every country, for the
people of each of these countries. We must talk about social and
human rights. These are the issues that we must talk about when
discussing globalization.
The MAI is the latest attempt to put together, in an
international agreement, multilateral regulations in the three
key foreign investment sectors, namely the protection of
investments, the liberalization of investments and the dispute
resolution mechanism.
The MAI is a good example of the lack of powers of democratic
institutions, because the federal government opted to negotiate
behind closed doors, instead of holding an open debate in this
Parliament and involving the Canadian people. It could have held
this controversial debate in public.
This is what we are condemning. We are asking the government to
stop ignoring the public's will, to listen to the various
groups, particularly the poor, and to listen to parliamentarians
from all parties. It is with this in mind that we are making
this demand, and that we will oppose the signing by Canada of
any treaty dealing with multilateral agreements on investment,
of any treaty that would not include provisions on social and
labour laws, the environment and cultural exemptions.
We do not want a standardized, Americanized world, in which the
only culture would be the American culture, and in which Dallas
and its imitations would be the only television series available.
This is not what they want in Quebec or in Canada, I have no
doubt.
We are also opposed to the provision in this agreement that
protects investments for 20 years. Today the elected president
of Burma, who is in exile, is visiting Ottawa. That country
without any democratic rule, dominated by a military junta,
could sign despicable agreements with major companies that would
be protected for 20 years. Should democracy return some day to
Burma, and I am sure it will, the government elected by and for
the people will be forced to honour these agreements. That is
not acceptable.
When we talk of the danger of parliamentarians and democratic
institutions losing political power this is what we are talking
about. We will also oppose having such agreements signed within
the OECD, the club of the well-to-do.
We cannot let the rich determine the living conditions of all
peoples in all countries in the world. Such agreements must
include all countries and be discussed within the World Trade
Organization. This is the place for such discussion.
Some will say that globalization leaves no room for the small
countries. The opposite is true. We see economic borders
dissolving and a number of countries emerging each year.
In this new context, Quebec's sovereignty expresses nothing more
than the political, economic and legal ability of the people of
Quebec to decide the conditions of their interdependence with
other peoples.
If it is true that small countries are impotent against
globalization, how do we explain the fact that countries with
populations of between 4 and 15 million inhabitants, such as
Austria, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and
Switzerland, outperform Canada in socio-economic terms.
These are eloquent examples of how, in these times of rampant
globalization, small countries can make different choices
according to their needs, the needs of their population, how
they can have an important public sector, progressive social
policies, and yet have lower unemployment than Canada and a
higher gross domestic product. That is part of reality.
The question is not, therefore, one of being against
globalization, but rather of defining a framework which will
forge links that will unite the countries of this planet in a
fair and just manner.
The question for all peoples of the world is to determine how
they can participate fully in major economic entities.
Speaking of the European Economic Community, and France of
course, according to François Mitterrand, to be part of a whole
one must first and foremost be oneself. That is what the
sovereignists want. That is what the Quebec sovereignist
project is all about and that is how the sovereignists address
the question of globalization.
Given that we already have a NAFTA investment agreement that
governs something like 70% of our foreign investment in Canada
which comes from the United States, and that NAFTA also contains
a cultural exemption but the right of the United States to
retaliate in kind for any measure that we take on the cultural
side, would the member not agree that the main threat to our
culture seems to be coming from the United States where we have
an agreement that is going to stay in place regardless of whether
we negotiate the MAI?
How would the leader of the Bloc protect culture? How would he
see the MAI affecting culture considering we already have NAFTA
and the main forces that might threaten our culture come from the
United States where we have an agreement that is going to be in
place for some time? Would he roll back NAFTA in the areas of
culture exemption?
The rich countries club, or in other words the OECD, could then
impose this agreement on a number of countries bilaterally, thus
ensuring that the WTO would be governed by such an agreement and
NAFTA forced to follow suit. That is where the danger lies.
I would remind my colleague that, in the debates on free trade
then on NAFTA and even in the last round of WTO negotiations, it
was Quebec, with the support of many of the European countries,
which pushed for the necessity of cultural exemptions, of
protecting cultural identity.
This inclusion in NAFTA was a gain, but still not enough of one.
We need only think back to the debate, strange, paradoxical,
even unfortunate for Canada I would say, around the purchase by
American interests of Ginn Publishing. Not one “Canadian” party
here in this House spoke out against the fact that one of
Canada's major publishing houses was going into American hands.
It was the Bloc Quebecois, the sovereignist party that wants its
own country, which rose in defence of Canadian interests.
This is why we want a debate. I think that it is high time
those across the floor, and the Reform Party as well, quit
thinking that the multinationals, the economy seen in isolation
from other human values, is a kind of golden calf. That is a
major mistake. Others have made that same mistake before you
and I hope fewer and fewer will make it after you.
When I think about reducing the gap between the rich and the
poor, the remark made by the hon. member is very true. The
governments are not very serious about this.
For example, all we have to do is look at my province of Nova
Scotia. We see governments by way of loan forgiveness giving $47
million to large corporations like Michelin. On the other hand I
am personally dealing with a complaint from an aboriginal family
living in a home that is worth less than $20,000 who are in
danger of being evicted by CMHC on mortgage foreclosure. It
demonstrates very clearly the difference and gap between the rich
and the poor and where we as a government put our priorities.
I really do not have a question but more of a commentary. I want
to commend my hon. colleague for bringing forth this motion. It
is a very important motion, one which deserves worthy treatment
by all members.
I also wanted to urge people in general to reflect on what is at
stake in the new economic reality that is the globalization of
markets.
This will hopefully help to mobilize the people and force us,
parliamentarians of all stripes, to come up with concrete
measures to ensure everyone's well-being.
Recently, we saw how people can mobilize and come together on an
issue. The Multilateral Investment Agreement was supposed to be
ratified today by the 29 member states of the OECD. But after
the citizens of several signatory states mobilized against it,
the agreement is now being questioned.
This agreement, considered by some to be the constitution of the
world economy, is only one aspect of the globalization
phenomenon.
When people mobilize, agreements can be thrown back into
question even though their acceptance had been presented as
being imperative and inevitable.
My action was very much inspired by this mobilization campaign,
to show people that decisions affecting them directly are being
made without meaningful consultation.
I wanted to bring people to take an interest in these decisions.
My action obviously satisfied a need because people mobilized in
great numbers. Today, I come to the House with the support of
hundreds of people and organizations of all kinds from
everywhere.
I think people want concrete solutions because they responded
favourably to the message I wanted to send through my action,
which, all in all, was provocative.
I think people are concerned about the growing gap between rich
and poor in our society, particularly in the context of
globalization.
I share their feeling. That is why I will consult with those who
are interested in this debate so that people can express their
concerns and suggest adequate solutions.
These consultations, whether they take the form of focus groups,
informal coffee meetings or any other form, will have a dual
objective: first, to foster a broad public debate and, second,
to give us, as parliamentarians, effective tools to help us
define the parameters for this new debate in our society.
I hope that, apart from these consultations, people will
mobilize to sign the petition I am circulating, asking that a
parliamentary committee be struck to examine our ability, as
parliamentarians, to reduce the gap between rich and poor in the
new context of market globalization and to suggest concrete
solutions.
I would add that I have no doubt as to the people's approval. As
I was saying earlier, the support I have received shows that a
large percentage of the population believes in the urgency of
such a debate. One of my objectives is to bring this petition to
the House with 50,000 signatures on it, as a start.
I just mentioned two concrete objectives: involving people in
this debate and making sure parliamentarians can find ways to
solve the problem.
This being said, for parliamentarians to find solutions, they
have to know the kind of issues the committee will be called
upon to review.
To this end, I suggest the committee should be asked to examine
not only the impact of globalization, especially on
parliamentarians' decisions, but also how to reconcile economic
growth and social development in the context of international
competition.
To learn more about international agencies, it might be helpful
to examine their democratic legitimacy and understand fully the
consequences of their various decisions on the manoeuvering room
we, as parliamentarians, are trying to establish at the national
level.
Is there a need to reform these agencies, as several have
suggested, in a way we would approve? We must look into it.
I believe it would be useful to further explore current social
policies adopted by parliamentarians in other countries in the
context of globalization and examine the inclusion of so-called
social clauses in various international and multilateral
agreements. I suggest we really have to take a serious look at
this for the MAI. How could we establish a democratic and
effective counterbalance that could be used to promote, protect
and maintain social benefits in nation-states?
Across the world, suggestions and solutions are being put
forward to counter the negative consequences of globalization,
especially to adapt it to mankind instead of forcing mankind to
adapt to it.
In his last budget, the finance minister said that basic
problems required basic solutions. I say that international
problems require international solutions.
I guarantee that this committee would allow us, as members of
Parliament, to be forward-thinking at the international level and
find concrete solutions to the issue of the lack of power of our
respective seats in the context of globalization.
To underscore and highlight the significance of this motion, I
move the following amendment, seconded by the member for
Richelieu:
Moreover, to show people we, parliamentarians, are really
serious about the issue of the gap between rich and poor, I ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion
votable.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.
1040
Is there unanimous consent to make the motion and the amendment
votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
An hon. member: Is it the amendment and the motion?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Is it agreed that the amendment
and the motion be votable?
Some hon. members: Yes.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent. The question is
on the amendment. Questions and comments. The hon. whip of the
Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Unless I am mistaken, you asked once for consent and it was
given. You asked a second time, and it was then refused. In my
view, consent was given.
The Deputy Speaker: No. When I first put the question, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport asked “For
the amendment?” I replied “For the motion and the amendment.
Is there consent to make them votable. It is for both”.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: You are here to serve the House, not the
Liberals.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe that the House has decided that
the motion is not votable at this time. The question can be put
again, and I can certainly do that. As members know, such a
request is frequently made in the House.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is
very clear, and perhaps the blues will show it equally clearly,
that when you first asked for the unanimous consent of the
House, it was agreed.
Following this consent, we heard the parliamentary secretary ask
you a question, but that was after you received the unanimous
consent of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I will put the question again. Is there
unanimous consent to make the matter votable?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
An hon. member: You are here to serve the House, not the
Liberals.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I am here to serve the House. I am a
servant of the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is disagreeing but I
think it was clear. I asked the question. The parliamentary
secretary asked a question in response. I then answered the
question for the parliamentary secretary and asked the question
so that the House got the question clearly. He was asking for
clarification of my question about whether or not it was votable
and I answered the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that, when you
asked for consent, you obtained it. The parliamentary
secretary, who was near the curtains, moved forward after
consent was given. He asked whether consent was on the
amendment or the motion itself.
You obtained this consent, Mr. Speaker. If you decide to change
the House's decision, to change the rules in mid-stream, it is a
very sad comment on the kind of debate that is possible among
parliamentarians on the issue of globalization.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I think what is clear is that at
the first instance when you first put the question, my colleague
the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury
Board said no. Then when you rose and asked the second question,
I asked for clarification because I did not hear the translation
in time. I asked if this was a request for unanimous consent to
have the non-votable motion become votable and at that point I
thanked you for that clarification. You asked the question and I
said no. This is a non-votable item and it will remain so.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, here is another version of the
facts. You are saying:“We said yes”. No one heard the
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.
Earlier it was yes. Now we are getting a new version to the
effect that someone said “no”. Maybe somebody thought “no”. We
are here to think, I hope, but also to speak. So now there is a
second version.
I hope the decision to give unanimous consent will be honoured.
If that does not happen, it will be, as my colleague put it, a
very sad comment on debates in this place.
1045
If you uphold the decision, I hope they will explain their
opposition and their subservience at the time of the vote later
today on hepatitis C. It is the attitude of the irresponsible.
The Deputy Speaker: When there is unanimous consent in this
House for a proposal, the House must understand the question.
The hon. parliamentary secretary indicated exactly what I said.
He did not understand the question I put to the House. He
indicated the lack of clarification on this point.
Unanimous consent is not indicated until the Speaker of the
House has, after the question has been put, indicated that it
has been given and the matter decided.
I did not make such a pronouncement or decision, because I have
entertained the question. The issue is very clear and the
matter is now closed.
We now continue with questions and comments.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: If it is on the same matter, I will not hear
other arguments. I have heard enough arguments on this point.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I will speak no more than ten
seconds. When we sought unanimous consent, the parliamentary
secretary was not present. He cannot therefore say that he was
opposed. Therefore there was unanimous consent.
I would point out that I will not give unanimous consent for you
to seek another vote again.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House at
the time and I said no. Maybe it was not loud enough, but I said
no and shook my head. I was in the House at the time.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely and respectfully
suggest you review the tapes and the blues to confirm that you
had unanimous consent, although that was later denied, but you
had it. And it is not normal for you to keep asking for consent
until you no longer have it.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Treasury Board, who
was not in his own seat, has just admitted it. He did not speak
but shook his head no.
He has just admitted that he did not speak but shook his head,
and I agree that one ought to use one's head before speaking,
but when the time comes for a person to indicate consent or
non-consent, that must be done by speaking, not nodding. He has
just said that is what he did.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. That is the end of the
argument.
It is obvious that what we have here is a case where there was
no unanimous consent.
An hon. member: There was consent.
The Deputy Speaker: No, there is no consent until the Chair
indicates that the matter is settled. I did not so rule. I did
not give such an indication because I did not receive clear
unanimous consent.
When the parliamentary secretary asked his question and I
responded, he indicated that he did not give his consent, and
that is the end of the matter. The debate is closed.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He had the
guts to stomp out of the House with his chair to stir up a
discussion over the issue of poverty in Canada. There are
children who go to school on an empty stomach.
I want to congratulate him. I hope the media will change their
coverage on this issue, stop dealing with the chair incident and
start talking about the poor in this country.
Here is my question for my colleague. Now that we have had free
trade and NAFTA in Canada for such a long time, and now that we
are leaning toward signing the MAI, does he not think we have
more food banks than ever in Canada?
1050
This is not the Royal Bank I am talking about, but food banks
families have to go to because they do not have any money left
to feed themselves. The EI fund has billions of dollars in
surplus, but some Canadians are starving.
Could my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean respond to this?
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I am very pleased to see that I have support coming not
only from the Bloc Quebecois but also from other parties. I hope
that my colleagues opposite and from all parties will seize on
this issue. Furthermore, if they choose not to do so right now,
I think time will prove me right and we will eventually be
forced to take a very serious look at this issue.
In response to the question my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst
asked me earlier, essentially, I left with my seat to elicit a
broad societal debate. I never said I had all the answers. I
plan to focus my efforts on getting the point across to the
public and to parliamentarians alike that a debate must be held
on this matter, that is, the consequences of globalization on
political power.
If we find that globalization does limit the power of
parliamentarians at home and abroad, there will be an urgent
need for the public to look into the matter and understand what
is at stake.
I have said repeatedly this week that any loss of political
power means a so-called loss of democracy. This therefore
concerns us all, the political parties represented in this House
as well as the public at large.
I do not claim to have all the answers, far from it. However, it
seems to me that there should be a debate in which
parliamentarians and the public would share their views and
there is none. This is of greater concern to me.
Of course, we can look at the immediate consequences of
globalization, and there are many.
But what will be required, and sooner than later, is a
comprehensive debate. Then, we will be able to deal with
specifics, the consequences, the stakes and, more importantly,
possible solutions we can explore to ensure a framework is in
place for globalization to benefit the citizens of this and
other countries.
That is the challenge facing us. As I said, this is a complex
message and the debate is just beginning. It will probably be a
10-year process. That is why it must start as soon as possible.
I hope that, as the public gets further involved in these
issues, parliamentarians in this House will pay close attention
and make sure that more concrete solutions are found.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make
a comment about my young friend from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am very
glad that he brought his chair back and will continue to sit in
this House.
I was in the House when he expressed frustration and left with
his chair. I saw the frustration of someone in his twenties
whose idealism has not yet been tempered with the reality of age
as it goes on.
I would just say to him that he should never give up his
idealism. He should always keep it. As the years go on he will
find that it is always tempered with reality.
It is frustrating to watch poverty in the world, seemingly on
the increase. I do not think that child poverty can be isolated
from poverty in general.
It seems to me that if there is family poverty, then there is
child poverty. The two go hand in hand. There is no magic
formula for simply eliminating child poverty with the stroke of a
pen or a chequebook.
1055
I would also comment that some of the contents of this debate
tend to argue against some of the very elements that are helping
child poverty and helping the economies around the world. In
order to get a perspective on that one has to look at history and
the human condition that existed before countries began to
interact with one another.
It was in the fifties that Canada began to interact in an
official way with other countries with which it had been trading
in the past, mostly under the colonial system that we were under
at that time. Investment agreements began to be made in the
1950s. Up to now, as I understand it, there are 54 bilateral
investment agreements that exist between Canada and other
countries. Around the world there are 1,600 bilateral investment
agreements.
The intent of the multilateral agreement on investment is very
simple. It is to allow more countries to sing out of the same
hymn book. Ultimately our hope is that once that framework is
established the World Trade Organization, which represents 132
countries, will see the wisdom of operating under a common
framework.
Canada does all right because our biggest trading partner is the
United States. We understand each other's society and so on and
we try to treat each other, even though there are glitches from
time to time, with some fairness. That trade can go on without
an MAI and without more agreements, but as other countries in the
world, which are impoverished, want to raise their standard
of living and want to put an end to their poverty, certainly we
find that having some common rules among those countries will
help them and will help us.
I also should point out that I think we all recognize that
closed governments do not do well in the global village. Closed
governments are failing very badly. I give the example of North
Korea, a totalitarian communist government that has put walls
around itself and almost chooses not to communicate at all with
the rest of the world. Starvation and impoverishment there are
incredible, to the extent that South Korea, its arch enemy, is
now sending aid to North Korea to try in its own way to help
North Korea through these crisis times.
I would suggest, on the other hand, that open governments
overall are gaining. They are gaining in wealth and in economic
base. Therefore they have a better opportunity to look after the
impoverishment which exists to some extent in every country in the
world. It exists in Canada, in France, in Europe, in Asia and so
on. We recognize that.
The answer is not simply to throw cash at the problem. The
answer is to provide a common denominator and an economic
foundation so that countries can prosper and do well. That is
why we seek these agreements, so that the rules can be
established and so that a Canadian company is not afraid to
invest in another country.
I bring in the example of what happened with the Nova Scotia
firm that went into partnership with Aeroflot and the Russian
government in the building of a hotel last year. Conflict arose
because there is no MAI with Russia. There is no bilateral
agreement with Russia.
1100
As a result those people were left in the jungle on their own
and they ran into serious trouble. That is a terrible detriment
to a company or a potential investor who wants to go into another
country and establish themselves there and in so doing help the
economy, help jobs and help the growth of that country.
This interaction is a positive thing for all of us.
Globalization represents empowerment for all countries if they
will simply take it on. I know there are fears. There are fears
expressed about cultural intrusion and so on. Every country that
has been negotiating in the MAI has its own set of reservations
and its own set of concerns. There is nothing wrong with that.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep the cultural debate
right out of the agreement. We have said that. We have made it
very clear. We have said that if some other countries insist on
having it in their agreement we will have a country specific
reservation. That is a bottom line. There is no big deal.
Over the 40 or so years that these agreements have been made no
company has come in and taken over the policies of this country.
No multilateral organization has overwhelmed Canada. If anyone
wants to see an example of industry and large organizations
having an influence on the policy of a country, we only have to
go to Washington and see how that government works. The dollar a
year men in with companies actually construct policy that favours
those companies. That does not happen in Canada. It has not
happened and it will not happen in Canada as long as the people
of this country see that it does not.
Our exports have increased tremendously since we started having
agreements. As a result jobs have increased as well. We want
that to continue but we want it to continue for us which is
selfish but generous. We want it to continue for every country
in the world, all the people in the world and we are most anxious
to use all the tools we have to get rid of poverty, child poverty
particularly.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville,
for questions and comments.
Mr. Paul Mercier: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague for
Lac-Saint-Jean would like to speak, I will give him my spot.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
comment on a few things mentioned by the member opposite during
his speech.
He spoke about my illusions and said that, as I will get older I
should lose my illusions. Is that his answer? Does this mean I
should give up now since I will have lost my illusions 20 years
from now? I do not think so. I feel concerned about the future.
I feel that some valuable debates must take place now. There are
new ways to hold such public debates. I should not give up
because of what was done in the past and say “we have no
choice”.
This is what I reacted to. I reacted primarily to this attitude
that makes some say “let us face it, we have no choice.
Market globalization is unavoidable. Fellow citizens, your
governments no longer have any power”. I refuse to believe that.
I think that if the public decides to mobilize, if it believes
that we can turn globalization into a tool for us all,
particularly those of my generation, then we will be able to
change things.
Some may accuse me of being idealistic, of believing in a
utopia, but I will at least fight. This is what I want to do. I
want to fight for the public's interest.
1105
When eight people out of ten support me for the action I took,
an action that questioned fundamental values of our society,
namely democracy, I think we should ask ourselves some
questions.
I do not want to talk specifically about the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment, but rather about the way this was done,
secretly. Ultimately, they were rewriting the world economic
constitution, but no one, or almost no one, knew about it,
certainly not the people or me, a parliamentarian, a
representative of the people. We were informed later about the
content of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
I think that, when such a vast society debate has to happen, the
people must be informed. And even though the debate is complex
and long, as I agree it is, this does not mean we cannot dwell
on it now.
Consequently, I do not intend to give up. I think the only thing
that is unavoidable—No, in fact nothing is unavoidable. Come to
think of it, nothing is unavoidable. Giving up is the only thing
that makes things unavoidable.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend did
not misinterpret what I said. I told him not to give up his
idealism in any way but over time recognize that politics is the
art of the possible and what we try to do is head down a track or
a road, and it is necessary to fight very often to get down that
road.
I am glad my hon. friend accepts the principle of globalization.
Representatives from the World Bank were in committee today. One
of the things they said had to do with rural development and
poverty which is a very serious concern of the World Bank. They
recommended further worldwide liberalization of agricultural
trade, a necessary condition for ensuring that countries can rely
on international markets, rather than self-sufficiency policies,
for their food security.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the great concerns of Canadians in this whole thing has
been the secrecy of this agreement and the kind of things that
have been going on behind closed doors.
We did not hear about this until last year during the election
campaign. It has been going on for several years. What is in
this agreement that is so secret that it has not been publicly
disclosed to the Canadian people?
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, the process for negotiating
the MAI had its roots in the processes for negotiating all the
bilateral trade agreements that have gone on for years. The
information was available through OECD from the very beginning
but no reporters picked up on it, nobody ever looked at it until
one draft appeared on the Internet last May. A draft is not a
text, but it was interpreted as a text and what was not included
at that time was a recognition that there was a list of
reservations that not only Canada but every country in the OECD
has included. Those are the bases for negotiation.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to take part in this Bloc supply day motion although I
admit I have a little trouble understanding exactly what the Bloc
is asking for.
I see it has tied the issue of child poverty into the whole
aspect of globalization and the multilateral agreement on
investment and I want to deal with those issues in their own
right. But it seems there is a problem right from the very
beginning with this motion because I do not believe that they are
related.
1110
I believe it is clear the Liberals are mishandling the economy.
Poverty still exists in Canada where it should not exist. I also
believe that child poverty cannot be disassociated from poverty
in families. If we correct that with family members having the
opportunity to work and have well paying jobs it will go a long
way to correct that problem.
I also believe the Liberal government is mishandling the MAI.
Today the minister is over at the OECD in Paris putting the deep
six on the MAI at the same time as the Prime Minister is in Cuba
talking about signing an investment agreement with Cuba of all
places.
Cuba expropriated all Canadian and foreign investment in Cuba
and the Prime Minister is now talking about signing an investment
agreement with that country and putting a deep freeze on the
multilateral agreement on investment which would help a lot of
Canadian companies and therefore a lot of Canadian workers and
their children because there are a lot of high paying jobs. It
seems to me there is a problem.
My colleague from Calgary Centre will be speaking more on the
aspect of child poverty and what can be done but I want to raise
a couple of things.
The Reform Party believes it is important for all families in
Canada to have the opportunity to work in meaningful and well
paying jobs. We think that through proper government this can
happen. It is absolutely deplorable to still have Canadians
paying income tax in Canada when they are making $15,000 a year.
That is simply not acceptable. There are 2.6 million Canadians
in that category we believe should be taken off the tax rolls
altogether and be given an opportunity to keep some of their hard
earned money.
I want to raise the question of the role of government. The NDP
and the Bloc would have us believe the role of government is
interventionist. We have seen that from the Liberal Party in the
past. For about the last 30 years we have had a very
interventionist government in Canada, social engineering. Some
would have us withdraw and form an isolationism in the world.
Some would have us put up big tariff barriers again that existed
from Sir John A. Macdonald's time. However, I do not believe that
would serve Canada very well. I think we can look at the example
of Atlantic Canada to point out that it has not worked very well.
Prior to Confederation Canada had several areas of the country
that were doing pretty well. Atlantic Canada had a very healthy
trade relationship with the New England states. It was in close
proximity with an existing natural trade corridor.
Confederation came along and Sir John A. Macdonald instituted
his national policy of high tariffs meant to direct the flow of
goods and services east and west. What did that do to Atlantic
Canada? It became dependent over a period of time on things like
unemployment insurance, regional development grants and welfare
because the central part of the country was draining it. The
barriers meant that it could not trade effectively with New
England states any more.
I think it has been demonstrated worldwide that barriers do not
work. Any country that has even unilaterally dismantled barriers
to trade has benefited. Therefore we need to foster a better
environment for our Canadian companies to do well. By doing
that, workers in those Canadian companies are going to do well
and have high paying jobs.
Our committee did a study on small and medium size enterprises
in international trade. We heard testimony that the environment
for business in Canada to do well is not good at all. Witnesses
said we are not internationally competitive because we are paying
very high taxes. Canadians still have the highest tax rates in
the G-8. We have a lot of regulation that is hard to overcome.
We heard from one company that said it was easier to do business
by moving out of its home base in Ontario to Illinois and then
ship its product back into Canada. This was easier than shipping
across Canadian provincial borders. That simply is not good
enough.
I believe because we have had interventionist governments we
have $600 billion worth of debt, debt that has made the Canadian
taxpayer have to pay one-third of every tax dollar to Ottawa just
to pay the interest on the debt. It is just like digging a hole
in the ground. These types of governments that have intervened
in the economy and in our personal lives have caused this to
happen.
1115
We just have to think of all the companies that have been
privatized in the last few years that were on the government
gravy train needing big subsidies every year to exist. CN Rail
is now making a profit. Air Canada is now making a profit.
Petro-Canada is now making a profit. All these companies were
draining Canadian taxpayers.
Canadian airports are functioning on their own and doing well. A
small airport in Peace River, which was turned over to the
community in the last two years, is doing very well and is
actually making money. Prior to that it took $400,000 of
taxpayers' money every year to keep that airport in business.
The interventionist government, which brought us the national
energy program and FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency
that discouraged investment in Canada, intervened not only in the
economy, in our personal lives, but in provincial areas of
jurisdiction such as education, housing, tourism and job
training, causing duplication in governments.
Why is it that with such a great country we have areas in Canada
where there are unemployment rates of 60%? It simply is not
acceptable. It is the debt load given to us by interventionist
governments which have caused these rates. As I said, 2.65
million people earn less than $15,000 a year and still have to
pay taxes to the federal government. It is not acceptable. We
have to get our house in order first.
The social engineering of the past has given us employment
insurance. Some 25 different regions of the country qualify for
employment insurance because of different criteria. For the last
30 years employment insurance has had 5% higher rates than those
of the United States year in and year out. We can chart it. We
can plot it. They have gone up and down but are 5% higher than
those of the United States. Why is that? It is because of
interventionist governments doing social engineering.
This brings me to the aspect of the motion today which deals
with globalization in the MAI. My party and I believe that
Canada needs a liberalized trade and investment regime if it is
to prosper.
For the first time in 1998 the amount of Canadian investment
outside Canada has exceeded the amount of foreign investment in
Canada. It is a trend that has been happening for the last four
or five years. This says something about a new found confidence
of Canadians seeking the big market out there.
There are 30 million people who think the Canadian market is too
small and want to take advantage of the world. We have many
things to offer, so if we are to trade with these countries, as
we are, in many cases it will require Canadians to make
investments.
Which multinational Canadian companies are out there investing?
They are companies that are home grown. They have Canadians
working for them here at home. There are investments from the
pension funds of Canadians in those companies. They are publicly
traded. We have mutual funds. We have RRSPs invested in these
Canadian companies. It is in our interests that they do well.
They need the protection of some base rules of investment and we
can do it more than one way.
The MAI should be allowed to die. The trade minister seems to
be allowing it to be put into a deep coma at the OECD. We can
sign bilateral investment agreements to achieve the same end. We
have done quite a bit of that in the past. We also have an
investment agreement with the United States and Mexico in NAFTA
that governs 70% of investment in Canada already. That will not
change whether or not we have the MAI.
We can continue down that road, but there are something like
1,600 investment agreements worldwide. It would be a simpler
process to have one that we could all look at and say here are
the simple rules for investment in the same way as we have had
rules for trade in goods for 50 years. If we do not want to do
that we do not have to.
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean in a symbolic act the other day
took his seat from the House of Commons and got a little
publicity from it. It says a little more than that. It says
something about a party that wants to withdraw from Canada and to
put borders around Canada, to have an isolation policy. That
simply does not work.
A lot of change is happening in Canada. All of us have
difficulty with change, but we cannot freeze a certain section of
our lives and say we want to stay at 30 years old. Change is
something that happens to us all the time. Trade and investment
are like riding a bike. If we stop peddling we will fall off and
I do not think we will be served very well.
I cannot support the motion although there are certain aspects
concerning child poverty that are important to deal with through
well paying jobs.
1120
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member. It is
good to see that he has his own private cheering section.
The member's speech demonstrated a very important difference
between his party and this side of the House that Canadians
should recognize. He talked about the Canadian taxpayer and the
need to reduce the burden of taxation, something the Minister of
Finance has been doing in his last few budgets and continues to
do. We see the Reform Party's inability to make the distinction
between taxpayers and Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: I hear members opposite. They do not
realize that literally millions of Canadians are not taxpayers
and are in need of assistance just as much as somebody who is a
taxpayer. What about someone who is unable to get a job or to
find work? I know they believe every Canadian can get a job if
they want one, but that ignores Canadians with disabilities and
those who are unable to enter the workforce.
The bottom line is that members of the Reform Party do not
encompass the broad range of Canadians. They select who they
want to help. They focus on whom they want to help, but they
will not reach out to the full Canadian family.
That is the basic premise of what the hon. member said in his
speech. He ignores large segments of Canadian society and only
wants to deal with individuals who fit their mould of being
appropriate for help.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, that was a very
interesting intervention. The member correctly observed that
there were big differences between the Reform Party and the
governing Liberals. I am glad he finally got that point. It is
pretty clear that there are.
The point I was making is that we do not believe intervening in
the economy is the right role for government. We believe,
however, that there is a proper role for government. We think it
is fostering an environment for Canadian businesses, their
workers and their shareholders to do well here and to do well
internationally. We also believe there is a role for government
to be the shepherd of environmental programs and competition laws
by ensuring they are looked after for Canadians.
When it comes to taxation the member raised an interesting
point. He said that we did not recognize the difference between
taxpayers and Canadians. I suggest Canadians at tax time do not
see much difference either. They are taxpayers and they are
paying very heavily. They want some tax relief.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I am disappointed in the direction the debate is going and
in the way Reform members are diverting the debate. Liberals are
jumping on the bandwagon and saying: “We are the best in the
world; we are beautiful, good and nice”.
My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean tried to start a non partisan
debate on a world issue that is very real and is simply
redefined in our motion.
The Reform member started his speech by saying: “We do not know
exactly what Bloc members want”. We can therefore deduce that he
does not agree with what we want, but he does not know what we
want.
If we listen to his speech, we realize it is rather
inconsistent.
Secondly, I will explain to him what we want and I will ask him
if he agrees. The motion is relatively simple: That this House
reiterate the 1989 commitment to eliminating child poverty by
the year 2000 and urge the government to act by quickly striking
an all-party Special Parliamentary Committee that will consider
the matter.
The Liberals had made this commitment in their first red book
and have said they were in favour of it. What we want is to
eliminate poverty. We want to strike a parliamentary committee
to study this matter. I ask my Reform colleague if he agrees
with this.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is
any disagreement. We want to get rid of poverty in Canada but we
have different methods of doing it.
1125
The Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP seem to feel that the levers
of power by government intervening in the economy is the proper
way. We have seen 30 years of such intervention and I believe it
has failed.
Unemployment is still running almost in double digits and has
been for a long time. The Canada pension plan needs a massive
infusion of taxpayers' money or a 72% increase to keep it viable.
Health care is in trouble. The federal government has cut back
payments in health care by $6 billion to the provinces.
Maybe the government should not intervene so much in the economy
and the business sector and let business do what it does best,
that is create well paying jobs. We have to be competitive
internationally. On the issue of globalization, certainly that
is happening, but I do not think it is something we can stop or
would want to stop. It is a smaller world and we have to take
advantage of it.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I
think you would find consent for the following order:
That the deferred recorded division on the amendment of Mr.
White (Langley—Abbotsford) to the opposition motion of Mr. Hill
(Macleod) scheduled for today at the conclusion of Government
Orders be deemed defeated on division.
And that the remaining recorded divisions scheduled today at the
conclusion of Government Orders take place in the following
order: the main motion of Mr. Hill's opposition motion, the
motion for second reading of Bill C-39, the motion for second
reading of Bill C-216, Motion M-85, and the motion for second
reading of Bill C-32.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. deputy whip for the
government have unanimous consent of the House to propose the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—ELIMINATION OF POVERTY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP supports the motion that has been brought forward by the
Bloc Quebecois. We welcome the attention that is being paid to
the issue of globalization and give credit to the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean for provoking this debate. However, contrary to
what the member said when he was on his feet, the debate is not
just starting but has been going on for some time. I would
suggest that it has been going on since about 1987 in the lead-up
to the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
I am quite happy to hear what the member has to say. I agree
with him that there is a new consciousness among young people,
among those of his own generation, about the extent to which
forces are being gathered together within this globalization
model. They are very much leading to a future that not many
young people want to contemplate.
It is a future that has within it a low wage economy for a great
many young Canadians. I have seen it in my own work on the MAI
over the past several months going across the country and
speaking on campuses and in other places. I have spoken to
students about the multilateral agreement on investment and how
it is the latest stage in a globalization model that the NDP
rejects and that I want young people to reject. There is a new
awareness on the part of young people at the university level and
elsewhere about how wary they should be of this globalization
model.
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean said that he hoped time would see
him right on this motion even if everybody did not agree with him
at the moment. Without malice I say that I have felt this way
for a while. I remember making a similar speech in 1987 when I
said that time would see us right on the downside of free trade.
1130
I think we are reaching one of those times—and I am not
speaking of the member now—when people who otherwise were very
supportive of this model as it emerged in the context of the FTA,
the NAFTA and the WTO are now beginning to have second thoughts
about the wisdom of this particular model.
These second thoughts are not just coming from the left, where
people had not second thoughts but first thoughts about the
downsides of globalization, they are coming from people on the
right and in the centre who are asking themselves whether the
effects of an unfettered global marketplace are not more than
they bargained for when they first began to promote this model of
globalization.
I am very happy to see the motion here today. I noticed that it
begins by referring to a motion passed in this House in 1989.
That motion was moved by my former leader, the member from
Oshawa, Ed Broadbent, at the time of his departure from this
House.
I think the fact that this motion is referred to at the
beginning of the Bloc motion points out something that many
people are aware of, that is, that there has been a certain
affinity between the NDP, and before that the CCF, and the social
democratic tradition in Quebec which is represented by the Bloc
Quebecois, which in the past was represented not just exclusively
by the Bloc Quebecois from Quebec but by Quebeckers in general.
It is fair to say that Quebec has had a tremendous impact on the
kind of country Canada has become over the years. A large part of
our social democratic nature has come from Quebec. In
English-speaking Canada it has come largely from the tradition
that the NDP represents.
Those two things acting together, often synthesized by a Liberal
government at the federal level, have led to the kind of country
which is now being dismantled by the very globalization model the
member for Lac-Saint-Jean refers to, which we in the NDP have
been criticizing for some time.
This debate gives me an opportunity, as the NDP House leader and
also as the trade critic, to reflect on the relationship between
the NDP and Quebec nationalists, not only nationalists in the
Bloc Quebecois but also nationalists outside the Bloc Quebecois
who are not necessarily sovereignists or separatists. There was
always thought to be a great deal of affinity in so far as we
held these social democratic values in common.
What has happened over the last several years, particularly
since the creation of the Bloc, but going back to the beginning
of the debate on the free trade agreement, is that we have
disagreed with the Bloc Quebecois, and not just about separation,
obviously. We are federalists and they are sovereignists. They
understand that. We understand it. It is fair ball.
However, where we have had problems and why I welcome this
motion as an opportunity for all of us to reflect, is the way in
which we have seen the free trade agreement, the NAFTA, the WTO
and now the MAI as models for globalization that work against
social democracy, that work against the ability of governments to
create, to preserve and to maintain social democratic values.
We have always found it odd, frustrating and even irritating on
occasion to see Quebeckers of various political persuasions
embracing free trade and the NAFTA. I say this in all
earnestness. I am not trying to provoke a partisan debate, I am
trying to extend an opportunity for all of us to reflect on this.
Recently, they did not even bother to file a minority report on
the MAI.
1135
In the last little while there seems to have been a bit of
a shift, within the ranks of the Bloc in particular, and I
welcome this shift.
I think from our point of view this particular model of
globalization, which the FTA, the NAFTA, the WTO and the MAI
represent, is not just something that we should be sceptical
about as social democrats from the point of view of whether it
creates justice, because we certainly should be sceptical of it
on those grounds. It has led to increasing poverty and
increasing disparity between the rich and the poor, not just
within countries, but between countries in many respects in terms
of north, south and so on.
We also should be sceptical of it in so far as it is a threat to
the sovereignty of governments; to the power of governments to
intervene, to shape, to contain, to regulate, to do all of the
things that we have been able to do in the economy over the years
to create a more social democratic Canada, which Bloc members
would want to have at their disposal if there was an independent
Quebec and they wanted to shape the Quebec economy.
I hope this debate might be an opportunity to hear back from
Bloc members on this. It has always been a bit of a puzzle to us
why they embrace that particular view of the global economy and
why at one point the former leader of the Bloc, now the premier
of Quebec, talked about the end of ideology, that ideology had
been replaced by trade. That was on March 15, 1994 in this
House.
Trade in itself is an ideology, in particular liberalized trade
without government regulation, without core labour standards.
This is in itself an ideology and there is ideology to be debated
within different models of how global trade will unfold.
To pretend somehow that there is no ideological debate here is
to play the game that the government wants us to play, but not so
much the Reform. I think they acknowledge that there is an
ideological debate here and they are very clear about what side
they are on.
I welcome this motion from the Bloc. I look forward to hearing
more of what they have to say and reading more about how they
square what they are saying today with some of the things that
have been said in the past. I look forward to working together
with them and with others who see the real threat that this model
of globalization presents, not only to social justice, but to the
sovereignty of all governments whether they be federalist or of
any other nature.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the
House leader of the New Democratic Party are interesting and
raise a number of questions. For instance, he sees a
contradiction between our being Quebec sovereignists and our
position with respect to globalization and our adherence to the
free trade agreement with the United States, and then with
Mexico.
I cannot speak for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who is
perfectly able to speak for himself, but there is not
necessarily a contradiction. Globalization is an inescapable
reality in our society. Whether we like it or not, we are headed
in that direction.
As social democrats, we must however ask ourselves the following
question: In the face of globalization, can we, as social
democrats within our various parties, be it the Bloc or the NDP,
contribute to the debate to make sure that this movement toward
market globalization is more civilized and that a national
perspective is taken to domestic interests? It is our duty as
parliamentarians and members of Parliament.
1140
I think we can also make a contribution with respect to working
conditions, especially in countries like Mexico, and compliance
with environmental rules that apply to every country in the
world. Much remains to be done in this respect.
I think that is what the call from the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean is all about, by demanding that those who decide
economic issues and political issues too—because he called on
parliamentarians as well—finally comply with the terms and
conditions that the people want to see enforced.
I clearly recall that, when they took position in favour of free
trade, the members of the Bloc Quebecois knew at the time there
would be a price to pay for this change and that transition
measures would be required to help industries adjust.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona may
want to respond to these comments.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. It is true that globalization is a fact. But what is
up for grabs is what kind of globalization we are going to have.
Are we going to have globalization that is really just a global
marketplace with this race to the bottom where governments and
societies give up their social and economic values by trading
away their labour standards and their environmental regulations
in order to attract investment? Or is our form of globalization
going to be a global community?
I think it raises the matter of global governance. In spite of
what the member for Peace River keeps accusing the NDP of, we
have never suggested that we should be isolationists, that we
should put up tariff walls or that we should go back to the days
of Sir John A. Macdonald. What we have suggested is that if we
are going to have a global market we need to have forms of global
governance that do for global markets what national governments
used to do for national markets. That is the way ahead. We are
not looking for a way back, we are looking for a way ahead that
creates some form of global social and economic justice, and the
MAI is not the way to do it.
The MAI is a replication of the NAFTA at a much larger level. I
think that is something that people who were for the NAFTA have
to take into account—
The Deputy Speaker: On a brief question, the hon. member
for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the irresponsibility and the
naivete of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I would like to
remind him that this is a country of 30 million people who
produce far more in a year than we could ever consume. Therefore
it is an absolute necessity that Canada trade with other nations
and take part in the global marketplace. That is what fuels the
economy of this country.
In case the member does not know it, if it was not for the NAFTA
and the free trade agreement right now the economy of this
country would be in disastrous shape because we do not have a
buoyant domestic market.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is just one of
those things where it does not matter what one says because
Reform members only hear what they want to hear. I never said
Canada did not need trade. I never said we did not want to be
part of the global marketplace. I never said any of those
things. Reform members either have wax in their ears or they are
just committed to a particular point of view no matter what
people say.
I said we had to have a global marketplace that was regulated in
a certain way so that there was social and economic justice.
That does not mean we do not trade. It means we trade in a
particular way.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to commend the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for the
intent of this motion. While we may differ on the means, we agree
on the end. We would like to eradicate child poverty in
Canada. Progressive Conservatives recognize that one of the
best levers to eradicate child poverty, not only within Canada
but globally, is liberalized trade.
It was a Progressive Conservative government that led Canada
into the free trade agreement in 1988 and the NAFTA in 1993. In
fact if members want to talk about transparency and about
openness and engagement, there was a federal election fought in
1988 on the free trade agreement. Compare that to the secrecy of
the current MAI discussions and negotiations, Canada's
participation and lack of consultation within Canada.
An hon. member: Where do the Liberals stand on that
debate?
1145
Mr. Scott Brison: The Liberal Party has been consistently
inconsistent in its trade policy. Recently the Minister for
International Trade said the Liberal Party was on the vanguard of
the rising anxieties of the free trade agreement of 1988. In
fact the Liberals were the leaders of the anti free trade
movement in 1988. Now the Liberals cannot get enough free trade.
In fact they like it so much they do not feel it is important to
negotiate or to engage Canadians in these discussions. That is
how much they like free trade.
We actually have some commitment to commitment. They are born
again free traders. Now with the public opposition mounting they
are posturing against the MAI agreement. Or at least they are
indicating in a very public sense that they have some
difficulties with it when in fact privately they do not have a
great enough understanding of it to have any opposition to it.
The PC Party believes that a good multilateral investment
agreement could benefit all Canadians. However we do not believe
that any agreement at any cost without any negotiation or
consultation with Canadians is the right agreement. The lack of
public consultation within Canada on the MAI is appalling. The
motion today has helped us bring to light some of this lack of
consultation.
It is important that we have public debate on this kind of
issue. Public debate is the best way to dispel some of the
arguments put forth by some of the most vociferous opponents and
indeed proponents of the MAI. There is common ground between
these two extremes. That is why the PC Party asked the
subcommittee on the MAI to table the agreement before parliament
15 days before it was ratified by cabinet. The idea was taken
from a bill introduced by Alexander Downer, the Australian
minister of foreign affairs, in the Australian parliament in
1996. This became the Australian model for treaty negotiations.
The Bloc motion claims an agreement like the MAI would weaken
legislative rights. That is why the PC Party introduced a
recommendation to the MAI subcommittee to conduct a full impact
analysis of the effect the MAI would have on our federal,
provincial and municipal programs.
The Bloc's motion blames globalization for the growing gap
between rich and poor around the world. Globalization is not the
largest contributing factor to this dangerous spread between the
rich and the poor. Globalization is not all bad nor is it all
good. It is like most things. It brings risk and it brings
opportunities.
The Americas and Europe have come to see the benefits of trade
union rights and child labour legislation but they have become
wealthy enough to absorb those costs. Without the expansion of
liberalized trade, the engine of job growth, workers in
underdeveloped countries may never have that same opportunity.
Liberalized trade is the most effective lever that developing
countries have to bootstrap themselves into a decent standard of
living, the decent standard of living we take for granted in this
country. Free trade critics argue that globalization pushes
labour offshore to cheaper markets when in fact the majority of
foreign investment flows between rich countries, or flows between
rich countries in search of markets, not poor economies offering
cheap labour.
The effect of globalization forces free trading economies to
increase labour flexibility. For those countries that increase
their labour flexibility, it allows them to react quickly and
adapt to shift people and resources away from declining
industries and toward growing ones.
This motion should not be about the fear of liberalized trade
and its perceived effect on the gap between rich and poor. Free
trade has not been the cause of the increase in this gap, and
there is very little substantive or credible data to support that
argument.
If one looks at the export levels of Quebec in 1988 before the
FTA and in 1996, exports have increased from $16 billion to $40
billion. Those exports are extremely important to Quebec. Those
figures have helped to stabilize the employment levels in Quebec,
not destabilize them.
If we are serious about child poverty in Canada, perhaps we
should be working together to create an economy that works in a
country that works. We know full well the cost of separatism,
the debate on separatism and the cost to children and all people
in Quebec in terms of poverty. We should be very careful that we
are not blaming the wrong demon when we talk about child poverty.
Bloc members should be reminded that their PQ cousins in Quebec
have vowed to remain part of NAFTA if separation occurs. They
understand full well that NAFTA has benefited Quebec as it has
benefited Canada.
The most important contributing factor to the gap between rich
and poor has been a global transitional economy from the resource
and manufacturing based economies to the information technology
and knowledge based economies.
This gap between rich and poor has been exacerbated at this
critical and pivotal time in this paradigm shift by the cuts in
the health and education transfers made by the Liberal government
in Ottawa.
1150
A new study which came out recently states that after the
changes were made to the unemployment insurance fund, only 36% of
unemployed Canadians now actually collect EI. The 35% decrease
in health care, welfare and education funding to the provinces
invoked by the Liberal government has disproportionately affected
the poorest of Canadians. It has denied the poorest Canadians
equality of opportunity which is fundamental.
We believe in the free enterprise system. We believe it is the
best system for all Canadians. For the free enterprise system to
be sustainable, all Canadians need access to the levers of the
free enterprise system. They need a strong health care system.
They need a strong education system.
Unfettered capitalism is not sustainable, nor is unfettered
socialism. A balanced free enterprise system with a sound
education and health care system is the best system for
everybody. It could be argued that Marx was wrong about
unfettered communism, but he may have been right about unfettered
capitalism.
We need to ensure that a balanced approach which combines lower
taxes, globalized opportunities in trade and strong health care
and education systems is a recipe that will not only benefit
Canadians but will benefit children around the world.
The cuts the Liberal government has inflicted on ordinary
Canadians and the poorest of Canadians have affected the access
of young Canadians to the opportunities provided in a global
knowledge based economy as we enter the 21st century.
If we are really serious about addressing child poverty in
Canada, I have some suggestions. I reiterate that we should
support and continue to seek solutions to this problem. The
government should work toward this.
We must utilize a progressive trade policy and a progressive
free enterprise domestic economic policy. The combination of
those two policies will first of all ensure that Canadians have
opportunities to participate in the global economy and second,
that they are not burdened by intrusive government in Canada
which denies them the opportunity to participate effectively in
that global economy.
I would suggest as well that we work together across Canada
toward a national unity agreement that works and stop this
endless debate on the national unity issue. We must work to stop
the tremendous cost that has been borne by ordinary Canadians and
ordinary Quebeckers for the separatist movement over the past 20
years.
We must start working together to build economic bridges across
Canada and economic bridges around the world which will benefit
young people in Canada and around the world.
If we work seriously toward those ends we will all be better
served. In fact all Canadians will be better served by
constructive policies coming from all sides of this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
heard my colleague refer to Marx, and I am glad he did, because
I myself have based my speech on something Marx said that is one
of the reasons I am obviously supporting the Bloc Quebecois
motion. I will explain.
Marx—or Engels, but I think it was Marx—said that the gap between
rich and poor would only widen under capitalism. With the
introduction of communism, the system he founded, it became
clear that, despite what he hoped, this gap between rich and
poor continued to widen, with the disproportionate wealth of the
nomenklatura.
Bearing in mind what the leader of our party said earlier about
the gap between rich and poor also widening in our capitalist
society, I wonder whether it has something to do with human
selfishness, with the powerful doing what they can to become
increasingly wealthy, even if it means trampling the poor. One
might think it was inevitable.
1155
I support the motion just introduced by the Bloc Quebecois,
because I think that, if capitalism is not to prove Marx right,
this debate on growth must go hand-in-hand with a debate on
everyone's right to share in the fruits of that growth.
I therefore support the motion because, although I am not a
Marxist, I do not want his prediction to come true.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
intervention from the hon. member.
I have tremendous concern about the gap between the rich and
poor. In the U.S. there is the gated community concept.
Families and individuals live in gated communities. They pay for
their children's private education, private hospitals and their
own security service. They live in gated communities which are
effectively insulated from the public at large. They do not
really care about what goes on outside their communities.
Capitalism without the effective interventions of the state in
areas of health care and education is not sustainable. I
mentioned Karl Marx and said that he may have been right about
unfettered capitalism but he was wrong about communism. The
communist system arguably would not have a tremendous gap between
the rich and the poor because everybody would be poor. However, I
do not think that is the most effective system either.
I again commend the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for having
initiated this debate. The benefit is that we have the
opportunity to debate in a very philosophical and concrete way
important policy initiatives. We are able to look at the problem
very seriously.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I think
there would be unanimous consent to declare the motion votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make the
motion before us votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague's remarks
with interest, and I would like to give him a few figures
concerning the matter of smaller countries and globalization.
In 1997, the unemployment rate in Canada stood at 10.3%. It was
3.6% in Austria, 8% in Denmark, 5.4% in Norway, 6.8% in the
Netherlands, and 3.6% in Switzerland. So a country's size has
nothing to do with the impact of globalization.
We have never suggested that globalization per se is bad. What
we would like is some parliamentary control over globalization
so that ordinary citizens can benefit from it, and not only
those who can make big profits. Profit is important for
companies, but the governments should also be able to
redistribute wealth.
My colleague said he finds it strange that Quebec sovereignists
should support free trade. He should not forget that it is
Quebec that brought free trade to Canada, because it was in its
own interest to do so, and Quebec's development depends on
north-south trade.
Will the hon. member not admit that it is the way countries are
governed and the development tools they give themselves, and not
size, that determine how well they do internationally?
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I would say that although
Quebec has been strongly supportive of free trade, I come from a
province that was in free trade prior to Confederation. We have
some contributions and agree with the member on that.
Smaller countries have more to gain from liberalized trade in
many ways than some of the larger countries. That has been
demonstrated in almost every equation, such as in the access to
larger markets, especially for a country like Canada where it is
absolutely essential.
In terms of the support within Quebec for free trade, I would
expect that the support would be there and will continue to be
there. The benefit has effectively led to the tripling of
exports since 1988.
I appreciate the member's intervention. I look forward to
continuing this dialogue elsewhere.
1200
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe
that at this point in the debate it is very important and
opportune to read the motion again because we have heard all
kinds of things even if there was not much in way of a debate,
except from one or two speakers from each party.
The answer given by my colleague from the Reform Party confirms
why we should support the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois
leader. I support the motion and I am going to read it again to
prevent the debate from going further off course. After only a
few speeches, it is already off course.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House reiterate the 1989 commitment to eliminating
child poverty by the year 2000, urge the government to act, and
strike an all-party Special Parliamentary Committee with the main
objective of considering Canadian parliamentarians' ability to
narrow the gap between rich and poor in the new context created
by the globalization of markets—
This motion does not indicate we are against liberalizing trade
or that we are against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment,
quite the opposite. The motion does not indicate anything of the
sort.
This motion suggests that parliamentarians from all parties
look into a problem which is very real. In their first red book
the Liberals said they would eliminate child poverty before the
year 2000.
What we are asking is to strike a committee to see whether this
deadline is realistic, to see if we can reach this commendable
goal which is desirable for all.
I would like speakers from the Liberal Party to tell us why they
are now opposed to something they had espoused before. It is
rather odd. When the Liberals, the New Democrats and members
from other parties say: “Therefore the Bloc Quebecois is against
liberalizing trade, against the MAI”, it becomes necessary to
remind them of the spirit and the wording of the Bloc Quebecois'
motion.
The third point in the motion says: “globalization and the
international agreements that frame it, particularly the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment as now written—”. I believe
this is underscored by what the international trade minister
just said in Paris.
We are not against the MAI, but the Bloc Quebecois would never
give its support to a government's signing such an agreement as
it is currently written, because there is a risk of limiting
certain powers of states and hence of the representatives
elected to this House—we are not saying it does so, but there is
that risk.
What we want is a committee of parliamentarians. I would be
very surprised if MPs wanted to shirk their responsibilities.
That is why I am surprised the Liberals are unwilling to agree
to discussing the MAI among other things in a committee setting.
I would point out that I am going to split my 20 minutes with my
colleague for Rimouski—Mitis.
I wish to focus on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. As
my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has demonstrated with his
speeches and with his exit from the House, many in Quebec, in
Canada, and everywhere else in the world, are intrigued and
greatly concerned by the gap between rich and poor due to
globalization. What exactly is this agreement? Where does it
come from? What is its intent? What are this agreement's
objectives?
We have heard many legitimate fears expressed. Many concerns
have been raised about the signing of an agreement such as the
MAI. Negotiations or discussions on it date back to 1995 under
the auspices of the OECD.
It is worth repeating here that we call the OECD the rich
countries club. The NGOs often use that same term. It is a
group of 29 countries that make up the OECD.
There were some consultations, it is true, but for the most part
negotiations were held in secret.
1205
When 29 rich countries negotiate behind closed doors agreements
that are designed to promote investments, it is only normal for
the populations of these 29 wealthy countries—and of those
other countries interested in joining them—to wonder about
these agreements and to even question them.
It is also important for Canadians to remember that the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment includes about 90% of
Chapter 11 of NAFTA, dealing with investments. Therefore, it is
not completely new stuff, since 90% of the MAI is found in
Chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Why were discussions held on such an agreement? There are two
main reasons.
First, the purpose of the agreement is to set rules and to
regulate—I know this is somewhat redundant—the investment
sector, since there are currently over 1,300 bilateral
investment accords, of which 50 were signed by Canada, including
NAFTA.
The idea was to promote, regulate and facilitate exports and
investments from Canada to other countries, and conversely.
The purpose of the agreement is also to benefit from
globalization. There are disadvantages, but there are also some
advantages, such as increased investments. Also, if the
agreement is amended as we wish, it should promote economic
development.
These are the two reasons why we supported the principle of the
agreement. But again, in its current form, we cannot support the
ratification of the MAI.
As our party leader mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois has
been supportive of the free trade agreement with the United
States, since the beginning, and we also supported its extension
into NAFTA.
We even supported in principle the continuation of the
negotiations, but we object to the signing of the agreement in
its present form. We are not like the Liberals who, in 1988,
were opposed to multilateral agreements and saying that they
were the worst possible things for Canadians, but turned around
after the election and started signing all kinds of such
accords. We are consistent in our position and we will continue
to be.
Those who have been following us are aware of the very serious
reservations that the Bloc had regarding this issue.
Among other things, and the member for Rimouski—Mitis will
elaborate on that later on, we want a general exception clause
for cultural industries, which we did not have as of this
morning, and that is why we would oppose the signing of the
agreement in its present form.
The Bloc Quebecois wants countries to retain the right to take
or maintain measures to protect the environment and labour
standards. We would not sign or support the signing of any
multilateral agreement that would not include a clause to
protect the environment and labour standards.
We also want such an agreement to specify that countries cannot
lower their national standards with regard to health,
environmental safety and occupational safety in order to attract
foreign investors.
We also want legislation such as the Helms-Burton Bill to be
deemed ineffective and non enforceable under such an agreement
because it goes against the principle of trade. We also want
immigration laws, regulations and national procedures to be
given precedence. And, of course, we want provincial
jurisdictions to be fully recognized in an agreement such as the
multilateral agreement on investment and other agreements.
Without that, we will never sign or support the signing of such
an agreement.
Regarding the lowering of health and occupational safety
standards, particular attention must be paid to the text of the
agreement in these two areas. There are two versions of that
part of the agreement. One says that a party “should not” lower
its health, safety and environmental standards.
The other version says that a party “shall not” lower these
standards. There is a world of difference between “should not”
and “shall not”. If we ended up with a version that said “should
not” or “it would be desirable”, again we would not support such
an agreement.
The exception for cultural industries is also a precondition
that must be met before we sign or support such an agreement, as
well as a clearer definition of “expropriation” and
“expropriation requiring compensation”.
1210
We also have to ensure that the role of the provinces will be
respected before we give our support.
The Bloc Quebecois, the Liberals and the Reformers signed a
report in which they asked that the agreement be submitted to
parliamentarians before it was signed, as requested by the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Jean, so that parliamentarians can fulfil
their duties as auditors and as the people's representatives.
We ask, we demand that the text of the agreement be submitted to
the subcommittee before it is signed, which hopefully will not
be until all the issues are resolved.
Now that the OECD is no longer considered the forum for
negotiating such an agreement, we also ask that the agreement be
referred to the WTO, so that all the countries in the world can
take part in its development.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my
hon. colleague.
The motion urges the government to immediately strike an
all-party special parliamentary committee. I would like my hon.
colleague to comment on the fact that globalization emerged a
few years back and that we had to wait until today for the
heartfelt cry of the hon. member for Lac-St-Jean to reflect the
awareness that all kinds of dealings and agreements are in the
works.
We hear about the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas. We have
NAFTA. We have the MIA. We also have organizations like the IMF,
the International Monetary Fund, and the WTO. What about the
people in all of this?
What role do the citizens expect their parliamentarians to play?
What do the people expect their parliamentarians to say or do to
ensure that globalization serves the interests of all and not
only of those who want to make money out of this phenomenon?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify parts of the
motion before the House today.
I would first point out, with respect to the role of
parliamentarians, that, when the Liberals were in opposition,
they demanded a special debate on the free trade agreement with
the United States. They did not insist on an opposition day, as
the Reformers did, they called for a special debate.
The 1988 election campaign focused primarily on the free trade
agreement with the United States. What is happening today? The
free trade agreement with Chile was negotiated under wraps by
unelected negotiators and officials. What was the role of
parliamentarians? They passed the bill implementing the
agreement. Not one comma of the agreement was debated.
Members would surely agree that the free trade agreement with
Israel and Palestine is likely to have some fairly special
provisions. And what was the role of parliamentarians in this
agreement? They passed the bill to implement it. The agreement
and its conditions were negotiated by unelected officials.
Canadians today are facing a fait accompli and are obliged to
live with these agreements.
We are requesting initially, as my colleague mentioned, to be
increasingly involved in these multilateral agreements.
Parliamentarians must have a role to play. They must first look
to see how their role as representatives of the public may be
expanded in the proliferation of such agreements. That is what
must be done.
I would like to ask the Liberals why they refuse to fulfill
their parliamentary duties. Why are they not meeting the
commitment they made in black and white in the red book?
Why do they refuse to strike a committee or, at the very least,
why do they not say something?
If they do not want the role of parliamentarians—and there are
a number of them here who have been re-elected—why are they
here? They are here to serve as parliamentarians, as
representatives of the people, but they do not honour their
commitments. They do not fulfill their parliamentary
responsibilities. They hide and refuse to speak.
I would like them to answer certain questions in their speeches.
It is indeed vital to keep a close eye on all the agreements,
often negotiated on the sly by officials who have not been
elected and often presented to parliamentarians as a fait
accompli.
1215
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to speak on the opposition motion moved by the Bloc
Quebecois, which calls for the striking of a committee to
consider parliamentarians' ability to narrow the gap between
rich and poor in the context created by the globalization of
markets.
As the Bloc Quebecois critic for Canadian heritage, I will deal
with this issue from the perspective of the MAI, the famous
Multilateral Agreement on Investment, but from its cultural
dimension or the impact this agreement might have on the
cultural sector, because this agreement, as presently designed,
represents a real danger for cultural sectors in Canada and
Quebec.
We cannot think of a massive liberalization that would lead to
the outright abandonment of policies and measures designed to
support the cultural sector without first knowing the economic
importance of this sector.
Cultural activities in Canada provide about 900,000 direct jobs
and an estimated 300,000 indirect jobs, for a grand total of 1.2
million. These jobs account for 9.2% of the labour market. The
direct contribution of cultural activities to the economy
amounts to $29 billion, or 4.7% of the gross domestic product,
while its indirect contribution is $42 billion, or 6.8% of the
gross domestic product. Consequently, we cannot consider the
cultural sector as minor and make it a pawn to be sacrificed on
the altar of major international trade agreements.
Over the years, Canada has put in place some measures aimed at
supporting domestic art production.
The main measures implemented were the imposition of limits on
foreign property and of quotas on Canadian content, subsidies,
support for distribution and exports, tax credits and the
creation of crown corporations.
Despite their scope, these measures barely allowed Canada to
have access to part of its domestic market. Indeed, Canadian
cultural products have a marginal position in the market. For
example, 92% of the movies shown on our screens are foreign, 60%
of books sold in Canada and Quebec are American and 88% of sound
recordings put on the market have a foreign content. As you can
see, we are far from being protectionist in the cultural sector.
We only want to keep some room so that our creators can express
themselves.
Obviously, without those support measures, Canadian and Quebec
artists would not even have that minimal share of the Canadian
market.
Quebeckers distinguish themselves from their Canadian fellow
citizens by the fact that in some areas they have a preference
for their own writers and productions. However, in the event of
complete deregulation, foreign conglomerates could flood our
market with products so cheap that even that preference would
not allow us to preserve a Quebec content.
The supporters of neo-liberalism often argue that Canada is an
exporter of cultural products and, hence, it would be beneficial
to liberalize trade in cultural products. They forget that to
begin with you must have something to sell. In the cultural
area, it is vital to have a safe domestic market to develop
products we will then be able to export.
Government policies were the means which stimulated and
encouraged the creation and production of cultural works for
Canadians and which indirectly created cultural goods and
services that could be exported.
If we destroy the base for cultural creation in Canada and in
Quebec, there will probably still be a cultural industry, but it
will in no way be the mirror of Canadian and Quebec identities.
We will become producers of americanized cultural products that
will be sold in Canada as well as in foreign countries.
The MAI includes copyright in the definition of investment.
Since the most recent commercial agreement always takes
precedence over other agreements, the MAI would weaken copyright
by invalidating the gains made under previous agreements such as
the Rome Convention, the Berne Convention and the International
Treaty on Intellectual Property. The MAI would bring to an end
collectives which defend the rights of artists. This would be
the triumph of the American business approach over the rights of
creators.
This problem was well understood by the Culture, Youth,
Education and Media Commission of the European Parliament, which
stated in January 1998, and I quote:
Incorporating intellectual property issues in a general
agreement to regulate investment would be the equivalent of
applying an extremely minimalist approach to the whole idea of
intellectual property. This is why the MAI should not be applied
to that area but should abide by the international agreements
already in force that are the result of long and complicated
technical negotiations.
1220
We deeply regret that there is no single Canadian position
regarding the cultural industries, but rather multiple positions
that change according to the mood of the Minister for
International Trade, the public whom he addresses or the
pressures exerted on him, in particular the telephone calls from
the U.S. Trade Secretary.
For instance, on February 12, the minister asserted that this
agreement would not be signed unless it provided for a full
cultural exemption. However, the next day, he was less
definitive. On February 13, he said that, if he did not get a
full exemption, he would settle for country specific
reservation. The minister speaks out of both sides of his mouth
in his response to the report of the Subcommittee on
International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment regarding the
MAI.
Is there a distinction between an exemption and a country
specific reservation? Yes, and an important one. A country
specific reservation is neither sufficient nor acceptable.
Reservations have a lower legal status.
Moreover, to settle for a country specific reservation instead
of a full exemption would be a major compromise never seen in
multilateral and bilateral agreements.
The general exception clause has the advantage of not
identifying a particular country. All countries are entitled to
the same exception, while a mere reservation identifies a
country trying to protect itself. A reservation clause shows
that this protection is an irritant that will eventually
disappear.
Reservation clauses are limited by two principles: the status
quo and dismantling. The status quo principle implies that the
only authorized changes to measures to which the reservation
clause applies would be those which would make those measures
more compatible with the agreement. It would therefore be
impossible to establish new cultural protection measures, either
in the traditional sectors or in the new media resulting from
technological progress.
Under the dismantling principle, all the measures listed by the
various countries are gradually eliminated. Once a country has
abandoned a measure it is for good, it cannot be reactivated.
If we agree to sign a MAI which does not have a general
exemption clause for cultural matters, we must realise that we
are forsaking whatever small Canadian or Quebec content we still
have. Without a way of expressing our culture we cannot
preserve our Canadian or Quebec identity.
There is also a democratic component, because without a truly
Canadian or Quebec cultural space it is impossible to maintain a
diverse public space allowing our citizens to participate in our
cultural life, which is necessary to public life.
We have to leave some room for a democratic expression which
goes beyond the simple producer-consumer relation.
The minister must be inflexible concerning the MAI. Without a
general cultural exemption, no MAI. A reservation is not
acceptable. The heritage minister must play an active role
in the international negotiations to have culture excluded the
same way defence is excluded. If they really care about the
future of their own country, Liberals should worry more about
the MAI than about separatists because the MAI is a bigger threat.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis for her excellent
speech and the point she made concerning the cultural exception
clause in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment as well as in
the other agreements. As she reminded her Liberal and
“Canadian” colleagues in her conclusion, it is very important
that we think not only of us but also of their future.
I want to put a question to my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis
about something that is a surprise to me this morning, the
inconsistency in the speeches and positions of my colleagues
from the Liberal Party.
1225
I would like to have her opinion on what we heard in the House,
because she also listened very carefully to the speeches, as we
do. How can the Liberals—who wrote in their red book that they
wanted to eliminate child and family poverty in general by the
year 2000—oppose today a motion reiterating the 1989
commitment to eliminate poverty by the year 2000?
I would also like to know what she thinks of the position held
by Liberal members about our demand to strike a committee made
up of Reform, Liberal and Bloc members. A majority of committee
members would be Liberals since, as everybody knows, they hold
the majority in the House and form the government.
But Liberals are opposed to the creation of such a committee.
What, in her opinion, are the Liberals thinking, if such a thing
is possible, in opposing a motion for the elimination of child
poverty by the year 2000 and the striking of a parliamentary
committee to take position on this matter? I would like to hear
her opinion on this.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is
clearly a worrisome situation.
Indeed, we are asking that a special committee be struck to look
into this extremely important issue. My hon. colleague from
Repentigny mentioned that many things have happened since 1993.
All kinds of agreements were signed without parliamentarians
being involved. Individuals who are not accountable to anyone
have negotiated agreements on our behalf and did not even ask
our opinion. That is unacceptable.
I will take what I witnessed this morning as an example. A
sub-committee of the heritage committee was set up to examine the
issue of sports in Canada. When we heard witnesses from amateur
sport, no one was there. The room was almost empty. There were
no reporters, hence no media coverage, and just a few Liberals.
In attendance were, besides the chair of the committee of
course, perhaps one or two Liberal members and myself, the only
opposition member.
This morning however, there were not enough seats for all the
members who came to hear NHL officials lament about the horrible
situation their industry is in because they are not generating
enough profits. Mr. Corey told us Molson made only $5 million in
profits last year. My comment to him was that it was too bad
that members of his team earned more than he did.
That is the tragedy, no effort is made to sit down and discuss.
I have nothing against businesses turning a profit, that is what
they are about, but they should also pay their share of taxes.
Only those who make money have to pay taxes.
I have met with people in my riding throughout the Easter break
and all day yesterday. They told me “We do not want to pay for
Montreal again, Mrs. Tremblay. We hope you will object to that.
We are still paying for the Olympic stadium and now we are
expected to pay for the core revival. We are unemployed. On the
lumber issue, we went three or four times before NAFTA panels.
We won every time, but nothing came of it. Our foresters are
going through tough times”.
NAFTA also applies to hockey teams. Let them go and argue before
a NAFTA panel their case against the unfair subsidies American
hockey teams receive from the municipalities, states and federal
government in the United States. Do not come and ask us to give
them money.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was rather interesting to hear one of the speakers from the
Bloc asking a question of Liberal members. I believe the
question was why are you here. I believe that is what I heard him
say. I find that an extraordinary question coming from someone
from the Bloc. The reality is its own members have questioned
the validity of their being in this place because of the results
of the last referendum. There has been a suggestion by members
from that party that they should just resign, take their ball and
go home, which would be just fine with me.
1230
In fairness I must admit I thought the speaker who just finished
made some very interesting points. She talked about the success
of the Canadian cultural industry.
We have indeed been successful as a government, as a country and
as a nation in supporting our cultural exports. Let us take a
look at the greatest box office hit I believe in history,
Titanic, which featured a Canadian director and the music
of the wonderful and talented Céline Dion. One of the biggest
stars in Europe is a Canadian, Bryan Adams. We have many things
we can be proud of from the point of view of the arts and
Canadian culture.
I thought the member actually made some very valid points which
sounded a bit to me like she was speaking in support of some of
the government programs.
We then get the other extreme. The Bloc members are a bit like
chameleons. They change their colours as the mood moves them.
They are difficult at times to understand from a logical point of
view. I heard a Bloc member this morning say they are democratic
socialists. I assume that means they are the NDP en français.
It had not occurred to me before but apparently that seems to be
their philosophy.
I think what the members of the Bloc need to do and what they
should be doing is debating an issue in this place that basically
says what kind of a society we want if we are to have an impact
on eliminating child poverty.
Child poverty does not happen in a vacuum. Child poverty
generally results from family poverty. It seems to be
politically more attractive to talk about the children. What
about the parents? What about the mothers and fathers working at
part time jobs, the working poor in society?
The Reform Party seems to have a solution, broad base tax cuts
right across the board so that everybody, particularly its
friends, would receive huge tax breaks while the poor it purports
to defend would receive minimal or nothing in the form of tax
breaks. Reform's solution to child poverty is myopic at best and
is simply misguided.
Let me go back to the Bloc and what kind of society we want. Do
we want a divided society based on our differences? Do we want a
society where we continue to concentrate on the issue of national
unity in this great country based on our differences? Of course
we have differences. I think the message should be vive la
différence et vive le Canada.
If the Bloc would take some of its ideas and put them into
practice in terms of constructive debate in this place it might
be surprised at some of the support that could arise. I thought
some of the debate we have sat through was reasonably well
thought out and gave some valid points and concerns.
I think the principle of the motion the young member has put
forward, now that he has decided to bring his seat back and join
the rest of us, is not a bad principle. The concept is there is
a disparity between the rich and the poor and we should strive to
eliminate that. There is a problem as it relates to family and
child poverty and we should strive to eliminate that.
In my view our government has done a number of things in the
last budget with family tax credits, commitments to education and
the youth employment strategy. We have done a number of things
to help in the area of eradicating poverty. However, it is not
enough. I admit that. I think the finance minister and the Prime
Minister would admit it is not enough.
1235
When we take it in the context of the overall job of running
corporation Canada, this great country, and we are the board of
directors, we have to priorize. We have to make commitments to
keep the interest rates down, to keep inflation down, with record
numbers. Of course the hon. member does not agree. He is giving
me the thumbs down. I would not expect the thumbs up from
someone whose sole purpose in life is to destroy this wonderful
country. If I ever got it I would be nervous.
We cannot even talk about something like globalization or the
MAI without hysteria coming out of members opposite, coming out
of people like Maude Barlow champing at the bit, demonstrating
everywhere, whipping people into a frenzy, putting out false
information all over the country and the members opposite using
the negotiations around the MAI for their own political purposes.
It is unfortunate.
Free trade and globalization are all part of reality. We cannot
be isolationists. Members can clap if they want. I have never
said anything different. We cannot be isolationists.
The Bloc would like to put borders around its own province and
be in isolation. That is what would happen. The number one
trading partner for the province of Ontario is the province of
Quebec.
I think interprovincial trade is a very important issue. There
are barriers that should be eliminated in interprovincial trade.
We should be working toward that together as the board of
directors of corporation Canada. I think we can move in that
direction.
At the same time we cannot ignore that there is a requirement,
an obligation in fact, for us to have negotiations with foreign
countries. If we see where the Prime Minister is today and has
been for the past day or two, there is an interesting problem
there. The Americans do not want to sign the MAI because they do
not like the fact that we are upset with the Helms-Burton act.
They want to be isolationists. They do not mind trading with
China. They do not mind trading with a country whose human rights
record is undoubtedly and arguably the worst in the world, but
they do not want to trade with the little island of Cuba.
Yet we see what our Prime Minister has been able to accomplish
in softening the relationship with Cuba, in getting a settlement
from the Cuban government for Confederation Life. We have to
have these kinds of discussions and negotiations if we are to
play on the world economic stage.
We should just settle down. Let us get the MAI document out. We
should not be abrogating our labour standards, we should not be
abrogating our environmental standards, we should not be
abrogating our health and safety requirements in this country.
This government would not allow that to happen. But because these
things are put on the table we get knee-jerk reactions from
people who put blinders on and refuse to even discuss it.
We must have negotiations on globalization, on international
trade if we are ever to increase the marketplace for the 30
million people in this great country. We cannot do it all
internally. Interprovincial trade is a problem but globalization
is here to stay. Canadians should embrace it and have confidence
to be able to compete on a world stage in the business community
and in the arts and culture.
I have that confidence and I know our government does as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
some interest to what the member who just spoke was saying, but
I have to say I find it utter nonsense.
The member is in favor of free trade, in favor of international
trade. But does he know that, for example, Quebec's Unibroue,
the micro-brewery Quebeckers are so proud of because it produces
a quality beer that is sold all over the world, is unable to
sell a single bottle of beer in Ontario because of the tariffs
and structures the Ontario government has put in place to keep
out producers from Quebec and, I suppose, from other provinces
also?
1240
I would like to say to the member that, without customers from
Quebec who bought cars made by Ford, Chrysler and GM in Ontario,
at almost double the price these same products are sold for in
the United States, without protectionist measures, the Ontario
economy would have taken a nosedive and its automobile industry
would be dying.
I am in favor of trade, but we have to start from identical
bases and production costs must be identical because of the
commitment of governments to respect certain rights.
How can we sell a welding product, for example, when a welder in
this country must wear special protective clothing, his workshop
must be heated, and he must receive a minimum salary, whereas in
Venezuela, I saw a welder working in shorts, barefoot, on the
street corner, using the bottom of a bottle for a mask? How can
we be competitive in these situations?
I would like my colleague to explain this to me because he seems
to be the one who has the absolute truth, today, in the House.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with the
concern raised in the case of the micro brewery in Quebec. It is
ludicrous.
The problem is the beer distribution system in the province of
Ontario is fundamentally controlled by the big brewers. That is
where we need to resolve the problem. They control the
distribution system. The hon. member's micro brewery in the
province of Quebec cannot get listed on Brewers Retail. We do
not sell it in corner stores and in grocery stores like in other
parts of this country. There is a fundamental problem there. The
hon. member raises a valid point. Quebec and Ontario should sit
down and discuss how we can alleviate that injustice.
The province of Quebec buys over $9 billion more from Ontario
businesses than the reverse. We have a very healthy balance of
trade. We have a very healthy interest in working with the
province of Quebec. We have some room because of that balance of
trade. I invite those issues to be put on the table.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Mississauga West did say there was a $9 billion
surplus. I have not checked the figures, but surely they will
want to keep those billions once Quebec becomes sovereign—
An hon. member: Surely.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: A $9 billion surplus is very attractive to
them.
His speech made us aware of the importance, the relevance and
the rightness of the motion and the debate put forward by the
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. How can anyone remain insensitive
to so much nonsense, inconsistency and madness in a 10-minute
speech? Perhaps this would deserve a mention in the Guinness
Book of World Records. I don't know, but I never heard such
thing.
First, about eliminating child poverty, Canada signed an
agreement in New York on the elimination of poverty. They were
there in New York.
Second, in their red book, they talked about eliminating child
poverty. He is a member of the Liberal Party.
Third, I would like to ask him if the number of poor children
has risen or fallen since he has been sitting here. Why is he
shying away from his role as a parliamentarian and refusing to
let a parliamentary committee be set up to deal specifically
with these matters?
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear what
this government has done in relation to the economy. Our recent
budget set out how we have the country on track. We have
eliminated the deficit of $42 billion. All that is vitally
important to the success of programs that will help eliminate
poverty. It will create jobs. That is how we are going to
eliminate poverty.
Unlike the members opposite, who appear to be social democrats
or socialists en français, we believe in working in partnership
with the provinces, with the territories, with the private
sector, with trainers and with educational institutions to ensure
there are job opportunities for all Canadians. That will
eliminate poverty.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on this
motion. It calls for “considering Canadian parliamentarians'
ability to narrow the gap between rich and poor in the new
context created by the globalization of markets”. Why have we
come to this?
1245
One of the main movers behind this debate is the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean, who spoke from the heart when he said “I am an
elected representative. I want to act, I want to be able to have
an impact so that my fellow citizens can have a voice in this
transformation we see going on throughout the world, where we
hear continually of dollars, of effects on investment, of
effects on cost-effectiveness”.
But his question was this. “Are these changes good for the
people of my country? Are they aimed at improving the collective
well-being? Am I, as an elected representative, capable of
exercising enough influence to harness globalization?”
Everyone favours increased trade. We know that the number of
wars in the world is decreasing, which makes it possible to have
broader economic markets and allows small countries to also
benefit. Wide political room is no longer needed, just wide
economic room.
How, though, can we ensure that certain people do not get hurt
by this globalization? I will ask two questions to illustrate
this. First, is it or is it not true that the total annual
income of the more than 250 million poorest people on earth
equals the net worth of the six richest people? The answer is
that this is true. This is not surprising, considering that
close to one-third of humanity lives in abject poverty and earns
less than 1US$ per day.
Second, is it or is it not true that, as the world gets richer,
the gap between rich and poor is widening?
This is false. It is not narrowing. The gap has more than
doubled in a little less than one generation. Why? Because out
of each $100 in economic growth, $86 goes to the richest 20%,
and only $1.10 goes to the poorest 20%.
These are questions and answers that are food for thought. This
situation is not the result of chance. It is the result of
people looking after their own interests, people seeking to have
their economic interests taken into account and promoting the
increase of trade. We have had agreements such as NAFTA, the
creation of agencies such as the WTO, the World Trade
Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. All these
organizations look after their interests.
As parliamentarians, what is our duty? Our duty is to be the
democratic hope of people.
When someone in Saint-Alexandre-de-Kamouraska, where there is a hog
slaughterhouse, tells me: “It seems to me that suddenly there
are fewer jobs. What is going on?” Well, this is linked to
globalization. Somewhere in Asia there is an economic crisis
going on. It has an impact on the marketplace, on the sale and
consumption of pork for example, and in turn it results in fewer
jobs in a village in my riding.
These are issues I must, as an elected representative, find ways
to rectify, change, modify. It may not appear like much but, for
instance, Bill C-36 contains a clause providing for an increase
in the amount of money the federal government can give the
International Monetary Fund to deal with international crises.
It looks perfect at first glance, but is it not a way to invite
speculators to provoke crises because to cash in and, in the
end, force the states and the Monetary Fund to make up the
difference and find their way out of these crises?
These are important questions and the motion sets them out. Now
that the private sector is responsible for creating wealth, we
assume the equally important responsibility of distributing it.
In that regard, the performance of the last few years leaves
much to be desired. In the motion, there is a historical
reference. In 1989, the House adopted a motion calling for the
elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.
We have our work cut out for us if we really want to do it
before the year 2000. This morning, the National Council on
Welfare submitted a report to the Standing Committee on Finance
in which it says that “There are about one and a half million
poor children in Canada. About two thirds of them, roughly one
million, live in families on welfare”.
If the Canadian Parliament had to be evaluated today on its
performance in its fight against child poverty, it would be
judged to have failed miserably. It would not get a passing
mark, because it is not living up to its commitment.
1250
Given the apathy of the Liberal majority in particular, and
given that it does not want to support this motion, what will it
take for parliamentarians to act on this issue?
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean rose to the challenge. He is
asking parliamentarians from all political parties to commit to
finding solutions. We have not yet reached that stage. We are
merely asking parliamentarians to commit to finding solutions,
and we cannot get this commitment from the Liberal majority. We
will have to come up with an even more compelling way to get
results.
We set an objective. We mentioned 50,000 signatures on the
petition being circulated to ask that these positions be
considered.
The Liberals are silent on the issue. They are not even prepared
to have a debate and to allow a parliamentary committee look at
it. We will counter their silence with thousands of signatures
opposing it. We already have 50,000 of them and, if more are
needed, we will get them.
Child poverty is present everywhere. Last weekend, I took part
in various activities and I asked people about the
appropriateness of the chair episode. No one questioned the fact
that fighting poverty is the way to ensure globalization does
not turn to our disadvantage. Everyone feels it is an important
issue for which solutions must be found. I do not have these
solutions. I do not know yet whether bank mergers are a good
thing and I do not know yet how this ought to be done.
But I do want the debate started by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean
to take place.
We must ask ourselves these questions, otherwise the year 2005
or 2010 will roll around and we will still not have any
solutions. We ourselves will no longer be in this Parliament,
because we will have found another option, but the situation
will not have changed.
In 1989, almost 10 years ago, the House pledge to eliminate
child poverty by the year 2000. Today, there are still 1.5
million Canadian children living in poverty. We must not find
ourselves in the same situation 10 years from now, or in an even
worse situation.
I will conclude on this note. How can we achieve such a result?
Some people say we are naïve. Being naïve can trigger change.
One who is naïve and politically organized and who has the
determination to do achieve results will put the issues on the
table, will discuss them and will find effective solutions.
But we must never do what the Prime Minister did. After having
almost strangled a protester, he is now heaping ridicule on the
youngest member in this House because he asked this basic
question “What can we do to narrow the gap between rich and
poor? How can we make sure that globalization will not have
negative impacts, but positive ones?”
The Prime Minister will have to live with the consequences of
his actions. I think he knew very well what was happening. He
knows very well that he is unable and unwilling to deal with
this issue. The Prime Minister, the Liberal members and all
members of Parliament should react by saying this “It is indeed
an important issue that has been raised by the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean”.
It is an issue of paramount importance and members of Parliament
have a key role to play. It is on that, in particular, that the
people in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada will judge them. Have
they managed our country well or have they only been spectators
who zap from place to place with their remote control while
letting others decide in their place and waiting to see how
things will develop?
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member from the Bloc and I am wondering if
the member could tell the House what aspect of globalization is
hurting Canada. Is it the free trade agreement with the United
States? Is it the NAFTA with United States and Mexico? Is it
the World Trade Organization where we have negotiated with 132
other member countries or is it the MAI?
Could the member explicitly tell us what aspect of globalization
is being hurt by treaties Canada signed?
1255
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, there is a concrete example that
can be readily given, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
If we ever negotiate such an agreement without a basic exemption
for cultural matters, it would be unacceptable and very
dangerous for Quebec as well as for Canada.
If we were to close our eyes on how different countries treat
their employees or environmental issues, we would allow the
development of submarkets or situations where there would be
undue competition. People will be treated unequally to attract
capital and to meet requirements. These are elements of
globalization that we must control.
There is no contradiction. And if there is anyone who can
understand that in Canada, it is Quebeckers. We were the
architects of the signing of the free trade agreement with the
United States. We were in favour of signing the agreement, but
we wanted to ensure that its conditions were acceptable.
When you go in with a considerable capital—as in the case of
the MIA, for example—the people living in the countries to our
south who profit from these investment projects must have an
equal opportunity and these projects must be made undere
acceptable conditions.
We must also ensure that productivity gains due to globalization
are distributed among the country's citizens. If it is always
the same people who are profiting from the revenues, there is a
major problem.
We had the same problem at the end of 19th century, before the
Industrial Revolution. Ten- to twelve-year old children worked in
mines and textile mills. Some people said this did not make
sense; it was the start of labour unions.
They tried to humanize these attitudes.
Today, on the eve of the 21st century, we are faced with the
same challenge because, in effect, if the annual revenue of more
than 250 million of the poorest people on earth equals the net
assets of the six richest persons, then something is not working
in the system. As an elected representative, I am responsible,
as are all other members in the House.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member
talk about the need for cultural exemptions. I was trying to
find out what area was the biggest concern.
The member stated that unless Canada achieves a cultural
exemption under the MAI there are serious problems for Canada. We
have an investment agreement and a treaty with the United States
and Mexico called the NAFTA. We have a cultural exemption under
the NAFTA but I wonder if the member recognizes that the cultural
exemption also provides for the United States to retaliate in
equivalent measure for any protectionist measure we take.
Given that most cultural people in the industry seem to think
the threat is coming from the United States, I am wondering about
the logic of this because the NAFTA is going to stay in place no
matter what we do in terms of the MAI. I am wondering if the
member is not giving a little too much credence to the MAI. The
NAFTA is going to stay in place and it takes precedence in terms
of the culture agreement with the United States in any case.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, we should not forget that one of
our goals in NAFTA was to have a judicial body that could make
binding rulings in certain circumstances.
We had the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United
States, for example. There did not seem to be a way out of this
problem through discussions between our two countries. The free
trade agreement provides for a set of rules to make this kind of
decision and includes consultation mechanisms so that we can use
an arbitration process if appropriate.
That is but one way of reining in international agreements so
that, in the future, decisions will be made in an appropriate
and compassionate way.
Other conditions are equally important. It is crucial for Quebec
to get a clause protecting provincial jurisdictions. For as long
as we are a part of Canada, if an agreement such as the MAI is
signed without such a clause, it will be an encouragement for
members opposite to resort to the same practice the Conservative
government used to encroach upon our jurisdictions. They could
also justify these intrusions under international agreements and
say that, because of these, they have to take action in
education and other sectors.
This is essential for us. To conclude, we believe the assessment
we will make of the impact of globalization will depend not only
on the wealth that it creates, but also on the distribution of
this wealth between the people who live in the various countries
that are involved in different trade relations.
1300
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are a bit
out of rotation, so will go to the hon. member for Quebec and
then to the member for Laval West and then back to our normal
rotation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, work is a
right, employment is a necessity, and poverty is an affront to
human dignity, an injustice to our learned institutions and an
infringement of fundamental freedoms.
It is in this context that the Bloc Quebecois supports the
proposal by the youngest member in the House, the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean, that a parliamentary committee be struck to look
at the issue of the role and authority of governments with
respect to the redistribution of wealth.
A debate on this scale cannot be partisan. It is therefore with
confidence that I urge my fellow members in the House to take an
active role in the Bloc Quebecois' proposal.
I would like to take a moment to read out the motion. It goes
as follows:
That this House reiterate the 1989 commitment to eliminating
child poverty by the year 2000, urge the government to act, and
strike an all-party Special Parliamentary Committee with the main
objective of considering Canadian parliamentarians' ability to
narrow the gap between rich and poor in the new context created
by the globalization of markets, because of the following facts:
(1) despite the economic growth of recent years, the gap
between rich and poor continues to widen;
(2) the globalization of markets greatly affects governments'
ability to develop their countries' economies in accordance with
their priorities; and
(3) globalization and the international agreements that frame
it, particularly the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)
as now written, may limit some of governments' powers and
consequently those of the representatives elected to this House.
I will begin by recalling the observation of one of this
century's great thinkers, Fernand Dumont, who said, in Raisons
communes, that “Problems do not go away because we have talked
about them too much; they persist because we have not resolved
them”. He was right, of course.
Indeed, in our ridings, we are constantly reminded of the
increase in poverty by the very people who suffer because of
that problem. Every day, the fact that poverty is on the rise is
reported by the media and by members in the House of Commons.
Since we came to the House in 1993, this issue has been a
priority of the Bloc Quebecois. It is an ongoing concern among
our members.
As for statistics, they leave no room for argument. They show
that, despite economic growth, the gap between the rich and the
poor continues to grow rapidly. A study from the national forum
on family security concluded that, between 1981 and 1991, in the
bottom 20% of the income scale, $25,000 or less, incomes dropped
by $400 million.
In the middle income group, between $39,000 and $54,200, incomes
dropped by $2.7 billion. However, in the top 20% of the income
scale, $74,000 or more, incomes increased by $6.6 billion.
What is the situation elsewhere? In 1992, the wealthiest 20% of
the population in the United States had an income that was 11
times higher than that of the poorest 20%, compared to seven and
a half times in 1969. Internationally, the wealthiest 20% of the
population have seen their share of the world income increase
from 70% to 85% between 1960 and 1991, whereas the poorest 20%
have seen their share drop from 2.3% to 1.4%.
But beyond these statistics, there is pain. There are children
who are hungry and parents who are desperate because they cannot
give them what they need. There are young people who are
reluctant to bring children into this world because they are in
dire financial straits.
Do we have the right to remain silent and to continue to include
in our legislation what really amounts to the social and
economic exclusion of an important part of our collective
wealth?
People looking for a job must not be reduced to developing
productive resources. They are human beings who want to take an
active part in economic growth. It is in this perspective that
we must reflect on the globalization of trade and, particularly,
on the multilateral agreement on investment.
1305
Globalization is more than a theory or an ideology. It is a
reality we see every day. Whether we like it or not, rising to a
changing and knowledge based international environment has
become the main concern of industrial strategies and national
economic policies.
The Bloc Quebecois is aware of this reality. That is why we
agree with the MAI principle, which is aimed essentially at
defining a legal framework for alleviating the uncertainty
associated with investing in a foreign country by making it an
obligation to implement the same measures for national and
foreign businesses, to promote investment and, at the same time,
economic growth.
But before we support this agreement, we must get right to the
bottom of an aspect of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
I would like to raise one of the aspects that concerns me the
most, that is the increasing impoverishment of people and the
gap between rich and poor.
The social clause is the most important aspect for me today and
I would like to stress it. I know there are others claimed by
the Bloc and by the Canadian people, but the social clause is
the one that would allow us to have a better control so that the
gap between rich and poor would not deepen.
Since 1994, OECD union organizations have been calling for the
inclusion, in all trade agreements, of a social clause
committing countries to respecting the seven fundamental
conventions of the International Labour Organization.
What is at stake here is the freedom of association, the right
to collective bargaining, the ban on forced labour and job
discrimination, among other things.
With respect to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, I know
that the preamble to the report does mention the attachment of
signatory states to the 1992 Rio Declaration. But how can such
an undertaking be taken seriously when it is known for a fact
that the United States ratified only one convention out of seven
and that Canada has signed only four of them?
Some may fear that this agreement on investment could be signed
without a social clause. Instead, we would like the investment
treaty to be negotiated under the auspices of the World Trade
Organization, because it is more representative.
At the moment, the OECD has only 29 member states, while the WTO
has 130.
The Bloc Quebecois wants more transparency and I think it has
the support of the people. We want more transparency because we
know that the people are very concerned and did not have a say
in this agreement which will probably be signed next fall.
More transparency is needed. This agreement must generate more
local benefits and some guaranteed net benefits for the
countries involved in increasing capital flow. The people must
be the first to benefit from any increase in capital flow. We
are well aware of the problems associated with some agreements
that may not be complied with. Capital outflows could be
catastrophic for some of the countries involved in this
agreement.
National economies would become more vulnerable.
Safeguards must be in place to avoid abuses and to ensure that
this agreement benefits people. I strongly support the motion
tabled this morning.
Since I was elected, child poverty and the impoverishment of the
people have been at the heart of all my comments and speeches in
this House.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will not
repeat the figures just cited. They are correct and everyone
can consult them. However, I am going to give a few examples
from my riding.
1310
Yesterday, I learned that two young people in Bonaventure killed
a senior citizen. Many will say that is the way young people
are, but that is not true. As parliamentarians, we have a
responsibility that we very often fail to assume.
Do we have to do what Martin Luther King did? Everyone is still
talking about it years later. What did he do? He got directly
involved. Do we have to do what Monsignor Romero or Terry Fox
did?
What do we have to do? As parliamentarians we can see that
although we are needed it is sometimes hard to get an idea
across
and to open hearts and minds.
My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who I also congratulate, and of
whom I am very proud, has raised a question. I would say it is
a non-partisan question: Can something be done for young people?
Can something be done for older people? Can something be done
for the people in our ridings? That is what we are after. That
is why we were elected.
I did not want to be passionate. I wanted to remain very calm
today, for the subject to remain above partisan politics. It
must appeal to our hearts and minds. We have to loosen the
purse strings. Perhaps we should be the first to do so.
However, without a debate, if there is not an actual committee
responsible for
weighing the pros and cons, and especially possible approaches,
what means do we have at our disposal in the next two years to
ease the situation a bit?
The Prime Minister has often said that Canada is a rich country.
It is. The wealth is there, but who holds it? Twenty per cent
of the people who are starving come from our ridings, and it
hurts.
My colleague spoke of the next ten years, I want to ask about
the period up to 2000. How could we get people some help?
There are petitions, of course, but is there anything else?
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, earlier, I said that
globalization is more than just a theory or an ideology, it is
an everyday reality. My hon. colleague talked about the sadness
and despair he often sees among his fellow citizens, at least
among those who do not have a decent salary, because there are
no jobs.
Indeed, the fact that this issue can be addressed in the House
of Commons, that we are having a debate and that the people can
take part is indeed a good thing. I think we are about to sign
an agreement the people have never heard of before and even us,
as members of Parliament, have not had the opportunity to
discuss it.
The people will have to be heard on this issue. I invite all my
constituents to express their concerns about this agreement. We
will have to further inform the people of all the issues the
agreement will likely raise.
I talked earlier about the flow of capital. There could be
flights of capital. It happens when, for some reason, agreements
that have been signed are not honoured. In such cases it is the
population that suffers the very serious consequences of a loss
of investment.
Therefore this issue has to be taken seriously. I am glad to see
that we can discuss the MIA. We could bring it up with our
constituents. We will see, with the passing months, what the
people think about the agreement and what are the reservations
that the various countries could put forward.
We also have to respect the particularities of the various
countries. Here, in Canada, we know that some of the provinces
have particularities that are not mentioned in the agreement.
We have to live with the globalization of the markets, but we
also have to take into consideration the capacity of the
countries to evolve in tune with this huge globalization
phenomenon.
1315
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today in response to the Bloc Quebecois motion.
For the next few minutes, I will be emphasizing that, in its
latest budget, our government has taken effective, targeted
action to maintain and improve the situation of low and middle
income Canadians.
The 1998 budget marks the beginning of a broad based tax relief
effort comprised of two major initiatives and designed to
maintain targeted relief for those who need it most and in areas
where the greatest benefits will be achieved.
Over the next three years, the measures contained in the budget
will translate into $7 billion in tax relief benefiting mostly
low and middle income taxpayers.
Relief will be small at first, as the fiscal dividend it comes
from will itself be small. We will not make tax cuts that risk
compromising neither the fiscal health we have just restored nor
the priorities identified by Canadians, including health care,
education and public pensions.
That is why, in accordance with this country's priorities, the
government will start by reducing the taxes paid by those who
can least afford them: low and middle income Canadians.
The first of the two broad based tax relief initiatives consists
in increasing the non taxable income of Canadians who earn a
small income.
Currently the basic personal exemption is $6,456, while the
married exemption and the equivalent to married exemption cannot
be more than $5,380.
The budget provides for a $500 increase of these amounts for low
income Canadians, as a result the amount of income taxpayers can
receive on a tax-free basis will be increased by $500 for a
single person earning less than $20,000, and by $1,000 for
families earning less than $40,000.
This measure, which is to come into force July 1, 1998, will
take 400,000 low-income Canadians off the tax rolls and reduce
taxes for an additional 4.6 million Canadians. The income tax
relief will amount to $85 for single taxpayers, and to a maximum
of $170 for families.
Moreover, the budget provides for the elimination of the 3%
general surtax for Canadians with incomes up to about $50,000.
This surtax, a tax on tax created in 1986 to help reduce the
deficit, will be lowered for Canadians with incomes between
$50,000 and around $65,000.
As a result of this measure, which will come into force on July
1, 1998,, close to 13 million taxpayers will pay no federal
surtax in 1999, and another one million Canadians will see a
significant reduction in their surtax liability.
These two measures provide for a very progressive distribution
of tax relief since the biggest tax relief, as compared to
current taxes, will go to taxpayers with the lowest income. For
example, singles earning $30,000 a year will see their tax
burden reduced by 3%, while singles earning $50,000 a year will
receive a 2.4% tax reduction.
A family with an annual income of $30,000 will get a 31%
reduction, while for a family earning $50,000 taxes will fall by
3.3%. As a result, a family earning $30,000 will see its total
federal income taxes falling to about $300 or about 1% of its
income.
True to previous budgets, the 1998 budget provides for targeted
tax relief for those who need it most.
Under the Canadian Opportunities Strategy, for the first time
ever, interest payments on student loans will be deductible.
1320
This measure will be extended to all students and will benefit
more than one million people. For example, for a student with a
typical debt, this measure will mean a federal and provincial
tax reduction of almost $530 the first year and of up to $3,200
over a ten year paydown.
The budget also proposes several measures that will allow
Canadians to improve their qualifications, for instance the
extension of the education credit to part time students. A part
time student taking two eligible courses will be able to save
$120 in taxes.
This measure will reduce the costs associated with education and
will facilitate continuing education for over 250,000 part time
students.
In recognition of the expenses associated with education and to
promote continuing education, the government will now allow part
time students to claim the child care expense deduction. This
measure, which will affect about 50,000 part time students, will
allow a parent with two children who is taking two courses to
save about $550 in taxes.
Together, these two measures will more than triple, from $300 to
almost $1,000 a year, the tax savings for a typical part time
student with two children.
To support continuing education, the budget also proposes to
allow Canadians to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs to
finance full time education and training.
Taxpayers will be able to withdraw, tax free, up to $10,000 a
year, without exceeding $20,000 over a four year period. To
preserve their retirement incomes, taxpayers will have to
reimburse these withdrawals over a ten year period.
Support measures for families are also included in the budget.
For example, there is an increase of the child care expense
deduction from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under age 7, and
from $3,000 to $4,000 for children aged 7 to 16. A parent with
two preschool children will have his or her taxes reduced by
$1,600. This measure takes into account the child care expenses
paid by full time working parents and will benefit 65,000
families with children.
The 1998 budget contains another family support measure. It adds
$850 million to the $850 million increase in the child tax
credit announced in the 1997 budget, to come into effect in July
1998. This will be introduced in two stages. The first calls for
$425 million more per year, starting July 1999, and the second
the identical amount in July 2000.
The government also plans a credit for natural caregivers, which
will decrease the combined federal and provincial tax by $600
for those taking care of an aged parent or a disabled relative.
Some 450,000 natural caregivers, who would not normally be
eligible for the disabled dependent credit, will benefit from
this assistance.
In addition, a GST and HST exemption will apply to expenses
incurred in providing temporary assistance to a person whose
self-sufficiency is limited through disability.
In order to encourage the hiring of young people aged 18 to 24,
employers will pay no EI contributions for new jobs created for
young people in 1999 and 2000.
I would like to add, before closing, that I will share my
remaining time with the minister.
Along with the reduction in employers' contributions to
employment insurance, which have been dropped to $2.70 per $100
of insurable earnings since January 1, 1998, this measure marks
an important step in facilitating job creation for young
Canadians.
1325
In order to treat self-employed workers and limited companies
more fairly, the budget proposes that Canadian self-employed
individuals may, starting this year, deduct their contributions
to health and dental insurance plans from business income.
In closing, I would like to add that globalization definitely
poses considerable challenges to our society. The technological
progress of the past two decades outstrips that of the entire
last century. The 1998 Liberal budget reflects this phenomenon
by proposing targeted tax relief and by building a solid economy—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
her time is up.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am a bit
surprised at what the member had to say. I thought we were
talking about the MAI and its impact on the gap between the rich
and poor. What I heard sounded like a budget being brought in.
It was as though the Minister of Finance were making his budget
speech.
This is the sort of self-congratulation we often hear from the
members opposite when it comes time to hold a debate. They are
always telling us how wonderful they are, as though we were
living in the most wonderful country in the world and had no
problems here in Canada.
Why has child poverty increased? It is certainly not because of
everything the government has done. I will take my cue from the
member opposite. If she wants to refer to the budget, I too can
play at that.
What is her opinion of the non-indexation of the child tax
benefit, of the personal tax tables, of the tightened EI
eligibility criteria, of the cuts in the Canada social transfer
that have taken a serious toll on the public? The end result is
that the public is worse off. Not once did I hear the member
expressing any concern over the agreement being signed. Is she
not concerned about the various provisions. The member did not
point to one provision that concerned her.
I have two criticisms of what she said. First, I do not think
the government has anything to crow about. Second, I would have
liked her to tell me which provisions in the MAI caused her the
most concern.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's
question. What surprises me in her criticism is that she does
not seem to understand the role played by the Government of
Canada.
The role of the government is to help people. How does it do
that? It does it mainly through its budget. The budget is the
most important element because, as we all know, it controls the
allocation of moneys to the various departments.
What I have tried to demonstrate in the speech I just made in
this House is how our government is responsible, how it pays
special attention to the poorest, to young Canadians who need
money to pursue their education. As a government, it is our
responsibility to meet the needs of young people and low income
families, those with very low salaries, and that is exactly what
I have tried to demonstrate.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is an interesting debate today.
The Liberal member who just spoke used a lot of facts and in
some respects was talking about the budget. We should examine
that a bit.
The issue that has been brought up here is child poverty and
globalization. In terms of poverty, would the member agree that
something should have been done in the last budget for the over
2.5 million Canadians who are still paying taxes to the federal
government and earning less than $15,000 a year? In fact the
1997-98 fiscal year which ended on March 31 would have had a
surplus of over $4.5 billion if the government had not decided to
spend it.
1330
I see the member is getting some coaching from her colleague but
that is all right. Maybe together the two of them can figure out
something.
It seems to me it would have been an opportune time to have some
tax relief for low income Canadians, to take them off the tax
rolls altogether. What is required are good paying jobs. People
who are not in the category of having high paying jobs should not
have the extra difficulty of having to pay federal taxes on an
income that is very low, $15,000 or less.
Would the hon. member agree with me on that?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to that comment
by saying that poverty is a very serious issue and a basic
concern of our government.
I will repeat what I have already said. Let us not forget that,
thanks to our budget, 400,000 people will not be paying any
taxes next year. Those are the very people referred to by the
member, that is people with extremely low salaries.
I would also remind the member that our fundamental task and our
first priority this year has been to reduce the deficit. Not
only have we reduced it, but we have eliminated it completely.
It was a monumental task, and I am very proud of our
achievement. We would like to do more—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the time provided for
questions and comments has expired.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to debate the hon. member's motion.
The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois has presented the House
with a rather broad sweeping motion. I will direct my comments
at the portion of the motion dealing with the elimination of
child poverty which falls within my specific mandate.
While families have the primary responsibility to nurture their
children, they are not alone in this critical undertaking. The
healthy development of our children requires the attention and
collaboration of parents with territorial and provincial
governments and the private and voluntary sectors. The
Government of Canada is most certainly prepared to do its part.
I assume the hon. member was in the House during last
September's Speech from the Throne. If he was he would know that
the Government of Canada is working with its provincial and
territorial partners to build a comprehensive and effective
national child benefit system. During the Speech from the Throne
the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois would have heard the
government reiterate its commitment to “ensure that all Canadian
children have the best possible opportunity to develop their full
potential”.
It should be noted that there is a real need to demonstrate this
by one stark statistic. Eighty-five per cent of single parents
are women and 65% of them live in poverty. Other groups are
equally affected, such as aboriginal youth and disabled youth and
children.
The throne speech went on to say that the government has already
demonstrated its commitment to the well-being of our children in
part by increasing our contribution to the Canada child tax
benefit by $850 million during the course of this mandate. This
was not hollow rhetoric.
It is unfortunate if some members find the budget to be
something reprehensible. Most of the initiatives for human
development are directed at children and families in need.
The government demonstrated its intent quite clearly in the
budget by repeating its commitment to increase the child tax
benefit by an additional $850 million. That is $850 million on
top of the $850 million we committed to the Canada child tax
benefit in the 1997 budget. This is already an increase in
advance of what we had planned to do.
The government will live up to this commitment in a fiscally
responsible manner. The $850 million committed in the 1997
budget will come into effect July 1 this year. Of the new
funding, $425 million will be allocated in July 1999. The
remaining $425 million will come into play in July 2000. That is
a total Government of Canada commitment of $1.7 billion to try to
help in part fight child poverty in Canada.
I say to the hon. member that this investment demonstrates quite
clearly the government's commitment to do as much as it possibly
can to move toward the elimination of child poverty in Canada.
This in real terms is action. In the meantime, while we are
working with our partners in planning these new strategies the
government already has a number of programs in place to assist
children and their families. I would like to bring a few of
those programs to the attention of members.
1335
The child care visions program was created in 1995. This
national program for research on child care and development is
administered by Human Resources Development Canada. The program
supports research and evaluation projects to study current child
care practices and delivery of services.
The 1997 budget increased resources by $100 million over the
next three years for two existing community based programs that
benefit children at risk. These are the community action program
for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program.
I am at the midpoint of a national tour on youth and children
which will go to every province and both territories visiting and
consulting with all stakeholders for children and youth. I have
seen many, many wonderful programs, successful programs at the
community level undertaken with the priorities as demonstrated by
the people. Just yesterday I was in Quebec and Verdun visiting
some stakeholders.
The community action program for children responds to the United
Nations convention on the rights of the child and helps community
groups address health and social needs of at risk children up to
six years of age. This program will allow communities all across
Canada to design projects most relevant to the needs of children
in their communities. It provides a variety of services such as
toy lending libraries, infant stimulation, parenting education
and support, and integrated services through family resource and
child development centres.
Through the development of the national children's agenda and
such programs as Health Canada's prenatal nutrition program, we
can also begin to address issues such as fetal alcohol syndrome
and fetal alcohol effects.
It would be most advisable to undertake the appropriate steps to
ensure that we have some kind of capacity in the name of a
national advisory committee for that, as well as to undertake a
number of strategically appointed pilot projects that would deal
with not only identifying but relating these to issues that
affect things such as young offenders.
In my capacity as Secretary of State for Children and Youth, I
have begun discussions with street youth, street youth workers
and health care professionals on possible approaches to the
issues of street youth.
One issue which affects street youth is that because they lack
an address, street youth cannot enter any kind of training
program. They cannot enlist in any kind of government service or
program. This is very important. A mechanism should be instituted
by which street youth will be able to give information that is
satisfactory to various learning institutions which will allow
them to participate.
We also need to be concerned about the security of these youth.
These young people are someone's children and they are our
country's children. While not being able to resolve this
overnight, we should be able to provide some security for them,
some kind of clearing house mechanism where they can have the
time to make decisions. Some of these young people actually have
children as well. Security is a big issue.
The First Nations and Inuit child care initiative helps to bring
the quality and quantity of child care services for aboriginal
communities in line with child care services available to the
general population. The Government of Canada is providing $72
million over three years to help create 4,300 new child care
spaces and improve some 1,700 existing spaces. We also have
committed $36 million annually to maintain the program.
To ensure that these programs and any others that may be
developed are effective, it is necessary to gather up to date
information on the social condition of Canadian children. To that
end Statistics Canada and Human Resources Development Canada are
currently engaged in the national longitudinal survey of children
and youth.
This is a long term study which revisits individuals every two
years from birth to adulthood. It presents an integrated picture
of their lives. The data we are gathering is assisting us in
planning future programs.
1340
Besides the initiatives I have mentioned, we are collaborating
with our provincial and territorial partners in working toward
establishing a national children's agenda. The agenda will be a
broad comprehensive strategy to improve the well-being of
Canada's children. The agenda's impetus will ensure that all
Canadian children have the best possible opportunity to develop
to their full potential as healthy, successful and contributing
members of society.
As part of this national agenda we will expand our aboriginal
head start program to on reserve children. We will measure the
readiness of Canadian children to learn. We will establish
centres of excellence for children's well-being. Federal,
provincial and territorial governments will work together to
fully develop the national children's agenda, one of the most
significant social policy initiatives in 30 years.
There are many other programs I could speak to. Yesterday in
Verdun I had the opportunity to visit the children and youth
centre Toujours ensemble. It is a wonderful centre. I encourage
members opposite to visit it. It demonstrates the excellent
initiatives people undertake when they are adequately resourced
by various levels of government.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speeches by the member for Laval West and by
the minister. I think anyone who defends themself for 20
minutes when no criticism has been leveled at them must have
something to hide. We have not accused them of anything, but
they defended themselves for 20 minutes. Something is not quite
clear.
The minister said the Bloc Quebecois motion was all over the
place and all muddled. I will help her out with a reminder. We
want to create a special committee to examine the disparity
between the rich and the poor. That is not so very complicated.
I have two very simple questions for the minister. First, has
the number of poor children increased or decreased since the
Liberals have been in government? Second, why is she opposed to
creating an all party special committee to consider the problem
of the gap between the rich and the poor?
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am not a person
who is usually against very much. What I am in favour of is what
the government has consistently been doing. That is, throughout
all the successive budgets since 1993 when we became government,
there are two areas where we have not reduced funding, where we
have built programs consistently. We have enforced and expanded
programs dealing with children and youth.
I must say that I did not state that that was confusing. I said
that it was broad sweeping, that it pulled in such issues as the
multilateral agreement on investment and the globalization of
markets affecting the government's ability to develop the
country's economies in accordance with its priorities. These are
all broad assumptions and are broad sweeping issues that do not
directly relate to my mandate. My mandate deals with les enfants
et la jeunesse. In that mode I wanted to talk about something
that is relevant to my mandate, the elimination of child poverty.
We look at the throne speech and the budget, the programs
instituted, the prenatal nutrition program, the community action
plan for children. I do not know whether the member opposite has
bothered but I have gone to the grassroots level, to the various
communities not just in Liberal held ridings but to various
places. I have seen the programs. They are excellent programs. I
advise the member to visit them as well.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
some questions for the hon. member.
I would like to know how the member would respond to the
government's failure to set goals for decreasing unemployment.
How would she respond to health and education transfers that
directly affect poverty? No one would argue that increased
education is one of the greatest weapons against poverty.
1345
How would the minister respond to the cuts to EI that greatly
affected aboriginal seasonal workers who no longer meet the
requirement and are forced to go on welfare at a time when they
are fighting to increase their self-worth?
We cannot look at child poverty in isolation as her other
colleagues have been mentioning today. I think everyone realizes
this. How does the minister respond to only isolating child
poverty from the poverty of all?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for her questions.
We are not in the practice of setting quotas or targets that we
cannot meet. We put all our efforts into eliminating and trying
to reduce unemployment. We have done that. We have gone from
double digit to a single digit unemployment figure. That says
something.
We have also created an opportunity for people by way of
reducing and eliminating the deficit on top of trying to do what
we can for poor people. We are not continually putting pressure
back on the taxpayers of Canada. I think that speaks for itself.
We can talk about numbers but we cannot achieve anything if we
do not put a concerted effort into something, which we have done
consistently.
I encourage the hon. member to read the budget. It was an
education budget. I do not know if she recalls but the media
were calling the Minister of Finance the minister of education
because of the budget he put before parliament. I encourage the
member to look at all the granting systems and the millennium
scholarship fund. Much debated they were, but they were
necessary.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to the motion today. I was somewhat
amused when I looked at the television broadcast of this debate
and saw the line underneath the picture indicating “elimination
of poverty”. I thought some might say we have reached a point
of arrogance to assume we in the House will eliminate all
poverty.
I have some comments regarding the motion which I would like to
share. The particular motion proposes to eliminate the gap
between the rich and the poor and to eliminate child poverty
through government intervention.
For some individuals these are noble sounding goals, but Reform
would take issue with how the Bloc and others in the House
propose to achieve these goals. Often the method and the
determination of the outcome are more critical than just lofty
sounding goals.
Some feel the answer to these problems is more megagovernment
programs, more government make work projects, more protectionism,
more bureaucracy, more taxes, more debt and a more unfocused
federal government, more of the old vision of how a government
should work.
It is because this has not worked that Reform takes a different
view of how these issues should be addressed. Reform would point
out that we have been through the age of megagovernment programs
and it has not worked. It certainly has not eliminated the
problems. The Bloc obstensibly says that this is an attempt to
address the issue. Instead of eliminating poverty or the gap
between the rich and the poor, what has been the result of
megagovernment that the Bloc seems to wish to promote today?
A short list would include a $600 billion debt, the highest
taxes in the industrialized world, one-third of every tax dollar
going to interest on the national debt, job insecurity for many
Canadians, almost one in five of our trained young people not
finding work, and a brain drain of our brightest to better
opportunities in other countries.
We could do better but more of the same and bigger government
are not the answer. This megagovernment vision which the Bloc
and others in the House seem to support has resulted in low and
single income individuals and families paying higher levels of
taxation with the hope of getting some back through some
government program.
Even after the latest budget an individual starts paying taxes
at approximately $7,000. Surely such individuals cannot be
classified as rich, but the government still forces them to hand
over their income to their megagovernment so that perhaps their
megagovernment can think of some sort of bureaucracy growing
program for them.
An individual earning $29,000 will pay about 20% of his income
to the federal government in personal income tax, employment
insurance and CPP premiums.
This total does not include the Liberals' beloved GST or any
provincial taxes.
1350
A megagovernment comes up with megaproposals and megaprograms
which are not easily tailorable to the needs of individuals.
Given the diversity of the needs of the regions in Canada, the
big brother approach does not meet people where they are at.
An example might be the child tax benefit. One can agree there
is value in recognizing the increased costs of raising a child,
but we can take issue with how it is recognized by the
government. It is important to recognize the responsibility of
raising children. In the words of supreme court Justice La
Forest:
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our
legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding
philosophical and religious traditions. But ultimately its
raison d'etre transcends all these and is firmly anchored in the
biological and social realities that couples have the unique
ability to procreate, that children are the product of these
relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured
by those who live in that relationship.
The family is an important relationship. The child tax benefit
essentially takes money from families with children through taxes
today. Then one year later they are sent a cheque. This is a
year after they filed and paid their taxes. Would it not be
easier to simplify the process and simply reduce their tax bill
at source in the first place and eliminate much of the
bureaucracy involved in processing the program? Let the family
have the money in the month it is earned and not a year later.
There is a family in my riding, the Lucas family, that shared
with me a story of how there was an error in the child tax
benefit the family received. Revenue Canada sent a cheque for
$1,000 and said “We underpaid you on the child tax benefit”.
This is a poor family that is just starting out with one young
child and another one on the way. This was a windfall, $1,000
out of the blue. The family enjoyed the $1,000 by spending it on
some immediate needs.
Three months later the family got a letter from Revenue Canada
saying it was an overpayment on the child tax benefit and now the
$1,000 had to be paid back. The stress it put on that family I
cannot begin to fully articulate today. However after many calls
and many appeals to the taxman the family was allowed to pay so
much off a month. It put tremendous stress on the family. In
researching the whole situation it was not the only family that
had been ground up in this bureaucratic nightmare. In fact there
were many families across Canada. It is the height of
administrative bureaucracy when it loses touch with the impacts
it is having on everyday people.
This kind of complexity adds to the burden of taxation and
administration that families have to carry. Not only have taxes
become the greatest expense in the family budget, but it has
become a family expense just to file an income tax return because
it is so complex. There are 600 pages in the act and 700 pages
of special interpretations. The Income Tax Act and the special
interpretations that go with it are thicker than most phone books
and it started out as a 36 page document to fund the war effort.
Bureaucracy has gone crazy and it is impacting on families. The
bottom line is that more government intervention in recent years
has worked against the family and their children.
What is Reform's vision? Reform has pointed out that the old
vision of megagovernment just is not working. This is the vision
which has us working half the year just to pay the tax bill. The
old vision of the current government promised job creation and
social justice. That is what it promised but it delivers chronic
unemployment, chronic poverty and youth crime. It is a vision
which promises national unity through national programs and
national standards but delivers friction, disunity,
non-accountability, duplication and waste.
1355
Current government vision trivializes the individual, family and
community contributions by implying that only through government
programs, government spending and government propaganda can the
country be held together.
Reform's vision is that of a country defined and built by its
citizens rather than by its government. It is a vision of
smaller government and lower taxes. It is a vision that reaches
out to the initiative, drive and diversity of Canadians and calls
upon individuals, families and communities to lead the way to
growth, progress and unity. It allows families and communities
to enjoy the fruits of their labours.
The best way to address child poverty is to address the needs of
the family. This may be attained through jobs for parents or
youth. This can be achieved through lower taxes and less
bureaucracy. Children are members of families in the care of
their parents. They are not disconnected free agents.
Reform believes that we can best help families by simplifying
and reducing the burden of government on them and by showing that
they make an important contribution to the health of our country.
More than that, Reform would point out that we need to better
respect the autonomy of families and not undermine these
relationships by driving a wedge between parents and their
children or between husbands and wives with greater government
intervention in family relationships. That is not the answer.
These are not just my comments. These positions are written
into the policies, statements and documents of the Reform Party.
We affirm in our statements the duty of parents to raise their
children responsibly, according to their own conscience and
beliefs. We further affirm that no person, government or agency
has any right to interfere in the exercise of that duty as long
as the actions of parents do not constitute abuse or neglect.
Rather than saying we need bigger government and the higher
taxes that go along with it, Reform is saying that we need
smaller government. The money earned by families is best left in
their pockets, the pockets of those who know how best to spend it
to address their needs and those of their children. Children can
be best served by those closest to them, that is parents and not
governments. Parents know best how to address the needs of their
families.
I refer to the publicity stunt we saw performed by the Bloc
Quebecois member who carried his chair out of the House in
protest. It is interesting that he did this to demonstrate the
government's ineffectiveness in addressing child poverty and the
gap between the rich and the poor—
The Speaker: The member still has well over nine minutes
in his time, but seeing that it is almost two o'clock and I want
to lay a report upon the table, I wonder if he would cede the
floor and of course be immediately recognized when we take up the
debate again.
* * *
[Translation]
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
supplementary report of the Auditor General of Canada to the
House of Commons, volume I, for April 1998.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e) this document is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today, April 28, is the national day of mourning for
workers who are killed or injured as a result of their jobs. In
honour of this solemn occasion the Canadian flag flies at half
mast on Parliament Hill and in cities and towns across the
country.
According to the Canadian Labour Congress, nearly 1,000 workers
die each year because of their workplaces. A million more are
injured or contract some form of occupational sickness. Federal
and provincial labour laws have gone a long way to protect
Canadian workers, but as the numbers indicate workplace injuries
and fatalities continue to occur with tragic frequency.
On this solemn occasion I wish to offer my sincere condolences
to those who have lost loved ones in workplace accidents and my
best wishes to those who have been injured on the job. The
number of Canadians killed and injured at work must be reduced. I
call on hon. members to keep this in mind today and throughout
the year.
* * *
1400
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what is tonight's vote all about? It is about people who
contacted hepatitis C through no fault of their own, people who
are hurting like Mark Bulbrook of Hamilton, Ontario; James Lodge
of Victoria, B.C.; Karen Neilson of Oyen, Alberta; Leona Martens
of Alamed, Saskatchewan; Pat Lyons of Port Coquitlam, B.C.; Dale
Strohmaier of Edmonton, Alberta; David Smith of Victoria, B.C.;
Ronald Thiel of Saanich, B.C.; Louise Schmidt of Maple Ridge;
Geraldine Clements of Naramata, B.C.; Rita Wegscheidler of
Penticton, B.C.; Brad Baldwin of Dalmany, Saskatchewan.
These are all people left out of the hepatitis C compensation
package. They deserve equal compensation with all other victims
of tainted blood because they are people who are suffering just
as much as those who are to be included.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval-Ouest.
* * *
[Translation]
WORK RELATED ACCIDENTS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each year,
the lives of thousands of Canadian families are shattered
overnight because of a work related accident. Too many families
have to live through these tragedies that involve huge social
and economic costs for our society.
We will never overstate the need for governments to make sure
that occupational health and safety legislation and regulations
are strictly enforced. In a society such as ours, this great
number of work related accidents is downright unacceptable.
Our challenge is to ensure healthy and safe work conditions for
all Canadian workers.
Why do we not establish as a goal in our society a rule of zero
tolerance for work related accidents in order to show greater
respect for the dignity of millions of Canadian workers?
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight the House will be asked to vote on a Reform
motion condemning the government's $1.1 billion compensation
package to the victims of hepatitis C.
This agreement was signed by all 10 provinces and 2 territories
and by governments of all political parties.
Today I challenge all four opposition parties to come clean with
Canadians. If they wish to condemn the federal government they
must also publicly condemn their provincial counterparts.
I challenge the leader of the Reform Party and the leader of the
Conservative Party to publicly today condemn their friends Mike
Harris and Ralph Klein. I challenge the leader of the New
Democratic Party today to publicly condemn Roy Romanow and Glen
Clark.
[Translation]
I challenge the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to publicly condemn
right now his leader, Lucien Bouchard.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg South.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today in support of the decision taken by the
Minister of Health and his provincial and territorial partners
concerning compensation for hepatitis C victims.
In particular I want to acknowledge the strong principled
leadership of the Minister of Health in the face of clearly
partisan and opportunistic criticism levelled against him by the
opposition members of this House.
The easy path would be for the minister to simply pay those who
are making a claim upon the government. But as the minister has
noted, he and his provincial and territorial colleagues are the
custodians of Canada's health care system. Because of this they
have a larger responsibility, a responsibility to deal with the
tough questions that confront them and make the right decisions.
The opposition members seem to think the moral high ground
belongs to those who advocate the easiest and most expedient
course of action, to offer blanket compensation today without
thinking about the consequences for tomorrow.
It is clear, however, that the true moral high ground—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is tonight's vote all about? It is about real
people with hepatitis C, people who are sick, people who need
help from this government, people like Mrs. Laurie Stoll of Maple
Ridge, B.C.; Mrs. Joyce Smith of Mission, B.C.; Ed Wheeler of
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Theresa Robertson of Peterborough,
Ontario; Allan Ordze of Edmonton, Alberta; Lisa Holtz of
Edmonton, Alberta; Ed Neufeld of Winkler, Manitoba; Mr. Wish of
Winnipeg, Manitoba; Verla Sherhols of Kanata, Ontario; Cheralynn
Adie of Ottawa, Ontario, Etienne Saumure of Gatineau, Quebec; Don
Jamieson of Toronto, Ontario; Joan Laing of Calgary, Alberta.
1405
These are people who live in our neighbourhoods all over Canada.
Every member of parliament must remember these suffering people
in tonight's vote.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
has been much discussion about the rationale used by Canada's
government in deciding on a collaborative approach to hepatitis C
compensation.
Since the Krever commission delivered its report, the federal
government has been working very hard to find a solution to this
difficult problem. When Justice Krever presented governments
with the facts it became clear that many of the hepatitis C
infections between 1986 and 1990 might not have happened if
things had been done differently.
The beginning of 1986 was when surrogate testing was first used
on a national scale in the United States. To ignore that
benchmark date would lead us to an unsustainable rationale for
offering assistance. Even after 1986 the science of hepatitis C
was still unsettled and indeed it is still evolving.
Those who claim governments should ignore such benchmark dates
altogether are perhaps arguing for some sort of retroactive
scheme which would eventually apply to all health care harms
suffered by Canadians.
Allowing that to happen without due discussion and consideration
of the consequences—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
agreement reached by territorial, provincial and federal
governments to compensate victims of hepatitis C is not perfect.
No amount of money can ease the pain of those who have been
infected.
By supporting the current agreement we are acting responsibly by
providing assistance to those infected between 1986 and 1990. For
those not covered in the current agreement we have a collective
responsibility to find ways to ensure their needs are met.
The health care system in Canada is one of the finest in the
world and provides a safety net for those who otherwise could not
afford the services they need. That is why it is imperative to
work with the provinces to improve services and ensure a better
quality of life for every victim. As long as there is one victim
suffering we still have work to do.
I applaud the Minister of Health for his courage and commitment
to doing what is right.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is tonight's vote all about? Tonight's vote is all
about people, people who could be our next door neighbour, child,
spouse or even ourselves.
Hepatitis C victims are ordinary people, people like Jean
Drapeau of Laval, Quebec; Steve Kemp of Toronto, Ontario; Mike
McCarthy of Sebringville, Ontario; Kim Kingsley of Goderich,
Ontario; Neil Van Dusen of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia; Jeremy Beaty
of Mississauga, Ontario; Abraham Weizfeldt of Montreal, Quebec;
Charles Duguay of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Derek Marchand of
Tottenham, Ontario; Sherry Fitger of Calgary, Alberta and her
husband Don Fitger of Calgary, Alberta; William Harrison of
Edmonton, Alberta.
Tonight all members of parliament have a chance to do the right
thing, to stand up for the rights of victims.
We call on all members of this House, regardless of their
political affiliations, to join together in affirming our support
for those the government has wronged.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when Canada's health ministers announced the compensation package
for hepatitis C victims they acknowledged that testing was
available but not used in Canada between January 1, 1986 and July
1, 1990. This is the key principle underlining the compensation
package.
The Reform Party motion ignores this key principle when it
states that the government should “compensate all victims who
contracted hepatitis C”. What it is advocating is a no fault
insurance scheme for Canada's health care system.
This is a wholly separate issue from the blood system inquiry.
It is an issue that should be addressed on its own merits and,
quite frankly, this debate has yet to happen.
Health care insurance is a provincial responsibility. I am
unaware of any initiatives to establish a no fault insurance
scheme for the blood system or health care in general. No fault
insurance is not a feature of our health system and should not
materialize by default—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval East.
* * *
[Translation]
MONSIGNOR JUAN GIRARDI
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were saddened
to learn yesterday of the death of Monsignor Juan Girardi, the
Guatemalan assistant archbishop and human rights activist.
Monsignor Girardi, who was brutally assassinated, had just
presented a scathing report on the holocaust suffered by the
Guatemalan people during the civil war that lasted over 36
years. His death could jeopardize the fragile peace accords
signed by the factions a year and a half ago.
1410
The Bloc Quebecois wants to pay tribute to this brave man, who
was able to warn the international community about the horrors
of the armed conflict in Guatemala.
Once again, the long road to respect for human rights has been
sullied by the blood of innocent victims who have sacrificed
their lives to defend a fundamental right.
We extend our sympathies to the people of Guatemala.
* * *
[English]
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the flags in the House of Commons are flying at half mast out of
respect for workers who are injured, killed or made ill in their
workplace.
April 28 is the international day of mourning for injured and
fallen workers and it is recognized by more than 70 countries
around the world. Last year the United Nations conducted
ceremonies to commemorate the international day of mourning at
its headquarters in New York City.
Canada is a civilized and developed nation and yet today three
more Canadian workers will die on the job and the same will be
true tomorrow and the day after. In fact, 1,000 Canadian workers
a year will die at work and almost a million more will suffer
some form of lost time due to injury, sickness or occupational
disease.
Canadian workers get up in the morning to earn a living, not to
be injured, butchered or maimed on behalf of some arbitrary
production schedule. Why can we not end the carnage in our
workplaces? When will industry and government commit to decent
enforcement of our health and safety legislation?
Our caucus is committed to working—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have personally been affected by hepatitis C. A
childhood friend of mine died, about two months ago, of
hepatitis C.
Like many Canadians who have been closely following this debate,
I am deeply worried about the expectations our blood supply
system has raised and the impact these great expectations can
have on our overall health care system.
Medicine is not infallible. Science is not infallible. Some
types of treatment, medication and material are more risky than
others. Blood is the gift of life, but blood is also a high-risk
natural biological product.
The health care system, including the blood supply system, is
doing its best to reduce the risks for those who use it.
Governments and other stakeholders have the responsibility to
react when harm can—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hepatitis C issue is not about faceless, nameless Canadians who
are affected not only by this tragic illness but by this
government's tragic policy.
Hepatitis C is about our neighbours, our sons, our daughters and
people who work and live beside us every day.
One of those people wrote the Minister of Health recently:
You need to hear this from my heart. I live with hepatitis C
every day, and don't think it's easy to live with somebody who
has only days to live. Hepatitis C has destroyed his liver.
Every day I watch him fading away—preparing myself for his
death not being able to get physically close. How extraordinary
considering that my husband has worked his whole life to support
the health care system. The system gave him this disease and now
at 47 his only recourse is $700 a month on disability. You've
taken away his health, you've have taken away his will and now
you take away his dignity.
I only ask that members opposite carefully listen to these words
and vote for compassion this evening.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING FOR INJURED AND FALLEN
WORKERS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is the
International Day of Mourning for Injured and Fallen Workers.
Designated by Parliament and observed in more that 70 countries,
as well as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions,
this day underlines the seriousness of occupational diseases,
accidents and deaths.
In federally regulated sectors alone, there is a work related
injury every two minutes: 57,000 workers are injured every year,
over 50 of them fatally.
In the agricultural sector, between 1991 and 1995, there were
503 deaths, making farming the most dangerous occupation in
North America.
There is a huge gap between the legislation governing safety and
security in the workplace and its enforcement. It is shameful
that even today there are so many workers killed while trying to
make a living.
* * *
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight's vote is about real people like Ronald Thiel of
Saanichton, B.C. who was infected with hepatitis C through
tainted blood when he had a heart valve replaced in 1983.
His liver is badly damaged. He had to stop working at age 53.
He has suffered many medical complications which have made his
life a misery. He writes “I know that I am dying before my time
but I have no intention of going to my grave without fighting
this injustice as long as I can”.
Mr. Thiel speaks for all excluded hepatitis C victims when he
paraphrases Shakespeare. “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
If you wrong us, do we not revenge?”
The government cannot escape its responsibility. The victims of
the tainted blood scandal and the people of Canada will one day
require justice. But how much more honourable, how much more
noble it would be for this parliament to offer compassion to the
suffering today, rather than be forced to do so by the heavy hand
of the law tomorrow.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight MPs have a chance to vote in favour of
compensating all those victims who contracted hepatitis C from
tainted blood.
The health minister says that the government should not accept
responsibility for victims prior to 1986 because there was no way
to detect hepatitis C in the blood supply before that time.
However, Justice Krever says that there was a test available to
the government as far back as 1981 and the government never
acted.
I ask the government again, in the name of justice, why will it
not simply let MPs vote for these victims tonight?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we are talking about is an agreement between the
federal government and all the provincial governments and
territories.
If the opposition parties are silent and do not criticize the
provincial governments for being part of this agreement, then
logically and credibly they should not be attacking the federal
government for being part of the same agreement.
I invite the Reform Party and the opposition parties to rethink
their positions. If they do, I think they will see why we are
opposing the motion.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is an irrelevant answer to a question that was
never asked.
The real arguments come from the health minister. He keeps on
repeating that compensating hepatitis C victims would open up the
legal floodgates to everyone, but that argument is also false.
Contracting hepatitis C from tainted blood was not some
unavoidable accident. What we are talking about is compensating
people who became ill because of proven government negligence.
I ask again, in the name of compassion and fairness, why will
the government not allow the MPs to vote for these victims?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is it that since the last election the Reform Party
did vote as a group on every measure except three times?
Certainly there is an argument for coherence on the part of the
Reform Party. Certainly there is the same argument when it comes
to measures like this one.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has not only lost its head, it has lost
its heart as well.
It is forcing Liberals who got involved in politics to build a
just society to be unjust. It is forcing Liberals who profess
compassion to vote against compassion. It is forcing Liberals
who know what is right in this case to vote against it.
My question is, why is the government forcing its members to
vote against justice, compassion and against what they know in
their hearts is right?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is the leader of the Reform Party shedding crocodile
tears for Liberal members today when the real fact is he is not
interested in their best interests, he is interested in his best
interests and those of his party?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not true and this government knows it.
The tears are being shed by all victims of hepatitis C who
contracted this disease through government negligence and
government negligence alone.
Many of these Liberal backbenchers got involved in politics
because they really cared. They really thought that they would
go to Ottawa and do the right thing.
They may laugh, but I have one question for this government.
When people know what is right in their hearts, why is it they
might wear just a little ribbon and say “I love you, but only on
my lapel”?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are here to do our best and to do what is right.
That is the position of all of us in this House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government talks about doing what is right. It knows exactly
what it has to do to do what is right, that is, to compensate all
victims of tainted blood. It did it with HIV. It did it over
the years with thalidomide. It could do it today because it
knows in its heart what is right.
I want to ask this government one more time: Why does it hide
behind legalities and technicalities? Why does it not do what is
right and allow its members to vote for hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is the hon. member completely silent when it comes
to the matter of talking about the position of the provincial
governments on this matter? Their position is exactly the same
as the federal government's position.
I repeat, if they cannot criticize the provincial governments,
then logically, credibly, on every basis, they should not be
criticizing the federal government.
If the provincial governments are right, then the federal
government, on this issue, cannot be wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
usually, it is the opposition parties that insist on having
certain issues become the object of a confidence vote.
However, as regards the motion on which we will vote this
evening, it is the Prime Minister himself who raised the issue
of confidence, contrary to the conventions which, generally
speaking, provide that only budget issues can be the object of a
confidence vote.
How can the government insist on making the vote on the
hepatitis C motion a vote of confidence, if not to muzzle some
of its members who want—
The Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is wrong. In our system, it is up to the Prime
Minister, not the opposition, to decide whether a motion is a
motion of confidence.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
us take an example. When the House voted on the amendment
concerning school boards, the Prime Minister decided it would be
a free vote, on the grounds that members should vote according
to their conscience.
Why was the vote on an amendment affecting school boards a
matter of conscience, but not the vote on a motion to compensate
hepatitis C victims? Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
situation is not the same. It is a different situation and this
is why today's vote is a confidence vote.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister suggested to recalcitrant Liberal members that
there is a possibility of a new compensation program for
excluded victims. The Minister of Human Resources Development
ruled out this possibility, however, as did the Minister of
Health and the Prime Minister.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister have the courage to admit that he
alluded to the possibility of a new program for the sole reason
of reassuring members such as the member for Gatineau and making
sure that they vote against their convictions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did
not announce a new program, nor was it my intention to announce
a new program.
We are here to reject the attack on the agreement between the
federal government and all provinces, including Quebec, relating
to this difficult matter.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
continues to treat hepatitis C victims differently from HIV
victims, claiming that the cost would be too high.
Why is the federal government, which is certainly not short of
money, refusing fair and equitable treatment for hepatitis C
victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
applied the same principle in the case of hepatitis C victims
that we did with HIV victims. We accepted the notion of
responsibility, or fault. In the case of HIV victims, it is
clear that, during the period in question, the government could
have taken action to prevent these infections. We applied
exactly the same principle.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health who, like his
colleague, hides behind the provincial governments.
1425
Is the Minister of Health not aware that under questioning in
the Manitoba legislature the minister of health for Manitoba, the
hon. Darren Praznik, has as much as said that the provinces were
prisoners, somewhat like Liberal backbenchers, of the Minister of
Health's willingness to only put money on the table for the
1986-1990 window? That was all that was on the table and the
provinces—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is absolute nonsense.
Coming to the point, there are those beyond the political forum
who are able to see that the governments of Canada are right in
the approach they have taken to this issue. I refer, for
example, to the 16 deans of Canada's medical schools who met last
weekend and whose executive issued a resolution saying that
indeed the governments are right in offering compensation to
those who were infected in the 1986 to 1990 time period.
It is good public policy. We are all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not address the matter of the provinces
being willing to go beyond the 1986-1990 period if the federal
government had been willing to put more money on the table.
Instead of hiding behind the provinces and blaming them for a
situation they did not create, would the minister be willing to
put more money on the table and start up the negotiations to get
some compensation for the other victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know, for his information, that as of last
summer there was no provincial government prepared to talk about
compensating any hepatitis C victims.
The only reason we have $1.1 billion being offered to 22,000
victims of hepatitis C is that the federal government took the
leadership and made that happen.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is finally showing some concern about human rights in
Cuba, but what about human rights and the rights of the innocent
victims of tainted blood here in Canada? What about the rights
of elected MPs who are being made prisoners of bad Liberal
policy?
The vote tonight on hepatitis C is not about which political
party wins or loses, it is about doing what is right.
Why will the Prime Minister not stop tearing the heart and soul
out of some of his MPs by forcing them to vote against their
conscience and do what is right to correct this injustice?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when members vote tonight, of whatever party, I am sure
each and every one will be doing what he or she thinks is right.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
tonight's vote is not about confidence, it is about conscience
and compassion. If they are going to do what is right, and if
they are going to do it with compassion, we know that we will win
for sure.
This is about some Liberal members of the House being forced by
the Prime Minister to support an unjust compensation package.
Not one member of the PC caucus would criticize the Prime
Minister or a member of the government if this injustice were to
be corrected tonight and a motion brought forward to treat all
victims equally.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if my memory serves me right, and perhaps I am wrong,
if Hansard is checked it will show that last week in the
debate a Conservative member said that this was a vote of
confidence.
I suggest the hon. member check Hansard. I suggest the
hon. leader ought to talk to her own members.
I think if Liberal members have a choice, and they have a
choice, they would much rather stand with the Prime Minister than
with the hon. member and her colleagues.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have had
quite a bit of correspondence on the hepatitis C issue. I have
just such a letter here, a letter that calls for compensation for
all victims of hepatitis C.
It is fascinating where this letter came from. It came from the
Liberal official opposition of British Columbia. Why should the
Liberals in B.C. know what is right and correct when the Liberals
in Ottawa are obviously on the wrong track?
1430
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has now been some days that the hon. member has been asking
these questions. I urge the hon. member to remember that we are
talking in the last analysis about our public health system in
Canada.
Members of the government realize that we have no greater moral
duty, we have no higher responsibility to all Canadians including
the victims of hepatitis C, than to ensure that our publicly
funded system of medicare will be there when they need it into
the future.
There is no greater way of imperilling that system than to take
the course urged—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister stood today and said nobody was criticizing the
provinces. Here are his cousins in B.C.—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to address the Chair
and not to use any props.
Mr. Grant Hill: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. The question we
have to ask the government is a simple question. Why is it not
compensating all victims of hepatitis C just like its Liberal
cousins want to see happen in British Columbia? Why not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question at the heart of this matter is not the question put
by the hon. member for his own reasons. It is the question he
refused to respond to in the debate last week, namely, should the
public make cash payments to those injured through the health
system where they were injured through no one's fault. The
answer to that has to be no.
Indeed in the last analysis, as disclosed in Hansard of
last Thursday, the hon. member came to that conclusion. That is
the reason this government and all governments of Canada are
taking the right course.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
The auditor general has criticized the fact that 66% of military
equipment expenditures are unnecessary.
How does the minister explain that, of three billion dollars in
annual purchases, two billion dollars' worth of equipment are
not required by the army?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. We have
less resources. We have to learn how to operate within less
resources, and our people are doing that.
Yes, a lot of improvements need to be made in the system and
have been in fact made over the last number of years. We are in
accordance with the recommendations that the auditor general
presents. We are working with them to bring about improvements
in our system in terms of procurement.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the problem
in this department is not the lack of money. It is the way it
is being spent.
Before requesting more money to keep his capricious generals
happy, will the minister prove to us his ability to manage his
department by putting an end to the horror stories the auditor
general continues to report?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member read the
same report I did. I read the auditor general's report. I
talked to the auditor general.
As I said a few moments ago we are implementing improvements and
changes. We go through very extensive analysis as to what is
required for the Canadian military. We do not have all the money
to do all the things we would like to do, but we are buying the
best equipment. We are trying to provide our troops with the
best equipment possible to make sure they can do their job.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Christine Campbell had a blood transfusion for a gall bladder
operation in 1985 when she was 29 years old. She writes:
For the past 13 years I have suffered extreme fatigue, bowel
problems, nervous conditions and a lot of burnout—. I live in
fear of deteriorating even more—. I did not ask for this but I
am paying for it and therefore I feel I am being treated unfairly
by—being excluded from compensation for hepatitis C victims.
Why is the Prime Minister forcing Liberal MPs to vote against
Christine and her family?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. We
do not think we are voting against anyone. We think we are
voting for an agreement which is reasonable in the circumstances,
an agreement representing the views of all the provinces as well
as the federal government.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
constituent wrote to me telling me about her life since
contracting hepatitis C from tainted blood.
Dorothy writes:
I'm an innocent victim along with thousands of others. My life
is not what I intended it to be and the things I wanted to do
will never be accomplished.
1435
Why will the Prime Minister not put principles before politics
and power and let his MPs vote to help victims like Dorothy in
this tragedy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our first obligation to Dorothy is to make sure there is a good
health care system in place when she needs it.
Our first obligation to Christine Campbell is to make sure
medicare remains alive in the country.
Our first obligation to all these victims is to make sure that
our social safety net is there to provide disability benefits,
medical attention and treatment, and to research until we find a
cure.
We are not going to do that if this hon. member's course is
taken because it will be the end of publicly financed health
care.
* * *
[Translation]
BURMA
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
exiled Prime Minister of Burma, Sein Win, appeared this morning
before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and described the systematic human rights
violations occurring in Burma. He even told the committee of
the government's intended genocide of Burmese minorities.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not consider it vital to
adopt stricter sanctions against Burma and order Canadian
businesses to stop doing business with this country?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last summer we announced a series of economic
sanctions against Burma. We have also initiated a number of
diplomatic initiatives, particularly the ASEAN front where we put
the matter on the agenda and asked them to address it.
When I met with Dr. Win Sein yesterday I indicated that
furthermore at the foreign ministers meeting of the G-8 that
takes place in about two weeks we will put it on the agenda to
have foreign ministers of the eight most developed countries in
the world take up the issue of Burma to see what we can do to
bring an end to this very dictatorial regime.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
order to increase pressure on Burma's illegal and illegitimate
government, is the minister prepared to organize a mission of
Canadian parliamentarians, as recommended to him by the group
Les Amis de la Birmanie?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we would certainly be prepared to send a group of
parliamentarians. The question is whether the Burmese will
accept them.
We put that initiative before them last summer. They rejected
it, but I will certainly raise it on behalf of the member.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Doris Corrigan is an 83 year old Surrey
resident who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood during an
operation in 1987. Although she qualifies for compensation under
the Liberal's plan she will refuse to accept any compensation
unless the government extends its offer to include all hepatitis
C victims of tainted blood.
Why is the government reneging on its promise to allow more free
votes in the House of Commons, forcing its members to support a
compensation package that is not fair and not just?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all governments in the country, including the provincial
governments that actually deliver services and are the
proprietors of the health delivery services on the ground, agreed
that the appropriate response when it comes to paying cash
compensation is to pay those for whom infections resulted from
fault or negligence, and that is exactly what we have done.
It is the right principle. It is recognized to be good public
policy and all governments agree on that course.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has ignored Justice Krever and created two
tiers of hepatitis C victims, those who will be compensated and
those who will be ignored.
Theresa Robertson of Peterborough, Ontario, was infected in 1984
and she cannot work. She has liver damage and she suffers from
the side effects of medication.
Why is the Prime Minister using strong arm tactics to coerce his
MPs into voting against innocent victims like Ms. Robertson?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Theresa Robertson is going to need Canada's health care system.
She is going to need medicare, a publicly financed system of the
highest possible quality of care in the world.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1440
The Speaker: My colleagues, we are listening to the
questions and we should give the ministers or whomever the chance
to make their responses. I go back to the Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock: It would not be difficult to identify a
wide category of people who suffer harm or illness because of
risk inherent in the health care system.
However, as we have been saying in the House now for four weeks,
if it is our policy to pay cash compensation to those who become
ill, if it is our policy to pay cash to those who are victims of
risk inherent in the health care system, we will no longer be
able to have the system of public health care of which we are so
proud.
* * *
[Translation]
CRAB FISHING
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
On April 9 the ice committee, made up of fishermen and officials
from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, gave the green
light to crab fishing in zone 12 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
More than three weeks later, the minister has yet to give the go
ahead to this industry.
Why is the minister taking so long to make a decision,
penalizing thousands of workers, especially when he knows this
means the loss of significant amounts of money, especially—
The Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly aware of the
situation in the crab fishery in that area. He will understand
that putting in place an agreement, which takes into account the
interests of all the various interest groups and people affected,
is not at all an easy task, particularly in light of some of the
declines in crab stocks.
We are trying to make a system that is fair to all. That
unfortunately takes time. It is easy when there are plenty of
resources, but it is difficult when the resources are limited.
* * *
SUDBURY NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The eyes of the world scientific community are focused on the
inauguration of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in the town of
Walden in northern Ontario.
Could the minister tell the House how this partnership of
governments, universities, agencies and the private sector will
benefit Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted that today and tomorrow we will be
opening the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. It is an example of
world class scientific research. Unfortunately the Reform Party
does not seem to understand it.
Those who are interested will know that it has the key to
opening some of the secrets of the universe. It will be attended
with the support of several Canadian universities, the Government
of Ontario and the federal government. We will be able to
uncover research in that facility, true fundamental research.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Edith Jameson, a resident of Calgary East, phoned me last
Saturday. She contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986. Her liver
has been damaged and her gall bladder has been removed. She told
me her health has been going downhill and her financial resources
are stretched to the limit.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Will he stop acting
like a lawyer and for the love of God offer something to Edith
and thousands like her? He should make the right moral and
compassionate decision and not a legal decision.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I hope I am acting like the custodian of Canada's health care
system.
As the custodian of Canada's health care system I can imagine
hundreds of cases that pack emotional power of people who are in
difficult circumstances, who suffer illnesses, injuries and harm
as a result of risk inherent in surgery, in taking vaccines or in
taking new prescription drugs, each of them with a compelling
emotional pitch about how much they need our help. That is what
medicare is for.
If we compensate in cash—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River.
1445
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tonight's vote is about real people like Keray Regan from Vernon,
B.C. who was infected with hepatitis C through receiving tainted
blood in 1986. Keray Regan said that he will continue to fight
for all hepatitis C victims.
Will this government tell Keray Regan that it will do the right
thing and compensate all victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will tell Keray Regan as I said to Dorothy, Christine Campbell
and all the other victims to whom reference has been made, I say
to all those victims that we will ensure there is a publicly
financed system of medicare there to look after them in their
illness. We will ensure that Canada's social safety net
constructed by Liberal governments in the past will be there to
respond to their needs. We will make sure that responsible
public policy guarantees the future of those services because
that in the last analysis is our most important moral
responsibility.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today at the hepatitis C rally a 15-year old boy named
Joey Haché had this to say about the Prime Minister: “Why is he
making political prisoners of the Liberal backbenchers? Why is
he forcing them to vote against their conscience?” Joey got
hepatitis C through no fault of his own, through numerous blood
transfusions. He does not know why he was infected.
Why is this government forcing Liberal MPs to vote against Joey
and all blood injured Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member why the NDP government in
Saskatchewan does not allow a free vote on this subject. Its
position is exactly the same as ours. Why does she not turn
around and direct her criticism at her own NDP government which
is taking the same position in its legislature as we are taking
in this House of Commons?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we also learned today at the hepatitis C rally that the
office of a Liberal member called the family in B.C. that makes
hepatitis C ribbons and asked for 160 of them for Liberal MPs to
show their sympathy for victims. However that office refused to
pay for the ribbons or the courier. They want to wear the
ribbons but they do not want to pay for them. Is this meant to
be an example of this government's—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know but I will tell her that I was
wearing that ribbon long before she ever saw one. I got it from
Jeremy Beaty of the Canadian Hepatitis C Society when I met with
him to talk about victims compensation. The difference is that
this government has produced $1.1 billion in compensation for
22,000 victims. That is the way we feel about the issue.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, before and
during his trip to Cuba, the Prime Minister criticized Fidel
Castro's lack of respect for democracy. This is rather
surprising from a leader who does not allow his caucus to vote
freely on the motion dealing with hepatitis C, particularly
since some of his members asked for a free vote, because they
are not pleased with the current compensation program.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Why is the
government so intent on promoting democracy all over the world,
when it does not even respect it at home?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have democracy in this country and in this House. This evening's
vote will be proof of that, because I am confident that the
House will reject the Reform Party's motion.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, last week, we
saw on the lawn of Parliament Hill rows after rows of crosses
bearing the names of innocent hepatitis C victims. These crosses
were put there by fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, spouses
and children, in memory of the loved ones they lost as a result
of this terrible tragedy.
Will the Minister of Health finally assume his responsibility
and compensate all victims?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
assumed our responsibility together with the other governments
in Canada, including the Conservative ones. We accepted
responsibility for the period during which officials could have
done something to prevent infection.
It is the policy of the Canadian government, and it is the right
policy.
* * *
[English]
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science and
Technology. As we speak, a rocket is being sent off from
Canadian soil at Churchill, Manitoba, the first in almost a
decade. This is a precursor to launching a polar orbiting
satellite.
How will these activities enhance Canada's technological
preparedness in the changing world of telecommunications?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the first rocket that has been launched from
Churchill since 1989, launched successfully I might say today at
7:10 a.m. It has a payload of scientific experiments for the
Canadian Space Agency. One instrument is called Active and it
will analyse the thermal plasma in the atmosphere.
This is good for Canadians. They see the benefits of space
exploration. This enhances Canada's image in science and
technology throughout the world.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting what this government finds important
when Canadian lives are on the line.
My constituents Sherry and Don Fitger met and fell in love in a
Calgary hospital following separate car accidents in 1980, but
their beautiful love story turned into a horror story. Both
Sherry and Don recently discovered they have hepatitis C from
poisoned blood they were given at that time. Health care does
not cover the cost of the herbal remedies Don and Sherry find
effective.
Why is this Liberal government turning its back on innocent
victims of tainted blood like Sherry and Don Fitger?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when Sherry and Don were injected with contaminated blood, there
was no possible way, no way at all, that science could have
discovered what contaminants were in that blood.
The hon. member has suggested and her colleagues are insisting
that governments across the country make cash payments to those
who suffer harm or become ill regardless of fault because of
risks inherent in the medical system. That is not the
responsible or appropriate way to proceed.
The Prichard committee in 1990 said do not do it. Krever said
no fault. The Prichard committee said no fault, you cannot
compensate unavoidable harm. The deans of the medical faculties
agree.
* * *
[Translation]
B.C. MINES IN BLACK LAKE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development admitted
that, of the 250 former employees of the B.C. mine, only 40 to 50
could benefit from his active measures.
Can the minister go one step further and contribute financially
to the efforts made by Lab Chrysotile and by the Quebec
government to put in place a pre-retirement program for the 200
workers who cannot benefit from his active measures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. I never said
that only 40 to 50 workers could benefit from active measures.
What I said is that, so far, 40 of the 300 miners have already
been hired in two other mines. Ten have retired. I said that 40
to 50 are interested in training for other jobs. That training
will be given in August and September. Five or six were placed
by the workers assistance committee thanks to targeted wage
subsidies, and four or five are interested in starting their own
businesses—
The Speaker: The member for Acadie—Bathurst.
* * *
[English]
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
the Atlantic and along the Gaspé coast there is a crisis in the
fishery. The TAGS program is coming to an end. Thousands and
thousands of people, including children, will suffer from the
cuts in this program.
My question is for the minister of fisheries. Will the
government change its mind and extend the TAGS program as Tobin
is asking right now, one of your good Liberals?
1455
The Speaker: I will ask you to address the question
always through the Chair.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, TAGS was originally designed
to provide temporary help to individuals in communities in
Atlantic Canada that were facing a very difficult situation.
We now realize that there is a problem and the fish are not
coming back to the levels we had hoped for and had expected. Our
government is working very hard and consulting with the
communities and individuals and the province of Newfoundland to
identify the right kind of approach to take in this post-TAGS
environment.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals are on their way back to town. My question is for the
President of the Treasury Board. How much is this vote on a mere
motion going to cost Canadian taxpayers? What are the travel
costs to fly ministers, members, other sheep and staff back from
their junkets around the globe and return after this vote? Why
could those dollars not have been put where they should have
gone, to hepatitis C victims?
Instead of earning frequent flyer points perhaps the Liberals
could earn points with ordinary Canadians—
The Speaker: I do not know how this comes under the
administrative responsibility of the minister. The hon. member
for Nepean—Carleton.
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In 1993 the 2nd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian
Light Infantry serving with the UN in the former Yugoslavia
distinguished themselves for their courage under fire during a
peacekeeping operation at the Medak pocket.
Will the minister take steps to officially recognize the
tremendous work done by the 2nd Battalion under extremely
dangerous circumstances and to say thank you for a job well done
on behalf of all Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian troops who appeared before
the defence committee yesterday made a very moving presentation.
I would commend all members of this House to familiarize
themselves with it.
It is a story where they distinguished themselves under fire.
They showed discipline, professionalism and a great deal of
courage. We can all be proud of them.
Some of them have already received recognition and received a
commendation from the United Nations with respect to this matter.
I think the issue now is perhaps more recognition of something
about which very little is known. I would certainly agree with
that and I am proceeding in that manner.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 80% of those people who are infected with hepatitis C
get liver cancer, become unhealthy and die prematurely. Robert is
one of those members in my constituency. Since he has been
infected he has lost his house, he has lost his health and he has
lost his life.
When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health talk of
fairness and compassion, why is the Prime Minister forcing his
members to vote against their conscience, to vote against Robert
and to vote against victims like him?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is essential that when tragedies such as Robert's happen we as
a country provide the finest possible medical care and a health
care system that can respond to his needs. That is why cash
compensation paid by governments for those harmed without fault
should be avoided.
The hon. member for Macleod agreed with that when he said last
Thursday “I accept that governments should not pay cash
compensation to people who are injured when there is no fault”.
I urge the member to consider the position of his colleague.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I appeal to Liberal backbenchers to reach deep into
their hearts to take a stand—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for York—South Weston.
Mr. John Nunziata: —to help sick and dying fellow
Canadians.
Earlier the Minister of Health referred to the ribbon. I want
to say to the Minister of Health that the ribbon which people are
wearing represents justice and fairness for all innocent victims
of hepatitis C.
1500
I want to ask the minister, will he have the courage to wear
this ribbon later today?
[Editor's Note: Mr. Nunziata crossed the floor and placed a
ribbon on the Minister of Health's desk]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I urge all hon. members in the name of
decorum in the House to abstain from such antics in the future. I
would appeal that this type of thing not occur again.
1505
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to answer the question because for four weeks of House
sittings I have stood in my place and I have responded to
questions from every corner of this House on a matter of great
difficulty.
I have answered those questions to the best of my ability and I
avoided being partisan. I avoided being cheap. I avoided
emotion.
What we just saw after four weeks of questions and debate
debased the House of Commons, debased this process and brought
the member into disgrace. He should be ashamed of himself.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1510
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—ELIMINATION OF POVERTY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendent.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your efforts and the challenges you have in the House.
I gain appreciation for your position more and more all the
time.
To carry on with my speech regarding the Bloc motion, I make
reference to a publicity stunt we saw in the House some days back
by a Bloc MP who carried his chair out of the House to protest
government ineffectiveness in addressing child poverty and the
gap between rich and poor. It is interesting that the Bloc comes
back with this motion which proposes greater government
intervention to address these problems.
However, let us continue to use this illustration or analogy
with the chair. We do not need more politicians establishing
programs which tell families what kind of, for example, chair
they should have, which is what the Bloc seems to be proposing.
Rather, this decision should be left to parents. Give them back
some of the resources they had so that they may decide what kind
and what size of chair they need.
The chair that a child needs is best provided for and decided on
by parents. Parents and not government know what kind and size
of chair their children need as they grow up. Going from that
first chair with the hole in the middle, through the high chair,
the stool up to a student's desk, parents are in the best
position to make these decisions because they are closest to the
children.
Parents know when to make the changes, big governments do not.
Big government programs which promote a one size fits all
approach serve to diminish the value of the individual and cost
more than the benefit they deliver. The responsiveness of
government is so slow and delivers a one size fits all solution
that it never brings out the best of the individual.
One of the many Reform proposals to assist the family refers to
changes to the negative tax treatment of families. We would
extend the child care deduction to all parents, including those
who care for their children at home, and put this decision in the
hands of those closest to their children. Let the parents decide
how to raise their children. It seems to make sense. We would
increase the spousal amount to level the playing field for
parents who choose to stay at home to look after their children
and help their families meet the needs of this demanding time we
all live in.
Why is this a good idea? Research indicates this is good for
children. Polls indicate this is something parents intrinsically
know and want. I refer to some polls.
In 1997 a research project done by the National Foundation of
Family Research and Education, NFFRE, performed a comprehensive
meta-analysis of current research on child development. According
to NFFRE the core findings from this meta-analysis are that
regular non-parental care for more than 20 hours per week has an
unmistakably negative effect on social and emotional development,
behaviour adjustment and the emotional bonding of young children
to their parents. In addition, the report stated parental care
consistently and significantly outperformed regular non-parental
care for children prior to five years of age.
This high integrity research makes it clear that the best
interests of infants and preschool children are served when they
are in full time parent care.
For many of us this is a “no brainer”, yet current government
policies give tax incentives to institutionalized care but none
to parental care. It seems upside down to me. It sends a
message to parents that the work they are doing has no value.
That is very destructive.
1515
Clearly, parent and family time is important and governments
need to respect this if we are to preserve the health and
happiness of our homes.
To continue with more poll information and studies that have
been done, parents want to make families a priority. I am
referring to a national poll conducted by a research firm known
as Compass Inc. Fully 94% in this national poll of Canadians
identified that lack of time spent with offspring has, at least,
a somewhat serious stress on family life.
In 1991 a cross-Canada poll conducted by Decima Research was the
most comprehensive poll ever taken of Canadian women. Women were
asked: “If you had the choice, would you stay at home to raise
your children or work outside your home and use day care?” Not
surprisingly, 70% said they would rather stay at home.
In 1997, NFFRE submitted to the Government of Ontario a study it
was contracted to do regarding child care. By more than a 10 to
1 margin, 92% of Ontarians said it is preferable for a young
child to be at home with a parent than to be in institutionalized
day care. They do not see taxpayer funded government programs as
being the answer for child care or the child poverty question.
Of parents who had put their children in non-parental care, 77%
in this same study indicated they would have preferred to have
provided parental care in retrospect.
Let me be clear. No one is proposing that parents have to stay
at home to raise their children. That is not what I am saying.
But surely the government should not penalize them when they do
and that is the reality we are living with today. This is doubly
tragic when the polls underline the fact that parents want to
stay at home and the research indicates that it is a good idea
for the health of the child. Why does our government policy so
stringently work against something the people want, which makes
so much sense?
Reform wants parents to be allowed to make the choice which best
meets the needs of their family without tax unfairness.
Unfortunately the government does not seem to get it. In the
last budget, for example, it increased the inequity stay-home
parents suffer by raising the child care expense deduction by
35%, refusing to recognize any value for stay-home parents. It
is tragic. It is actually destructive. It works against
families and some children.
I would like to point out that the Bloc motion deals with child
poverty in terms of material wealth. As I have indicated, what
many Reformers are concerned about is another form of poverty
which many children are suffering, the poverty of lack of time
with their parents, the lack of a consistent caregiver. I could
quote studies of the damage that does and the psychosis that
develops in children when caregivers are constantly changed.
Government has done much to add to this kind of poverty by the
mega-government, tax and spend, government will fix everything
philosophy that this motion subscribes to. We need to focus on
the well-being of the family and the whole child within the
family; not just the material child, but the child who needs to
spend time with their parents; not just the child alone, but the
child and the family.
Strong families pass on our culture, language, heritage and
values. Strong families train future citizens. In this context
let us get it right and always remember that governments make
poor parents, but strong Canadian families create good
governments.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the 1996 national longitudinal survey on the health of children
reported that some 25% of all children in Canada have some sort
of health, educational or social problem. The member is quite
right when he identifies the need for us to invest in children.
He talked about the possibility of extending the child care
expense deduction to families who provide care in the home to
preschool children and the possibility of a caregiver tax credit
which would provide a similar benefit.
1520
There is a bill coming forward on Thursday which deals with
splitting income between spouses. There are many ways to deliver
these kinds of things.
The member did not touch on probably one of the single largest
reasons there is child poverty in Canada and that has to do with
the breakdown of the Canadian family. The Vanier Institute
reported that lone parent families account for about 12% of all
families, but they also account for about 46% of all children
living in poverty. I think the numbers are quite prevalent.
It is interesting to note that we talk a lot about child poverty
when in fact the real issue is family poverty. Child poverty is
a political term. Family poverty is the reality. The family is
in crisis in Canada with a 30% divorce rate and over a million
common-law relationships which break down 50% more than married
relationships. This is leading to broken families and creating a
most dangerous environment for our children.
I ask the member whether he has any comments about this other
important dimension concerning the manufacture of poverty in
Canada by the breakdown of the family.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
of the hon. member across the way. I agree that the focus on
child poverty is misplaced. We are better to focus on the
situation of the Canadian family overall if we really want to
improve the lot of children. They are not disembodied entities.
They are part of families.
Certainly the Reform Party shares the concern about the stresses
of the economy on families. It is part of the reason that we see
one of our critical mandates as being one of job creation. The
head of the family, whoever it may be, must be able to find a
job. We do not see increased government spending as the road to
job creation, but lowering taxes and decreasing the bureaucracy
on many of those small business people and others who provide
jobs for people. That is the road to a healthier economy which
in turn will benefit the children within these families.
I want to make one other point that we sometimes gloss over on
this debate about the tax credit and recognition that is given to
institutionalized care, but not to those who choose to care for
their families at home. More critical than the financial impact
on these families is the subtle message that this sends to them
if they choose to stay at home and care for their children.
There are some sacrifices involved in that. I realize not
everybody wants to do it. However, if they choose to do it the
message they are getting from the policies we have today is that
there is absolutely no value in it. The government will not
recognize it.
When we send these subtle messages they serve to undermine the
strength of the families and they serve, in part, to cause some
of the family breakdown we have had. That is why I think it is
so critical that we not only worry about the financial impacts,
but the message we are sending as far as the value of the
parent-child bond.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions during
question period and I would now ask for unanimous consent to
have this motion made votable.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Repentigny has asked that this motion be made votable. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Reform member who spoke to the motion and
refused to make it votable.
In view of the lack of compassion shown by Liberal members who
have turned us down four or five times today and their lack of
compassion with regard to compensation for victims of hepatitis
C, I would like to ask a question of my Reform colleague who is
telling us how to raise our children after his colleague told us
there were too many divorces.
Are these sterile, senseless, pointless discussions not proof
enough it is necessary and urgent to set up a parliamentary
committee to discuss the gap between rich and poor in the
context of globalization, in a less partisan and more thoughtful
manner?
1525
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I have one correction to
make. I did not vote no. It was the member across the way. I
am always supportive of free votes in this House. I recognized
the question, so I wanted to clarify that.
As far as the parliamentary committee is concerned, these things
cost a lot of money. I know, as do many hon. members, that there
are some straightforward things we can do to correct current
policy, things that do not cost anything, that can save taxpayers
and that can impact immediately the family and the children in a
positive way without incurring more taxpayers' money on more
committees and that type of thing.
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you
would allow me, first, as a good Liberal, I would ask for
permission to share my time with my colleague, the member for
Abitibi.
Our opposition colleagues do not seem to recognize the
government's commitment or its previous record of improving the
economy and giving our young people more job opportunities.
As we said in our initial action plan for renewing the
federation, entitled “Creating Opportunity” and repeated in the
document “Securing our Future Together”, the future belongs to
societies that have a dynamic economy, that look after public
health, that promote child development and that invest in
knowledge, education and innovation.
The Government of Canada has clearly indicated that these are
our values and priorities. Moreover, we are making progress in
each of these sectors. My colleagues have already outlined some
of our outstanding achievements in this regard, our exceptional
results in putting our fiscal house in order and our increased
investments in health care and in programs designed to reduce
child poverty.
My remarks will then focus first and foremost on the efforts
made to help Canadians acquire the skills and knowledge that
they will need to support competition in an ever changing world.
We should not delude ourselves; the world is changing very
rapidly.
The technological revolution, the information society and the
world economy are modern realities that go beyond our borders
and over which we have no control as a country.
Canada's economic opportunities increasingly depend on the
skills and strengths of our labour force. As well, our quality
of life depends on our ability to think, innovate and create in
a world transformed by information and technology.
Those who question this fundamental fact in the new economy only
have to look at the present job situation.
Since 1981, the number of jobs for Canadians with only a high
school diploma has fallen by 2 million, while the number of jobs
requiring more advanced skills has risen by more than 5 million.
Obviously, Canadians with higher education levels have better
job opportunities, better job security and higher-paid jobs. The
unemployment level for people without a high school diploma
stands at 15%, while it is only 5% for university graduates.
Training will help to reduce the gap between these two groups.
This is why the cornerstone of the new Canada opportunities
strategy is the Canada millennium scholarship program.
I want to point out that more than 100,000 scholarships, funded
through an initial endowment of $2.5 billion, will be granted
each year to full—and part-time students during the first 10
years of the next millennium.
The Canada millennium scholarship program will invest in the
knowledge and creativity of young Canadian and improve their
access to post-secondary education. The scholarships will average
$3,000 a year per student.
Whether they choose to attend a cegep, a community college, a
professional or technical institution or a university, students
will be eligible to receive up to $15,000 over a four-year period
to complete their education and get a diploma or a certificate.
The Canada opportunities strategy will help Canadians still in
school or already in the workforce to increase their knowledge
and their skills in order to improve their career opportunities.
1530
The number of adults who choose to go back to school full time
is three times higher than it was 20 years ago. Most of them
have made that decision because of work related reasons. The
strategy will make this easier for a greater number of people.
Starting on January 1, 1999, Canadians will be allowed to
withdraw funds from their RRSPs tax free in order to go back to
school.
For those who have completed their education but are facing
financial difficulties and find it hard to pay back their
student loans, the Canadian opportunities strategy provides for
more flexibility as well as interest relief.
Interest relief on Canada student loans means that the Canadian
government will make interest payments for up to 30 months after
the completion of the student's education. The income threshold
to qualify for relief is $20,460.
Families are encouraged to save a little bit of money each month
for their children's education. The Canada education savings
grant will help them. Families that contribute to a registered
education savings plan will receive a 20% grant from the
Canadian government for the first $2,000 in contributions. Small
savings today could pave the way to a brilliant future in
post-secondary education.
All these measures will bring about sustainable and meaningful
improvements and will be a very effective and tangible way to
fight poverty.
The Canadian opportunities strategy will be a great contribution
to the fight against poverty.
The strategy will make post-secondary education more accessible
by helping needy students overcome the problem of higher
education costs. We will be giving more help to students who
have to support dependents, to part-time students and to those
who conduct advanced research or go pursue graduate studies
We will help students pay back their student loans. We will help
families save money for their children's education. We will
encourage employers to hire young people, and we will help a
greater number of students take advantage of information
technologies.
Our Canadian opportunities strategy introduced in the last
budget and our employment insurance system are two good examples
of how the federal government devotes its energy to helping
Canadians adjust to changes on the job market in the 1990s and
take advantage of opportunities in the new economy.
Our goal is to create more opportunities for Canadians, and
young Canadians in particular, to succeed in the new knowledge
based economy. I therefore urge the hon. members to recognize
the action taken by this government to help reduce the income
spread between Canadians and fight poverty.
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said that those who build the
future are the ones who do something, not those who complain
about how it should have been done.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to direct my question and comments to the hon. member
who recycles speeches on the budget.
I will first remind him of a few statistics, then I will have a
very simple question to ask him.
According to the National Council of Welfare, there were 900,000
children living in poverty in 1989. When the Liberals took
office in 1993, there were 1.4 million of them. In 1996, after
three years of Liberal government, the number had risen to 1.5
million.
I need not read today's motion over, but I listened carefully to
what the hon. member said and I do not think he got the point.
So, my simple question is the following. What should we be
discussing in this House today?
Hon. Gilbert Normand: Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about
the sharing of wealth. I must tell the member opposite that,
personally, before entering the political arena, I worked in the
area of social development. I was then one of the organizers of
the summit that is taking place right now in Quebec City and I
certainly know what I am talking about.
The sharing of wealth is essential to the fight against poverty
and it is the federal government's responsibility. However, the
federal government is not solely responsible for everything that
goes on in the community. There are other levels of government,
and we want to work with them, especially the Quebec government.
I can even tell the member that I personally asked the organizer
of the summit that is taking place at this very moment in Quebec
City if the federal government could participate in this summit,
but he refused.
1535
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
provinces have so many problems, it is because of the cuts in
transfer payments that they have been subjected to for several
years. The government has imposed these cuts on all the
provinces.
I would like to ask the member opposite—his riding must
resemble any other riding—if, in his riding, there are soup
kitchens and shelters for poor people. Have their numbers not
increased over the last few years? Does he not feel that wealth
is not distributed equally everywhere?
Maybe the member could comment on that, unless his riding is so
wealthy that people there do not need these services.
Hon. Gilbert Normand: Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about wealth
and poverty. I will simply say that in my riding of
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet, of which I am very proud,
people have decided to take control of their own destiny.
The fact that people decide to take control of their own destiny
in our communities often leads to success. The role of
governments, including ours, is to help communities. I always
tell my constituents to bring forward their projects and that we
will be there to help them and to support their development.
That is why things are going well in the riding of
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet. Yes, there are soup
kitchens, but I can tell you that people in that riding have
taken control of their own destiny. They want to develop and
they want to broaden their horizons because a growing number of
our industries compete in international markets.
It is precisely by helping them do that that we fight poverty.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, in his
answer to a question put by the hon. member for Laurentides, we
got a slight hint that the hon. member for
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet was beginning to understand
what we are talking about.
I will gladly read to him the motion before the House, because
he has not read it. He talked about a lot of things, but forgot
the subject of our debate today. The motion is as follows:
That this House reiterate the 1989 commitment to eliminating
child poverty by the year 2000, urge the government to act, and
strike an all-party Special Parliamentary Committee—
We are not blaming anyone here. We just wanted to address this
issue and we did not need the Liberal budget to do so.
Is the member in favour of striking an all-party committee to
discuss the gap between the rich and the poor in this era of
globalization?
Hon. Gilbert Normand: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member,
I would point out that I have read the motion. I do not think
that the federal government can, all by itself, fight poverty. A
people's summit would be far better than any parliamentary
committee.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not the
first time I have risen in this Parliament to speak on poverty.
The Bloc Quebecois' motion reads as follows:
(1) despite the economic growth of recent years, the gap between
rich and poor continues to widen;
We all know that most Canadian and Quebec women spend at least
part of their life at home full time. Nearly half of them are
not in the labour market and fewer than half of those who have
preschool children have a paid full time job.
Canadian and Quebec parents seem to have the best of intentions
about sharing the job of raising children. However, for better
or for worse, the job of raising them still falls to women.
Genetically speaking, there is nothing that says women should
look after the home. However, in practice they are the ones to
look after most of the domestic duties. That is why I am
talking about women at home, which means in fact women at home
raising children.
In Canada and Quebec, women at home work full time and even do
overtime.
Studies have shown they work between 41 and 60 hours a week,
according to the number and age of their children.
Women at home are on duty 24 hours a day seven days a week. See
if you can come with a more demanding job. This is our focus in
the discussion on poverty. We have to start with the family.
We also know that women at home work essentially in the home.
Their husbands, children and other members of the family benefit
most directly from their work.
However, others benefit as well. This is why paying women at
home would stimulate the economy. They would be spending the
money for essentials such as more appropriate food and more long
lasting clothing.
1540
Employers also take advantage of homemakers in other areas.
Since women manage the home and take care of the other family
members, it becomes easier for the husband to dedicate himself
totally to a paid, full time job outside the home. I see the
opposition before me today and the member for Repentigny smiling
because I am talking about paying stay-at-home women. We are
talking about families and children. I can say that, if women
still stayed at home to look after their children, there would
be less poverty.
Finally, if we take a more general perspective, homemakers are
responsible for the future to the extent that they take care of
the next generation.
To carry on from one generation to the next, we need a dynamic
and healthy population. What exact value must be placed on the
work of these women who are on duty 24 hours a day to do
everything in the home? According to some estimates, housework
would amount to between 35% and 40% of Canada's GDP, which
represents at least $136 billion in Canadian dollars. This is a
significant amount, but stay-at-home women have no access to this
money to help their children get out of poverty.
Unlike other workers in our society, homemakers do not receive a
salary. And because they are not paid, they do not have annual
leave, employment insurance and compensation for accidents,
disabilities or illnesses. What is more serious in the long term
is that they do not have a pension plan.
Yet, like all other workers, homemakers eventually reach
retirement age.
It is unacceptable that stay-at-home women have to face financial
insecurity throughout their lives, even in their retirement
years, after spending so many years working for the well-being of
their families and of society as a whole.
Mothers often decide to go and work in mediocre conditions, and
this is when we start talking about poverty. Women who have
large families and who work for $3 or $4 an hour are not getting
a decent salary. Some stay at home to raise children and do all
the related chores. For those who work outside the home, it is
extra work, since they must do household chores in addition to
going to work, sometimes for $3, $4 or $5 per hour for washing
floors.
Mothers belong to one of two groups: working mothers and mothers
who stay at home.
Even these expressions have a certain connotation. If some women
are working mothers, what is a mother who stays home? If there
are full time mothers, does it mean that those who have a career
outside the home are only part time mothers?
Women at home, whether they are married or not, do not get any
personal benefit from the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec
Pension Plan. Proposals to share pension credits between spouses
are fine, but they do not take into account the value of the
work performed by women at home, since the couple's total
pension is not increased.
In 1970, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women concluded
that women who stay at home produce as many goods and services
as those who are gainfully employed, and that if they were paid,
it could help children and eliminate poverty in certain regions
of Quebec and Canada.
We can re-examine our approach and create legislation that is,
above all, fair to families, and gives parents the primary
responsibility and the freedom to select the formula they judge
is best for rearing their children.
The following are some reflections on the legal aspects. The
Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every individual has
an equal right to protection and benefit under the law, without
discrimination. The present day taxation legislation does not
afford equal treatment to mothers. Some get special treatment
while others do not, which is contrary to the democratic
principles of equal opportunity.
If we look at the House Debates from 1983, the NDP member for
Kamloops said he would continue to call upon the minister to
reform the taxation system so as to treat all family situations
equally. What we need is a system which takes into consideration
all of the costs and efforts involved in raising children,
regardless of marital status or income level, a system which
gives women who choose to stay at home the same status and
recognition as those who are in the work force.
In 1984, a national survey reported that 81% of Canadians were
in favour of stay-at-home parents being included in the Canada and
Quebec pension plans. But they still are not entitled to this
pension.
1545
I say to people, I say to members from every party in this
House: Let us work together, let us try to find a solution to
pay a salary to mothers who stay at home, to help children and
their families escape poverty.
Nowadays when we talk about poverty, we talk a lot about
programs, all kinds of federal and provincial programs. The
problem with the Bloc's motion as it stands is that it suggests
a parliamentary committee. I would prefer a royal commission
that would study poverty and the possibility of paying a salary
to women at home, mothers who stay at home to raise one or more
children.
I want to thank everybody in the House today and I wish all the
best to women.
I also say to men who want to help us to write their MPs. They
do not need a stamp. All they have to do is write a letter to
their MP suggesting that a royal commission look into how to
help families escape poverty. All they have to do is get in
touch with their MP, regardless of his or her party, to get
their message across. Even if it takes months, we have to keep
trying. We must win for the sake of the men and women who stay
at home to raise their children, and help them break the cycle
of poverty.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to remind the member for Abitibi that there is no such thing as
a part-time mother or father. When we become a mother or a father
it is for life. We are and always will be there no matter what.
I am a mother. I am a single mother. Is the member telling me
all mothers should stay at home and should be paid to stay at
home? Is the member telling us his government is willing to pay
women who stay home to raise their children?
I would like the member for Abitibi to answer with an
unequivocal yes.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty hearing the
hon. member's question. In the context of this Bloc motion on
poverty, let me go back to the Quebec Liberal minister who said
in 1994 that we should reform the whole of society, bring in a
new guaranteed income supplement, abolish welfare and certain
other programs, and take the money and invest it.
Coming back to the hon. member's question dealing with poverty,
I remember that in October 1997, the Quebec government got a
booby prize for its performance against poverty. This prize was
awarded last October at a gala in Alma. I have this all here in
my notes.
A coalition of community groups from the whole area met in Alma
and awarded the booby prize for the fight against poverty to the
Quebec government and Lucien Bouchard, and that happened on his
own turf. We should start by finding solutions at home.
They talked about world-wide poverty. Let us talk about poverty
at the provincial level and about family and child poverty. Why
did the Quebec government get this booby prize in Alma, in the
riding of the member who took his chair out of the House? Think
about that, and start by cleaning up your own backyard.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to what the member opposite said just now. First
of all, it is important that it be said, because there is a lot
of confusion. I did not clearly understand where he was headed
with the idea that women should go back to staying at home.
Like my colleague, the member for Laurentides, I find it
offensive when people speak this way. I am expecting, I am
going to have children, and I do not necessarily want to stay at
home.
I will give the member a chance, however. Perhaps he meant the
unseen work done by women. If he recognizes unseen work, I urge
him officially to speak to the Minister of Finance about seniors
benefits. But he is speaking about poverty. Does he agree with
the idea of a committee, yes or no?
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to reply to the
Bloc Quebecois motion calling for a parliamentary committee.
This is incorrect. What is needed is a royal commission on
poverty in Canada, on paying a salary to women who stay at home,
not just a small parliamentary committee that will visit towns
and cities designated by members, or a parliamentary committee
that will do its work behind closed doors in the House of
Commons and conduct hearings all over the place. They cannot
cover all the towns and villages in Quebec, all the major
regions.
1550
I prefer a royal commission. I made it clear in my speech that
there are two categories of mother: those who work and those
who stay at home full time. These expressions are emotionally
charged. If certain women are working mothers, what is a woman
who does not work?
If there are full time mothers, that means that those who work
outside the home are part time mothers only. There is nothing
wrong with women working. It is an honour for a woman to work,
but I can guarantee you that, rather than work for $7.40 an
hour, 40 hours a week, many women would stay at home to raise
their children.
There would be less poverty. Right now, in Lac-Saint-Jean,
Quebec, women are washing floors for $3, $4 or $5 an hour. What
we want is a royal commission.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Rosemont.
I am very pleased to take the floor today in support on my
party's motion. If members read the motion carefully, they will
realize that it raises fundamental questions.
As elected representatives, parliamentarians and democrats, it
is our duty to deal very seriously with fundamental issues such
as poverty, precisely because of the global phenomenon of the
gap between rich and poor that is growing wider and wider
despite the prosperity Canada and many countries are
experiencing right now.
On the eve of a new millenium and in the context of market
globalization, all these issues have become fundamental stakes
in philosophical debates in our society and political life.
The issues and challenges which my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean
raised on April 20 deserve more serious consideration.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is pursuing this debate today by
calling on members of all stripes to discuss and find different
approaches to these problems and to the changes flowing from
globalization, a process that sometimes goes much too fast and
creates problems such as greater social disparity.
Since it is very difficult to foresee with any degree of
accuracy the impact of globalization, the Bloc Quebecois agrees
with the idea of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean that we should
strike a parliamentary committee.
It is important to have an in-depth discussion. The Bloc
Quebecois thinks that this could help us better understand the
impact of globalization.
The task my party and I are ready to undertake is not easy, but
it is very exciting.
Our whole society must rise to meet the challenge of
globalization. As a responsible political party, the Bloc
Quebecois has chosen to publicly launch this debate in the House
of Commons.
Before going further, let us examine what globalization really
means. How can it be defined? According to the International
Monetary Fund, the IMF, which brings together 182 members
states, globalization is:
Why have so many governments opened up, willingly or not, to the
world economy?
Because world trade can benefit all the countries that take part
in it.
Hence, the countries are changing their economic practices and
specializing in areas where, comparatively, they have an edge.
They also trade with other countries, which increases their
standard of living compared to the situation they would find
themselves in if they had to produce all the products they need.
That being said, world trade often has a tremendous impact of
the redistribution of income within a country, so that there
could be winners and losers. In order to try to alleviate the
problems associated with globalization, it is important to
implement compensation and adjustment programs.
This is why it was agreed that a multilateral investment
agreement should be negotiated under the auspices of the OECD,
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
1555
Even though the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle behind the
MAI, which is designed to clarify the rules in the area of
investment, thereby promoting freer investments and freer trade
in general, the agreement, in its present form, contains
significant flaws that will have to be addressed if the
government wants to have not only the support of the Bloc
Quebecois, but also the support of Quebec.
As international cooperation critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I
deplore the fact that the majority of countries, particularly
developing countries, were excluded from the negotiations, which
will end today, because they took place within the context of
the OECD.
It is unacceptable that only 29 member countries, the wealthiest
in the world, can have their say and not the others.
The Bloc Quebecois would rather see these negotiations being
pursued within the context of the World Trade Organization.
As of October 22, 1997, 132 countries were members of the WTO,
and 34 countries and seven organizations had observer status.
That means that a larger number of countries affected by such an
agreement would have the opportunity to express their views
about the agreement at the development stage.
It is obvious that the federal government, through the Minister
for International Cooperation, seems more and more to enjoy
thumbing its nose at developing countries and non- governmental
organizations.
I want to warn the government opposite. The globalization of
markets and the MAI will not solve every problem on the planet.
As a matter of fact, since the present government has taken
office, we have been witnessing an important change not only in
its attitude toward development assistance, but also in its
attitude toward the role of the state with regard to world
misery. The United Nations world report on human development
says that inequalities are growing everywhere. While the poorest
20% of the population on the planet shared 2.3% of the world
income in 1960, their share barely reaches 1.1% today.
Meanwhile, the wealthiest 20% of the population have become even
wealthier. Their share went from 70% in 1960 to 86% today.
In Africa, incomes have dropped by 30% in just a few years. Some
countries are becoming even poorer while others are slowly
getting back on the road to economic growth.
This slow change is very disturbing and is happening everywhere.
In 1989, there were 3.5 million people living in poverty in
Canada. In 1995, this number went up to 5.1 million, a 45 %
increase. During that same period, the number of poor children
rose by 54 %, from 934,000 to 1,441,000 between 1989 and 1995.
In my riding alone, the Laurentides, soup kitchens, community
groceries and other organizations of this type are mushrooming.
I recently attended the opening of the Club des petits
déjeuners, an organization that provides breakfasts for young
children in schools in my riding, children who do not eat
breakfast in the morning because their parents cannot afford it.
These associations are still necessary in my riding, which
undoubtedly indicates an increasing level of poverty in my
riding.
Considering these dismal statistics, how can we explain that
Canada went from fifth to eleventh place among OECD countries
for development aid expenses?
According to the United Nations, developed countries such as
Canada should allocate at least 0.7 % of their gross national
product to development aid. Since the fiscal year 1993-94, the
federal government has literally axed the budget envelope for
international assistance by taking more than $617 million out of
it, which means that it allocates only 0.29 % of the gross
national product to this purpose in 1997-98.
By acting in this way, Canada is evading its international
responsibilities towards the poorest in the world and is doing
nothing to reduce the gap between rich and poor countries.
The government could act otherwise, but it will not. It would
rather spend millions of dollars, among other things, on buying
new submarines.
1600
In light of these facts, it is clear that, for the federal
government, the problem is not one of means, but one of
priorities.
The debate has now started and the federal government has the
duty to seriously consider the Bloc Quebecois motion. This is
for the well-being of the people of Quebec, of Canada and of the
entire world.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have one
comment and one question for the member for Laurentides.
For months now, the member has been traveling across her riding
and the province of Quebec telling people she represents the
Parti Quebecois and Quebeckers in Ottawa. Lately we saw several
of them playing Santa Claus in Quebec, distributing cheques on
behalf of the Quebec government. They did not give them to poor
families, but to rich ones.
Does the member know why in October 1997, the Groupe de
solidarité populaire du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean gave the golden
raspberry award for poverty to the government of Lucien Bouchard
for being the one institution which had contributed the most to
increasing poverty among Quebeckers?
Earlier I was listening to the member speak about globalization
and all the other countries in the world.
Could the hon. member tell me right now whether a royal
commission on poverty or on remuneration for homemakers would
not be better than a parliamentary committee operating behind
closed doors?
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, those who have nothing to say
say stupid things. If the federal government had not cut
transfer payments to the provinces so drastically, the provinces
might not have so many problems.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the member for Abitibi is a conscientious and honest man, he
should stand up and repeat the derogatory comments he made to my
colleague from Laurentides.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is not a point of
order. The member for Laurentides.
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, if you could ask him to be quiet
and listen, it would be interesting, because I do not think he
even knows the difference between a royal commission and a
parliamentary committee.
So, I am talking about international aid because it is important
for a developed country like Canada to help on the international
scene. But we still see poverty in our ridings. If the
government took the money in the employment insurance fund—there
will soon be $20 billion—and transferred it to the provinces, we
would solve our problems at home.
I even heard the member for Abitibi—and I am amazed that we
have such parliamentarians—say that social assistance had to be
cut. Really. It is women with children who are suffering for
the most part and who receive social assistance. Yes, programs
must be set up for them and they must return to the labour
market.
He however is talking about women remaining at home and being
paid to do so. Oh, boy. That makes no sense.
I think the members of the Liberal Party should look at the
motion today, support it and vote with us in favour of a
parliamentary committee.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again
I rise with pride to speak on this motion. It is a very important
motion. The whole question of the gap between the rich and the
poor which we see increasing daily is very important.
1605
I would like to comment on the remark made by the member which I
agree with. Governments have to get their priorities straight if
we are going to deal with this issue. Lots of times we see
priorities being made and moneys being directed in the wrong
direction.
I was also concerned about remarks made by the hon. member for
Abitibi with respect to women being paid to stay at home. Unless
I was misreading it, I got the impression that he felt it was
exclusively women who would be working at home. I hasten to
point out that today many men head single parent families. In
two parent families many men choose to stay home to look after
their children and to attend to the concerns of the home.
It is important that we speak about families and that we be
careful that we do not discriminate against women with respect to
roles and responsibilities in the family.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his
support. I totally agree with him. We cannot discriminate. It
is important for the women who choose to be at home. I think as
many men as women are responsible for child care. I do not know
why we would discriminate.
I again call for support. We are not asking for the moon. We
simply want a parliamentary committee to look at this whole
issue. It is good for all parties. It is non-partisan and it
would serve the needs of this fine country they keep bragging
about—Canada and its provinces.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find it hard
to rise in this House after hearing such a disgraceful and
demagogic speech from the hon. member for Abitibi, but I will
still exercise my right to speak.
First of all, I would to point out that, last week, the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Jean made quite an impression when he took
his seat out of the House. He did so to stress the social
inequities that keep increasing despite major improvements to
our economic performance. He walked out with his chair to
trigger a larger debate on what it means to sit in the House of
Commons.
What political power can we use to reduce the gap between the
rich and the poor? As elected representatives, are we not the
first ones to be asked this question?
Yes, I think so, which is why I am glad today to speak on the
impact of the globalization of markets and the proliferation of
international agreements on the sovereignty of states and,
therefore, the real powers we as elected representatives have in
this House.
We have to have this debate here, because it deals with an issue
that directly concerns all of us. We are here to represent the
people who have elected us democratically. Therefore, every time
we lose some of our power, some of our authority as legislators,
it reduces the ability of our fellow citizens to shape their
collective future, according to their own values. This is why I
support the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who wants to see this
debate go beyond the walls of the House of Commons.
After I was elected to this House, it did not take long for me
to notice how globalization has an enormous impact on the work
we do here, in Ottawa.
My colleagues have already talked about its impact on many major
issues. There is certainly an area in which the effects of
globalization on national democracies cannot be denied, namely
the environment.
Indeed, through the past generations, the ability of the human
race to modify the world ecosystem has increased dramatically.
This is due to our exploding population and our rapid
technological progress. For instance, economic activity
throughout the word is more than 20 times what it was in 1900.
Consequently, many human activities are exhausting the planet's
non-renewable resources.
Every day, our excessive production and consumption cause the
extinction of at least 100 different species of plants and
animals.
Needless to say, this worrisome problem goes beyond national
borders. We must find ways to solve it that are as international
as the nature of this challenge.
Every year, we dump in the atmosphere billions of tons of CO2,
the product of our energy consumption, and we use over 40% of
the planet's organic matter.
1610
In one year we burn as much fossil fuel as the earth was able to
produce in around one million years. Poverty and misery are
still rampant around the world.
The city of Montreal, where I live, is more and more frequently
smothered in smog. Many Montrealers are getting organized to
find solutions to this problem which affects our quality of
life, but they will not be able to do it alone because half of
this pollution comes from our neighbours in Ontario and New
England.
Still they refuse to be defeated by the scale of the problem.
Together we must find solutions to meet the challenges we face
due to the deterioration of our environment and the
multiplication of substances dangerous to human health. To do so
we cannot keep our eyes on the short term. What is needed is a
fundamental change in the way we make decisions at every level
of society.
We must start integrating environmental concerns in the everyday
decisions we make as individuals, managers and lawmakers.
Let us not fool ourselves: the precarious condition of our
environment is the result of nearly two centuries of abuse.
There is no easy solution. We can expect more crises, more
environmental accidents.
What is needed is for the ecological balance, which has been
gradually destroyed over the course of centuries, and
particularly over the past century, to be restored.
This is a long term undertaking, which will require the
commitment of each and every one of us, from the
various governments down to the last individual and, above all,
a serious response to the environmental challenge which will lay
our present lifestyle open to question.
Indeed, the environmental issue is more than just pollution, the
build-up of domestic and chemical waste or land use management.
These are just symptoms of a larger problem, and that is mainly
the way we approach our relationships, define our prosperity and
select a lifestyle.
In this respect, we are witnessing a real revolution in
attitudes. Recent polls, open-line programs, radio hot-lines and
television reports all agree. My fellow citizens, and young
people in particular, agree on the value they put on their
quality of life as compared with the mere accumulation of
consumer goods.
They choose health over the pursuit of economic expansion at all
cost. These new values are priorities. They should be used as
the basis for the political will to allocate sufficient
resources to the preservation of our environment, which we all
care about.
It is paradoxical that this government repeatedly drew upon this
widely held public opinion to finally come up short in
terms of a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and protect the
collective scientific tools used to assess our environmental
situation.
This government cannot be satisfied with reacting to
environmental crises. Never has the government developed a
long term action plan which takes into account the collective
diversity of the territory for which it is responsible.
Never has the government seriously considered where it wanted to
be in five, ten or more years from now. In order to have a
political will, governments must be able to set out the goals
they wish to achieve through the action they take.
Unfortunately, for the moment, we have to express our concern
about this government's lack of vision with regard to
environmental issues in today's context.
Canada's failure in the area of greenhouse gases reduction says
a lot about that. Only Quebec is on the way to meeting its
international commitments in this regard. How can the federal
government limit itself to feeble symbolic and optional measures
to reach these ambitious targets when it is obvious they will
lead nowhere unless they are accompanied by active measures and
research budgets. It so happens the Liberal government, that
claims to be concerned about the environment, has a budget for
the reduction of greenhouse gases that is 10 times less per
capita than that of our neighbours to the south.
Yet the situation is so alarming that many predict that
environmental protection will become the main public concern in
the near future.
However, during the same year, the same 150 countries that met
in Kyoto, Japan, to agree on international targets for the
reduction of greenhouse gases negotiated the multilateral
agreement on investment, which is designed to reduce investment
barriers.
1615
These dual reduction targets are crucial to the preservation of
our quality of life. But do the countries sitting at the table
have the necessary powers to meet all these commitments? How can
the globalization of markets affect our ability to respond to
environmental threats? Which agreement will have precedence over
the others in case of conflict? That question remains unanswered
here, in Canada.
So far, the only general exception contained in the MAI relates
to national security issues and law enforcement. There is no
reference to important international agreements such as the
Kyoto agreement or the Montreal protocol on CFCs.
That is why, before giving our final approval for this
agreement, we want the right of countries to take or maintain
environmental protection measures to be explicitly preserved.
In conclusion, like all those around me in this House, I am
concerned about the state of our society and our environment in
the next 20 or 30 years. If we can agree on the principles of
sustainable development that I just set out, we must promote
these principles abroad both in trade and environmental
negotiations. That is the role I have set for myself as elected
representative of the people of Rosemont, and I will use all the
means available to me to fulfil that role.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a comment and ask a question. I listened carefully to the
hon. member for Rosemont, who made a very good speech. He
started by saying I was a demagogue, an accusation I find
strange and cannot accept.
I learned how to read when I was very young, and I did read in a
major newspaper in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, on October 31,
1997, a report that said: The fight against poverty: Quebec gets
a booby prize. The Quebec government was awarded this booby
prize in Alma, during a citizens solidarity gala in
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.
Other members chuckled at my remarks. I made the same speech in
this House on June 3, 1993, and it was very well received by
Conservative, NDP and Liberal members. I will give you the
answer later on.
Here is my question: Does the hon. member for Rosemont think
that the Quebec government will start fighting poverty in the
Lac-Saint-Jean area because it got that booby prize? On June 3,
1993, when I made this same speech in the House, the Bloc
Quebecois was not here.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, if we have to raise fundamental
questions such as these today, it is perhaps because of the
empty rhetoric we hear from my colleague opposite.
As far as poverty is concerned, the hon. member should know that
his own government has made cuts and reduced transfer payments
to the provinces. I think he could have seen the first moves in
that direction.
I remember the Axworthy reform and various things that have
happened and are due mostly to what this government has done or
failed to do.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Vancouver East. I would ask her to keep it short.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will keep it very short. I would like to thank the hon. member
for Rosemont for his comments. I think he drew a very good
parallel between the state of our environment and the
multilateral agreement on investment and globalization.
I would ask the member if he concurs that one of the real
dangers of the MAI is that it will have a huge impact on
developing countries and will, by increasing foreign investment
and the power of multinational corporations, not only have an
impact on deepening poverty in those countries, but will also
have a huge impact on the physical environment because it will
allow greater power to those corporations to plunder the natural
resources not only of our country but also of those countries in
the developing world. That is one of the real intents of the
agreement that is being negotiated by the wealthiest nations of
the world.
I would ask the member if he would agree that is one of the
dangers of the agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I believe the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment will fundamentally change
the picture. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has expressed
several concerns about this agreement as regards cultural,
social, labour and environmental issues.
1620
I think we have to listen to the requests made by the different
interest groups. There is indeed a risk in lowering
environmental standards on the national level and also in
Quebec. We must ensure that this opening of markets will not
have the effect of reducing the quality of our environment.
I think that, to this end, we must ensure there is a good debate
in this House, instead of listening to the member opposite, who
has been uttering platitudes from the start.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member says
that I have been saying all kinds of platitudes, but I will ask
him a good question.
We know that, in February, the member for Rosemont received a
salary raise under Standing Order 67 of the House of Commons. If
he wants to help reduce poverty as he claims, did he refuse this
raise?
I have the honour of telling the member for Rosemont that I
refused that raise. This is in the records of the House of
Commons. The money I refused will go toward paying the public
debt. Did he do the same thing? Shame.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask hon.
members to address each other through the Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is confusing
the debates.
The important thing to consider is what leeway his government
and other countries are able to give their citizens to improve
their situation. The issue is not to draw conclusions.
The important thing is to give citizens room to maneuver so they
can improve their situation, instead of throwing stones at
everyone in this House.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
stress the importance for Canada to meet the challenges of
globalization. Our country is well known for its active
participation and for the leadership it has often displayed in
the development of an international trade system.
Canada's vitality is quite impressive. Our country is among
those that rely the most on foreign trade. Indeed, foreign trade
accounts for more than 40% of our gross domestic product, the
highest percentage among all G-7 members. Our favourable trade
balance increased from $7 billion in 1991 to $41 billion in
1996. The total value for Canadian exports of goods and services
was a record $280 billion in 1996, almost twice as much as in
1989.
Through its trade policy, Canada seeks to promote the constant
improvement of the quality, accuracy and scope of international
rules on trade and investment.
Over the past 50 years, our country has been a leader in the
development of rules for international trade. We contributed to
the establishment of GATT, in 1947, and to the gradual
improvement of these rules during successive negotiations rounds
that led to the Uruguay Round, in 1994. Canada can be proud of
the rules that now exist under the World Trade Organization for
goods and services.
It is only natural that we would support changes to include
something as critical as international investment. In the
current context of globalization, direct foreign investment goes
hand in hand with trade.
The two cannot be dissociated.
The government's role in developing trade is to support Canada's
businesses in such a way as to maximize their chance of success
in foreign markets and thus to help create and maintain jobs
everywhere in Canada.
For Canadians, there has never been a better time for exports
and for taking advantage of international investment
opportunities. Markets are opening up, trade barriers are
dropping, and goods and services are moving freely between
countries.
Foreign investment in Canada triggers employment and growth.
Too often, too much attention is paid to the heavy impact of
direct foreign investment on Canadian employment and prosperity.
Three out of ten jobs in Canada are directly or indirectly
linked to direct foreign investment in Canada.
More than 50% of exports and 75% of manufactured exports are
directly linked to direct foreign investment in Canada.
1625
Every $1 billion in investments contributes to the creation of
over 45,000 jobs over five years.
Direct foreign investments bring new technologies to Canada and
bring new production processes on line more quickly. New
technologies make it possible for Canadian businesses to
maintain or even increase their competitive edge, both in world
and domestic markets.
Finally, the liberalization of financial markets and the
relaxation of restrictions on foreign investment no doubt
explain the remarkable vigour of Canadian direct investment
abroad in the 1980s.
This investment provides an increasingly vital contribution to
our economic prosperity. Since 1996, the value of Canadian
direct investment abroad has surpassed the value of foreign
direct investment in Canada.
Canadian direct investment abroad
has tripled since 1986, reaching a figure of $194 billion in
1997. The growth of this investment also reflects a new
approach to emerging economies.
These investments are a source of substantial revenues and
dividends for Canadians and allow our businesses to compete
internationally.
Canadian investment abroad produces benefits at home for
research and development activities, growth and export
opportunities, thus creating jobs in Canada.
By investing their own resources in target countries, Canadian
companies are displaying confidence and thus positioning
themselves favourably to take advantage of potential trade
opportunities.
An increasing number of Canadian competitors are very actively
promoting and expanding their businesses worldwide.
Canada would like a set of internationally accepted rules on
foreign investment, just as there are rules on foreign trade.
Our objective is very clear. The Government of Canada wants to
conclude a good deal at the right moment. We do not want to
sign just anything at any old time.
Therefore, if OECD countries reach an agreement that serves the
interests and respects the values of Canadians, in keeping with
our specificities and the exceptions we put forward, we believe
such and agreement would be beneficial to Canada. But our
commitment goes further than that. Our government has been
consulting Canadians since the negotiations started and will
continue to do so.
We have consulted the provinces, the NGOs, and of course
Parliament. In this regard, I will remind members of the House
of Commons that last November, at the request of the Minister of
International Trade, the Sub-committee on International Trade,
Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade held public hearings on
the MAI.
In December, the committee tabled its report with as its main
recommendation that we continue to participate in the MAI
negotiations.
The Bloc Quebecois concurred in the report. Last week the
government tabled its response to the report. In short, the
government accepts all 17 recommendations. At the recent annual
meeting of OECD ministers, the Minister of International Trade
unequivocally restated Canada's basic position in these
negotiations. The ministers agreed to keep on negotiating
without setting any specific deadlines. This is in keeping with
Canada's position to take the time to negotiate the best
possible agreement.
The government will keep on consulting as many groups as
possible to ensure that Canada's positions reflect the interests
of all Canadians.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
particularly nice to hear a Liberal making sense, after what we
heard earlier, and I would like to congratulate the member.
We cannot agree with everything that was said because, for one
thing, it was a bit general. At least it made sense. There was
a beginning, an end and a middle to this speech. I would like
to congratulate the member. There are perhaps other Liberal
colleagues who could take lessons on speech-making, or at least
read this one to learn a few things. It might be instructive.
Now that we have listened to our colleague, the member for
Pierrefonds—Dollard, expressing his agreement with the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the rate of growth, our
Canadian businesses, which are flourishing all over the place,
and telling us how everything is just peachy and how everyone is
so nice and so wonderful, I think we have to be honest and admit
that there are a few problems somewhere.
1630
Since the Liberals have been in office, the figures show that
child poverty, and the poverty of families by extension, has
increased.
The question is not who are the bad guys and who are the good.
The question is whether there is not some way to create a
special parliamentary committee to discuss in as non-partisan a
way as possible, even if it is difficult—my colleague said so—the
problem of the gap between rich and poor.
I have a question for my colleague, the member for
Pierrefonds-Dollard, if I can be heard over the inanities of the
member for Abitibi, whom it is my misfortune to also have to
call a colleague, and who may have learned to read when he was
young, but picked up nothing in the manners department.
You would have had trouble learning to do two things at the same
time, at the rate you are going. One day, maybe.
My question to the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard is this. Why
are you opposed to the Bloc Quebecois motion? And I ask you to
put it in your own words. What is it you do not agree with?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon.
member for Pierrefonds—Dollard responds, I ask members to direct
their questions to each other through the Chair and we will get
through the day.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for Repentigny. I am sure he does not want to involve me
in his argument with my colleague from Abitibi.
I just want to point out to the hon. member for Repentigny that
the government has already started to fight poverty. If you had
gone through the previous budgets brought down by the
government, you would have noticed that the first step to take
is to reduce the deficit, which is what the current government
has done.
But even in its attempt to reduce the deficit, the government
decided to start by helping the poorest of the poor, the unborn
child. In our minds, poverty starts with pregnant women who do
not have the means or the money to eat three meals a day. We
started by creating a fund to help those mothers.
That was a start. It is very interesting to note that, for young
people living in poverty, the first years are the most crucial.
The first thing we did was to help pregnant women to ensure
that their children, the future generation of Canadians, were
born healthy.
Then, in the last budget brought down by the government, you
must have noticed that we have taxable and non-taxable benefits
that are handed out to the poorest members of our society.
Unlike the Reform Party, which wants to reduce taxes for
everyone, our government has decided to help out the most needy,
the poorest of the families.
In a family earning $20,000 or less, the mother would get $1,600
for her first child and $1,400 for her second child, for a total
of $3,000 or 15% of her family budget.
We have chosen to fight poverty by helping out the poorest
members of our society, which we did in the last budget. We had
set aside $850 million for 1998, and we will add $425 million for
1999 and another $425 million for the year 2000.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate my colleague for his wise, logical and factual
speech. It contained a lot of good points.
I simply want to remind the House that, if we really want to
examine the issue of globalization and its benefits, we need
only ask people in Malaysia, Indonesia and India what they think
about it. They can tell us clearly that globalization helped not
only the people of these countries in general, but also their
economy.
I would ask my colleague if he could give us other examples
where globalization has helped people all over the world.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
What is important is not really the word “globalization”, but
the fact that, for a country like Canada, it means an increase
in our exports.
1635
One must not forget that here, in Canada, almost one job out of
two is related to the export trade, especially in the province
of Quebec.
Therefore, for us, globalization means access to various
markets. When we finally have access to these markets, jobs will
be created in Canada. Then the government will be in a better
position to give more money to CIDA and to help other countries
in the world. I think it is very important.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for his reply to my question
as to why he was opposed to our motion. When he said that the
Liberals had solved all the problems, I was somewhat satisfied
but nevertheless surprised.
If I am not mistaken, the Liberals have been in office for five
years. This is not a question for the hon. member, because I
have the answer. Statistics show that since 1993, when the
Liberals took office, the number of children living in poverty
rose by 100,000, from 1.4 million to 1.5 million.
Given the hon. member's reply, are we to understand that, during
the first four years, the Liberals merely looked at the
situation and only took action last year? Were they inactive
during four years and active during one year?
Also, does this mean we no longer have to raise this issue
because it is solved? What we are saying is if the issue is not
solved, we simply want to discuss it with representatives from
the various parties and with Canadians and Quebeckers.
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Repentigny for
his question.
When I looked at the wording of the Bloc Quebecois' motion
today, I asked myself a question. The Liberal Party of Canada
held its convention last March, here in the national capital,
and there were observers from the other political parties,
including two from the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc Quebecois must
have looked at the priority resolutions passed by the Liberal
Party of Canada. One priority resolution was from Quebec and I
will be pleased to send it to the hon. member. That resolution
dealt with the issue of poverty.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.
It is with pleasure that I rise today to support the motion of
the member of the Bloc Quebecois. The motion put forward today
is a very good one. It shows very clearly the links between
growing poverty in Canada and globally and the phenomenon of
globalization now characterized through the multilateral
agreement on investment. This is an important motion because
these are two key issues that face the country, both of which
emanate from policies that have been adopted by the Liberal
government.
We have heard many times in the House that the Liberal
government is tackling the issue of poverty. When we look at the
evidence and what has happened not just in the House of Commons
but in terms of government policies since the resolution was
passed unanimously in 1989, we begin to see the real picture that
emerges is of government policies that have systematically
oppressed and increased the number of poor families, of
unemployed people and of people living under the poverty line in
Canada.
Since 1989 the number of children living in poverty has grown by
538,000. That is a shocking number. The number of food banks
has tripled. The number of poor children has grown by 47%. The
number of low income persons in 1996 was 40% higher than in 1989
when the resolution was passed.
The reasons for the growing inequality are very clear. The
blame lies at the feet of the government that has adopted a
corporate agenda of massive cutbacks to our social programs and
$700 billion in cuts to transfer payments that have harmed the
people of Canada, particularly low income Canadians who depend on
transfers and social programs in terms of health care, education
and social welfare.
We have seen the Liberal government refuse in the House to fully
index the child tax benefit.
1640
This is yet another reason for growing inequality in Canada. We
have seen the gutting of our UI program. Whereas 80% of the
unemployed workers who have paid into the program used to collect
benefits, it is now down to a measly 30% or a little more.
We have also seen the gutting of our federal housing program.
Is it any wonder we have growing poverty and growing inequality
since the federal government abandoned social housing in 1993?
In my own province of British Columbia the loss of federal
dollars for social housing alone has meant a decline of 8,000
units that would have been built had the program continued. To
families where housing is a key determinant of health and
well-being that means many more singles, couples and children are
living in very substandard housing as a result of government
policy.
If we want to look at the living standards in Canada, it is
shocking to note that Canada is the only major industrialized
country where living standards actually fell in the 1990s.
Between 1989 and 1996 the average family income for Canadians,
adjusted for inflation, fell by $2,300 or 3.9%. That can be
compared to the average real income per person in the United
States which grew by 6.2% or the real income per person which
grew in western Europe by between 6% and 13% over the same
period. That shows how drastic things are in the country.
This has meant that in 1996 the income of the poorest 20% of
families in Canada fell by 3% because of lower earnings, cuts to
UI and social assistance, but we have to point out that in 1996
the income of the most affluent 20% of families rose by 1.8%.
Those statistics speak to the growing disparity and the growing
inequality that face us.
Even the government admits things are failing. A huge
government report conducted by an interdepartmental committee was
comprised of 27 top civil servants in 1996 whose mandate was to
identify pressure points facing the Canadian government over the
next 10 years. This is what they said in their report:
—the primary obstacle standing in the way of a new national
dream is a perception among many Canadians that Canada is no
longer a land of opportunity—a society where they can realize
their aspirations and be treated with dignity and fairness.
Unhappily, much of the research done by federal departments over
the past few years tends to confirm the existence of a growing
class of (excluded people). It would appear that these trends
will continue—
Even when the Minister of Human Resources Development was
minister for international co-operation in 1996 he had this to
say about globalization:
The federal government is not listening to its own Canadian
Human Rights Commission which has pointed out that poverty is a
human rights issue. Instead of addressing these issues the
Liberal government has for three years worked in secret to defend
the interest of the most powerful people in our society, those
who own and control multinational corporations.
There is no question the MAI is a threat to our democracy. It
will have a tremendous impact on our social policy and the
ability of democratically elected government to formulate social
policy in the public interest.
The government has failed on the score of poverty not only by
going ahead and negotiating agreements like the MAI. It has also
failed to deal with issues like bank mergers where we have seen
profits of $7 billion and the concentration of corporate capital
that does not serve the interest of Canadians.
In the B.C. legislature a couple of days ago a resolution was
passed calling on the federal government to ensure that Canadian
medicare and social services were fully excluded from the
provisions of the MAI and calling on the Government of Canada not
to sign the draft multilateral agreement on investment.
1645
These issues are linked in terms of globalization and poverty
because there is not a shred of evidence that the MAI will
benefit Canadians. It will only benefit large corporations and
will only increase growing inequality in Canada.
We call on the government to reverse its priorities, to stand up
and acknowledge this is a wealthy country where wealth can be
distributed so that the lowest income people of Canada can have
better housing, health care, social programs and education. Those
things can be realized if the priorities of this government are
reversed and it stops defending the interests of those
multinational corporations through the MAI.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this
a votable motion.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
motion put forward by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie
concerning globalization and the widening gap between the rich
and the poor.
First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean on his dedication to bring this very serious
problem to the fore. Sometimes non conventional approaches must
be taken to make oneself heard; there is nothing wrong with
wrecking a little havoc to put an important message across.
The message the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean wants to send is
indeed important. We are told that all G-7 nations are jealous of
Canada's economic indicators, but that is to forget the cost
attached to globalization.
I represent a part of the country where unemployment is
frighteningly high. It is more than 22% in the Acadian
peninsula.
This is not just a figure, it represents entire families
experiencing hardship because the economic market is impervious
to human suffering. This 22% figure means that one out of every
five people is looking for work but not finding any. This 22%
figure reflects a kind of suffering that Canada should never
tolerate.
We are living in a world in which multinationals have turned
substantial profits in recent years. It is important to
understand that I have nothing against companies turning a
profit. It means jobs. But we must take a good look at the price
to pay for this profit.
It is unacceptable for these profits to be made on the backs of
workers. It is unacceptable for these profits to be used to fill
someone's pockets when most Canadians cannot make ends meet.
It is unacceptable that these profits are giving rise to poverty
in a whole section of the population. It is unacceptable that
these profits are being made at a cost to children, who are the
most directly affected by this poverty. It is unacceptable that
these profits are damaging society and not improving it.
Throughout the world people recognize the serious problems
attached to the phenomenon of globalization. We recognize that
the world market left to its own devices increases social
inequality and sets countries on the road to ruin.
[English]
We talk about the race to the bottom. I do not know if we truly
understand what it means. The race to the bottom means lower
wages for workers. It means poor working conditions. It means
that an employee cannot go to the bathroom because his supervisor
controls his every move.
[Translation]
We must ensure that globalization benefits all Canadians. Why
should company CEOs earn a million dollars in salaries when
their employees are facing salary cuts or layoffs?
1650
Over the past seven years, the gap between the rich and the poor
has widened. Let us take a look at General Motors as an
example. CEOs' salaries increased by 250%. Employees' salaries
increased by 33%, and 25% of jobs were cut. Why are the
benefits not more equitably shared?
A balance should be struck so that the profits of one do not
signal the misfortune of the other. Canadians want their
government to assume its responsibilities and ensure that
globalization serves democracy, equality and human aspirations.
We are living in a world that wants to transfer the balance of
power from the hands of elected parliamentarians like us into
the hands of multinational corporations.
A reminder to my colleagues in this House. We must not hand
over all our powers to the multinationals, which are interested
only in their own profits. Canadians will suffer the most if we
do. Our constituents will suffer in the race for profits. They
will be the victims of the growing inequality.
As parliamentarians, we have a lot to contribute to putting a
stop to the ever growing inequality. Government can commit to
setting objectives for the reduction of unemployment.
This growing inequality is the result of government policies
that refuse to help Canadians when they are at their most
vulnerable.
Thousands of Canadians today are jobless. However, 64% of them
are not eligible for the benefits intended for them.
This situation is even more ridiculous considering the fact that
there is more than $20 billion in the employment insurance fund
at this moment. The gap between the rich and the poor is due in
part to the fact that the government refuses to take its
responsibilities and to give workers the EI benefits they have
paid for.
This Parliament can honour its 1989 commitment to eliminate
child poverty by the year 2000. That commitment was made thanks
to the efforts of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. Is it not sad
to realize that, ten years later, we are not any closer to the
desired objective?
We can do what is fair and equitable. Let us work together to
make sure that this growing inequality ceases immediately. Let
us work together so that all Canadians can benefit from living
in a fair and equitable country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and comments. The
member for Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I know that the name of my riding is quite a
mouthful, but it is one of the loveliest regions in Quebec. The
full name is Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. These are
the names of the four RCMs around the Gaspé and the Magdalen
Islands directly opposite.
I am pleased to take part in today's debate in the House on the
distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor, mainly in
the context of globalization of markets. I am also very pleased
to be speaking after my colleague, the member for
Acadie—Bathurst, because I know that the region he represents is
experiencing some of the same things as we are in the Gaspé.
I heard my colleague mention an unemployment rate of 22% in his
riding. My constituents are in pretty much the same boat, if
not a little worse off.
Even if I look beyond our region, the situation is the same in
New Brunswick, showing the relevance and importance of the
issue. Those of us from the regions must raise these issues.
People often say that the population in the regions is small,
but we export. We are therefore hard hit by the globalization
of markets. What tools has the Parliament of Canada put at our
disposal? We do not see any. Our colleague, the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean, initiated this debate, and that is what should be
borne in mind.
1655
When I speak of exporting regions, such as mine in the Gaspé, in
the Magdalen Islands or in Acadie—Bathurst in New Brunswick, the
crab fishery is very important. I mentioned it earlier. I
think that the only person not aware of the problem is the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We rely heavily on exports.
The Japanese are our main buyers.
But what is there to help this industry if ever Asian prices
were to drop? We are just as dependent on exports as the riding
of my colleague, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. His riding would
also be affected if anything were to happen to Asian pork
markets.
This is what we want to discuss. What are the available tools?
Second, we talk about the distribution of wealth, but what does
the Parliament of Canada put at our disposal? What are the tools
available to help the needy and those who are searching for
work? How can we improve the situation?
In the context of globalization, what are the tools provided to
fishers who rely on the TAGS program? These people need tools to
cope. They export their fish, because there are not enough of us
in Canada to eat it all. They would like to retrain, but to do
what? These are all issues that need to be discussed.
I will conclude, for I want to give the last word to my
colleague, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
But first I want to congratulate the Ralliement
madelinot-gaspésien. This organization from the Gaspe Peninsula
drafted a social contract to make people think about the
distribution of wealth. The hon. member for Québec referred to
it in this House, and I am prepared to give a copy of this
social contract from the organization to all members of the
House. This group of people representing the various regions of
the Gaspe Peninsula also wants to launch a debate on the
distribution of wealth.
I now give the last word to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
This is precisely the problem in our country. It all started
with free trade and then NAFTA. In fact, the purpose of these
trade agreements was to protect what we had and to improve the
situation in other countries. However, the opposite is
happening. This is why, two weeks ago, we had to file complaints
with Canada's labour board, because these agreements were not
being complied with.
So, you can imagine what will happen with the globalization of
markets. Again, we have a problem in this country, and until the
government takes its responsibilities and addresses these
issues, there will be hungry children in Canada. In the Atlantic
region, the government is prepared to close down TAGS.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
splitting my time with my colleague from Mississauga South.
I do not know why my colleague has to lose his temper. A little
earlier he was speaking in the House and was worried and
concerned about the fact that if the MAI were to be implemented
or if globalization is to take its course workers could not go to
the bathroom. I am really surprised that the debate had to come
to this level of argument.
Things are not as bad as my colleagues in the NDP would have us
believe. We still are considered the best country in the world
in which to live. For three years in a row the United Nations
has identified Canada as the best place in the world in which to
live. We rank number one, ahead of the United States, Japan,
Netherlands, Norway and other countries.
1700
We still have a quality of life which is higher than any other
country in the G-7 which makes it the highest quality of life in
the world. It is ahead of Germany, France, the United States,
the United Kingdom and Italy. Canada also has the highest level
of enrolment when it comes to higher education than any other
country in the G-7. Things are not as bad as my colleagues like
to make them look.
I do not want to say all these things are because of the
government's action. All these good things have been achieved
collectively by Canadians at every level of government,
municipal, provincial and federal. All those things are
happening because the government was able to collect taxes from
people and corporations in order to spend on our wonderful social
programs which are the finest in the world.
I want my colleagues to know that money does not grow on banana
trees. It is not planted in backyards. We have to work and
produce in order to generate money. That money would not be in
the amount we see here in Canada if it were not for corporations
that are investing in research and development and in products
that are selling here and more importantly are being sold abroad
in markets in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the United States
and elsewhere.
I hope my colleagues are not suggesting that we should close our
borders, bury our heads in the sand and wish for a sunny day
because it is not going to happen.
The motion before us today is trying to blame everything on
globalization. There is no way out. Either governments around
the world will have to move into the next century smiling and
co-operating or governments will move into the next century
kicking and screaming. Simply put, the world is changing. All
we have to do is to look at the past few years to see the
revolution and the evolution which have taken place when it comes
to information technology.
Governments are scrambling to catch up. In the past few years we
have been able to unleash the intelligence of our people in
Canada and in the United States. That is why today we have the
most sophisticated mode of communication in the world, which is
the Internet. Tomorrow we will see other technologies coming on
board which will eventually render governments pretty well
obsolete.
My view is that the government which is the fastest to move
toward not becoming obsolete in the new world order is the
government that will be serving its people the best. The
government that is capable of coping with what is taking place
around the world and establishing standards that suit the people
of the world is the government that will be meeting the needs of
its people.
The multilateral agreement on investment is not the end. It is
the beginning. It is the beginning of something wonderful. No
member of the World Trade Organization is biting the butt or
chopping the head of another member. Everything is going fairly
well. We finally have a world order and rules which govern the
whole world when it comes to trade between the economies of
countries. We finally have a mechanism in place where if one
country is in dispute with another country there is a forum where
they can resolve their dispute.
When we talk about rules also governing investment there is
nothing to worry about because nobody is robbing anything from
anyone. All we are saying is that we want to have a level
playing field all over the world when it comes to countries that
presently are or eventually will be members of the World Trade
Organization and the OECD.
We want to have a proper level playing field so that we know
what we are talking about. Billions of Canadian taxpayers'
dollars are invested abroad, in the Asia-Pacific and elsewhere.
We want to make sure these investments are protected.
1705
I am not fearful. We have one of the most open economies in the
world. We are not afraid of a takeover because our country is
wide open for investment. We welcome investment. Investment
creates jobs.
There is no fear here because simply put, with the multilateral
agreement once and if it is signed, there is no need to change
anything when it comes to existing Canadian laws. Canadian laws
will not be affected. It will not take anything away from the
Government of Canada when it comes to its ability to introduce
new laws or to change existing laws, providing it treats everyone
on the same basis with equality. There are exemptions. A lot of
our industries are exempted.
I do not know what this is all about, trying to blame the
poverty of the world on the multilateral agreement on investment
or blame world poverty on globalization. Ask the people in
Malaysia. They will say that thanks to investment in their
country the level of income and the gross domestic product have
multiplied many times over. Speak to the people in Singapore,
Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Latin America and
elsewhere in the world. They will say one by one that thanks to
trade and thanks to our investment in their countries and their
investment in our country, there is a much better world. We have
to bring down barriers, not build them up. Protectionism could
kill an elephant.
Madam Speaker, you bet your life if this motion were ever to
become votable I would be the first one to vote against it and I
would not be blushing because it is a ridiculous motion. It is
not a thoughtful motion.
No one has done anything substantial in order to convince me
that as an elected official I should be voting for something that
is against the interests of the people. A multilateral agreement
on investment and globalization will work eventually in the best
interests of the people.
Somebody told me a story about a company that went to India and
invested in toothpaste, Colgate or whatever. As a result of that
investment the quality of life of the people who work in the
surrounding area has dramatically improved. As a result of that
particular investment, another nail has been put into the coffin
of poverty.
That is one example. There are hundreds of other examples across
the land where foreign investment has helped to improve the
quality of life for people in countries where they live and
eventually narrowed the gap between the poor and the rich.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I wonder
why my colleague from Ottawa-Centre is getting so upset. He does
not need to get angry. He looks mighty serious and angry. I want
to throw the ball back into his court. When I look at where the
hon. member for Ottawa Centre is coming from, I understand why
he is so vigorously defending the interests of the government. I
am sure that he does not have the same problem in Ottawa Centre
that we have in Acadie—Bathurst, which is why my predecessor,
Doug Young, was shown the door.
I invite my colleague opposite to visit Newfoundland, since his
government wants to abolish the TAGS program.
He does not need to go outside the country to see people living
in poverty and children going hungry.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this and
the fact that more and more people in Atlantic Canada and in
downtown Montreal can be seen begging in the streets. Even here
in Ottawa, there are people begging, which we never used to see
before. The same thing goes for Vancouver. This is the real
problem.
It started with the Free Trade Agreement, then NAFTA and now the
MIA. This is where the problem lies. We cannot bury our heads in
the sand, we have to look up and see what is going on in our own
country.
1710
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, my colleague is from New
Brunswick. I am surprised he does not have enough faith in the
people of New Brunswick who with their government have changed
the course of things.
I commend the Government of New Brunswick, a Liberal government
that came to power at a time when there was a big gap between the
rich and the poor. There was not enough economic growth in that
province. In a matter of a few years the sensibility,
sensitivity and vision of that Liberal government enabled it to
map out a strategy whereby the province of New Brunswick was able
to attract businesses and investment. I repeat investment. I
know my colleague in the NDP hates the word investment. He is
allergic to the word investment.
There was economic growth in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is now
more equipped than ever before to meet the challenges of the next
century.
The member should not look at it as a negative thing.
Investment has helped his province and it will continue to help
his province. He should stand and say that he wants more
investment, that he wants to encourage more businesses to be
established in his province, that he wants it to do more trade
not only with the rest of Canada but with the rest of the world.
The world is his market.
Globalization means bringing down borders. It allows us to sell
to five billion people versus selling to only two million or
three million people. It gives us more opportunities. There is
no need for fear. The world is better today than it was
yesterday or the day before.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We have 30 seconds left for
a question. The hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, in the 30 seconds I have, I want to say that I
agree with the comments made by the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, about the astonishment shown by our colleague
who lives in a more central riding.
I think it is a bit contemptuous for a member to say during
today's debate that money does not grow on trees. What the
people of our region are asking for is tools to work with.
I also want to remind the House that Canada was built from east,
from Gaspé and New Brunswick, to west, and that we would not
have a country if it were not for us.
Our industry is agonizing. We wants tools. Wake up.
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, first of all, old battles must not
be dragged back into this House. All there is to say is that
now we are all part of a civilized society, and life in a
civilized and democratic society requires everyone to work
together to develop the economy of that society. The way to do
so is through free trade.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak in this debate on the subject of
elimination of poverty.
Child poverty is an issue which has seized Canada for many
years. Most notably the House of Commons passed a motion to
eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Child poverty is a
political term. That term was coined to elucidate some sympathy
for a cause or an issue. Child poverty is really family poverty
which is the aspect I will discuss.
A Bloc member raised the issue of the gap between the rich and
the poor recently in the House.
1715
Most Canadians would agree that in Canada we should have an
environment in which we can be as successful as we possibly can
be, in which we can earn economic returns based on the amount we
contribute, our abilities and the opportunities we create for
ourselves, and in which we can be as successful as we want to be.
In terms of narrowing the gap between rich and poor I suspect we
are not so much concerned about how much rich people might be
getting through their efforts. Our interest is more in terms of
how we deal with those who are in need in society. Many members
of this place share a value system which says that we should help
those most in need first.
Just as a point of reference I would like to share with the
House what an LICO is, a low income cut off. In Canada we do not
formally have a poverty line. However as a reference point we
use the Statistics Canada low income cut off threshold.
To give members an idea of what these numbers would be, in a
city such as Ottawa one person with an income below $16,874 would
be deemed to be living in poverty according to Statistics Canada.
Two persons would increase to $21,092. Three persons would
increase to $26,232. Four persons, for instance a mother, father
and two children, with incomes below $31,753 would be living in
poverty. That is a point of reference. I will not make any
judgment on whether those levels of income are significant in
terms of our understanding of the concept of poverty in Canada.
There are many reasons for poverty in Canada. Most would agree
that one of the key elements has to do with jobs and the strength
of our Canadian economy to deliver jobs for Canadians who want to
work and want to earn incomes to take care of their
responsibilities and to enjoy the fruits of Canada.
Canada has come through a very traumatic fiscal period over the
last 25 years in which deficits increased annually. Our national
debt has a substantial annual financing cost. In 1993 we had a
$42 billion deficit. Obviously it was very difficult for any
government to produce the kinds of initiatives that would deal
with that fiscal situation and with issues such as jobs in the
absence of dealing with the fiscal health of Canada. All members
know that for the first time in a long time Canada will have a
balanced budget for the year ended March 31, 1998.
In the budget presented to this place the finance minister
outlined a number of initiatives. It was not a lot but it was a
clear start with things like education of our children, ensuring
accessibility to schools so that they could get the skills and
the training they needed to get the jobs they needed.
We also have a scenario where the interest rates in Canada came
down and have been the lowest in 10 years. We are still two or
three percentage points below those in the United States. This
means we are able to invest capital and that jobs are flowing
from that capital investment. It means we have a very stable
fiscal situation which has increased exports, and exports create
jobs. In that aspect things are starting to happen but not
quickly enough.
Canadians need tax breaks. They need to pay less in taxes so
they have more disposable income, can continue to be consumers in
the economy, generate more growth within our system and provide
more jobs so that the synergy and ripple effect will take place.
1720
Certainly poverty has to be discussed in the context of economic
realities, but I want to talk about poverty in the context of
social realities. The Vanier Institute of the Family stated that
lone parent families represented about 12% of all families but
accounted for 46% of all children living in poverty.
Lone parent situations do not very often statistically occur
naturally in terms of an unmarried mother, for instance. It is
about 3%. Actually the preponderance of the lone parent
situation in Canada has to do with the breakdown of the family.
It has to do with the fact that in Canada today 30% of all
marriages end up in divorce. It has to do with the fact that we
now have over a million family relationships in Canada which are
common law relationships.
Common law relationships break down twice as frequently as
married relationships within the first five years of such
relationships. Some 60% of common law relationships break down
within the first five years. Some 60% of all parental
relationships, whether they be married or common law, involve
children. This is one of the most significant reasons we have
child poverty and so-called family poverty.
It is a very important area for us to deal with and there is no
simple solution. It is very complex in terms of the social
dynamics and the strength of the Canadian family. Economics have
something to do with it. Stress in family life, stress in
business life and stress in life generally have a great deal to
do with how society is at peace with itself and how we grow and
develop together. There is a complexity here that is very
important.
I am working on a bit of research about children's outcomes. We
know if children are healthy we have healthy families and
obviously a healthy country. Healthy children are a very
important part of the strategy dealing with the elimination of
poverty and the narrowing of the gap between rich and poor. This
means we have to understand how children develop.
One of the most significant pieces of research done in the last
few years by the Carnegie Foundation was called “Starting
Points”. It indicated that the quality of care in the first
three years of life was the most significant determinant of the
physical, mental and social health of children. Brain
development occurs so rapidly during that period that the
foundations for abstract reasoning, logical thinking and general
logic are all established by age one.
There are many elements to this issue, but early childhood
development represents an area in which we must make a major
investment. We must invest in children and over the longer term
we will have not only healthy children but also healthy families
and clearly a healthier country.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
listened to my colleague take a rather roundabout way before
getting to the motion we have introduced today, which merely
dealt with the striking of a parliamentary committee to try and
seek some solutions to the poverty we have today.
He spoke of the 1989 commitment to eliminate poverty by the year
2000. It must be admitted that they have totally missed the
boat. We have recently been given a figure of 1.5 million poor
children in Canada.
He referred to common-law couples. I fail to see what this has
to do with poverty. For me, poverty equals joblessness.
Instead of talking about the deficit, he should have talked of
the debt.
The reason for poverty is the $600 billion in accumulated debt
that has been run up in past years, because of needless national
spending. This $600 billion cost us $50 billion in interest
annually.
1725
If we had $50 billion to invest in jobs every year, there would
be far fewer poor people now.
I would just like to return to the opposition motion. I would
like to hear whether the hon. member is really in agreement with
this proposal to strike a parliamentary committee in order to
find ways to eliminate poverty as quickly as possible.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I understand the member's
concerns and I will answer his question directly.
The member wants a parliamentary committee to assess how we can
deal with the issue. In my experience as a parliamentarian,
parliamentary committees do not often have the opportunity or the
resources to do the job that is necessary. In fact I do not
believe we require a royal commission on the family or children.
I do not believe we need a parliamentary committee. I think we
need to act.
Everyone in this place should understand that economics has a
significant role to play in terms of eliminating child poverty.
Restoring the fiscal health of the country will play an important
role in improving our economy, expanding the economy, creating
jobs, providing greater disposable income for Canadians and being
able to deliver tax breaks to families so they have less stress
in terms of their financial affairs. Those things will help.
Perhaps the member did not hear the part of my speech in which I
talked about the breakdown of the Canadian family. Divorce and
breakdown of common law relationships with children are causing a
very significant problem in that although only 12% of families
are single parent families they account for 46% of all children
living in poverty. This is not an insignificant portion of the
problem which the member seeks to address.
I suggest to the member that if it was simply a matter of giving
money to poor people eventually we would get to the point where
there would be a disincentive or no incentive to work or to
contribute. In fact we would approach a level at which they would
effectively have, with all of the benefits provided directly or
indirectly by various levels of government, a guaranteed annual
income.
A guaranteed annual income is a simple solution but it will not
deal with the problems. That is why, when we deal with things
such as how to help those in most need, increasing the child tax
benefit by $850 million this year and another $850 million the
next is a start. Is it enough? No, not at all.
It is a start. It represents and reflects the commitment of the
government to restoring fiscal health to relieve Canadians over
the longer term of the tax burden they are feeling and to
ensuring that, most important, we invest in children who are our
future and represent our best opportunity of investment for long
term sustainable returns.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5:30 p.m. it
is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion
have expired.
The House will now proceed to the taking of several deferred
recorded divisions.
Call in the members.
1750
And the bells having rung:
ALLOTTED DAY—HEPATITIS C
The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today the
first recorded division deals with the motion on the business of
supply.
Pursuant to the same order made earlier today the question on
the amendment relating to the business of supply is deemed
defeated on division.
The question then is on the main motion.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 140
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 155
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
* * *
NUNAVUT ACT
The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution
Act, 1867, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, April 22,
1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion of the
second reading stage of Bill C-39.
1805
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you
seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion, with the exception of the chief government whip, be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: No.
1815
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 236
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 56
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (Crown
corporations), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, April 21,
1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at
second reading stage of Bill C-216 under Private Members'
Business. The question is on the motion.
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row,
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.
Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of
the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be
called in the same order.
1825
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Bryden
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 127
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 162
|
PAIRED
Members
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that
my name was called as voting with the government on this issue.
The Speaker: We did not call your name but you will be
registered.
I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member for Ottawa Centre said that he wanted to vote
with the government on this issue. I would remind the member
that the government should not have a position on this issue. It
is Private Members' Business.
* * *
LABELLING OF TOYS
The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, April 21,
the next deferred recorded division is on Motion No. 85 under
Private Members' Business.
I have already explained the procedure for private members'
bills.
1840
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Herron
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jaffer
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Serré
| Solomon
| Steckle
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams – 112
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 171
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1998
The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-32, an act respecting polution prevention and the
protection of the environment and human health in order to
contribute to sustainable development, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-32.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If the House would agree I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that the members who voted on Bill C-39 be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with
the Reform Party members present voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
1850
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 224
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brien
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 62
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker: It being 6.50 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
all necessary steps to ensure the continued viability of housing
co-operatives administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1884 Abraham Lincoln said: “Let not
him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him
work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example
assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built”.
It was in that spirit of citizens supporting one another and by
extension the community that the co-operative housing movement in
Canada was born in the 1930s. Sixty years later, the viability
of co-op housing is being seriously threatened through government
neglect.
I want to take a few minutes to explain how this has come about
and what can be done to repair the situation. I will start by
outlining a brief history of co-op housing in Canada and show why
it has been such a success story compared to other forms of
social housing. I will then proceed to talk about the current
move to devolve social housing to the provinces and the negative
effects this will have on co-ops. Finally, I will outline an
alternative solution that has the potential to not only save the
federal government money but also save the co-ops.
The co-op housing movement began in the 1930s when Canadians in
the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario built houses collectively for
private ownership. It expanded with the construction of student
co-operatives in the 1940s and family co-ops in the 1960s.
The federal government got involved by supporting co-operative
housing financially in Canada in 1970 through the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. CMHC has called co-ops one of
the great success stories in Canadian housing. Its record is
especially enviable when we compare it to the federal
government's track record on other forms of social housing.
1855
Let me explain how co-ops work. Co-operative housing is
affordable, not for profit housing owned and operated by its
members. Residents pay housing charges and have the right to
permanent residency as long as they respect the obligations of
membership which they have a say in setting.
Joint ownership eliminates the insecurity of the rental market
by putting control of the housing in the hands of the members.
Each member has one vote in making decisions on important matters
such as housing charges, the election of directors and the rules
and regulations members will be expected to follow.
Members share common goals in the management of their
co-operatives and a sense of community arises from working
together. Members of housing co-ops often assist each other in
ways beyond their housing needs. Housing co-ops have helped
maintain or rebuild communities threatened by decay or urban
renewal.
Within budget limits co-ops seek to provide high quality
housing both in initial construction and through continuing
maintenance. Co-ops are required to maintain capital reserves
for the replacement of worn out buildings and equipment.
As I have mentioned, co-ops are radically different from other
types of assisted housing providers. Only co-ops are committed
to hiring and empowering ordinary Canadians to manage their own
housing. Members learn skills that help them break the poverty
cycle, enabling them to reduce dependence on government support.
Co-op members do not live in low income ghettos but in mixed
income communities. Just over half the nearly 90,000 households
receive rent geared to income assistance from the federal or the
provincial government. In federally sponsored co-operatives
assistance is provided to more than twice as many households as
required by their operating agreements with CMHC at no extra cost to
taxpayers.
Members manage subsidies economically on the government's
behalf. CMHC says: “Co-operatives have been highly successful
at achieving income mixing without polarization of income groups.
Income was basically a non-issue for members”.
Not only have co-ops been successful in social integration, they
are also the most inexpensive to operate of all forms of social
housing. Operating costs are 19% less than municipal or private
not for profit housing and 71% less than government owned and
operated public housing. These cost saving benefits are shared
with taxpayers since lower operating costs reduce the
government's rent geared to income subsidy bill. Because they
spend less than other housing providers and reinvest their
operating surpluses, housing charges stay low. As time passes
co-ops need smaller and smaller government subsidies.
However, despite all their success housing co-operatives in
Canada now face a serious threat to their continued existence:
devolution to the provinces. In March 1996, with very little
public discussion, the government announced that it would make an
effort to turn over the management of existing federal social
housing resources to the 12 provinces and territories. In the
two years since, agreements have been signed with Saskatchewan,
Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Northwest
Territories which would see these governments assume
responsibility for public housing, private non-profit housing as
well as co-ops.
In general I support the devolution of social housing
administration to the provinces. I have always believed that the
level of government that can best serve the needs of its clients
should be the one to manage that program. But the inclusion of
co-op housing in this devolution creates some serious problems
for co-operatives and their members.
The two main issues for co-op members are loss of control and
loss of financial security. At present members manage their own
affairs, which helps to foster community pride and a sense of
ownership. The new agreements threaten that control in five
ways.
1900
First, existing contracts between CMHC and the co-operatives are
not protected under the new social housing agreements. According
to law professor Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall Law School,
while the agreements address the issues and concerns of the
provinces and CMHC, they fail to offer legally binding protection
for the co-ops that actually own and manage the housing
facilities. This effectively gives the provinces complete
control over the programs.
Second, the provinces can unilaterally alter the operating
agreements between the co-ops and the governments. Professor
Monahan found that if any of the provincial legislators were to
enact legislation overriding or amending the terms of such
project operating agreements, the provincial governments would
not be in breach of their obligations under the new social
housing government agreements.
Third, co-op residents were neither permitted to sit at the
negotiating table as these deals were made nor were they even
consulted in the discussions. Agreements that have been signed
to date and those currently under negotiation have been worked
out behind closed doors. This excludes a significant group of
stakeholders: the women and men who live in, own and manage this
housing. These groups are the primary partners in the successful
delivery of these programs but they have not been consulted.
The new agreements could also affect the character and quality
of federally funded co-ops. There are real concerns among
co-operatives that the new agreements will lead to the erosion of
their autonomy as property owners, especially when it comes to
day to day management decisions.
The failure to protect the existing contractual rights of
co-operatives makes these concerns very real. What the provinces
view as flexibility in the agreements, co-op members see as an
invitation to intrude. Any careful reading of the history of
co-op housing will show that the greater the degree of government
intrusion the less efficiently co-ops operate.
Finally, lumping co-ops in with other forms of social housing
which are being downloaded to the provinces will increase costs.
Consolidating the control of shared cost programs such as public
housing with one level of government will reduce program
administration costs.
However very few co-operative housing units receiving federal
support were initiated under these shared cost programs. The
remainder are unilaterally federally funded. The transfer of
management of these programs to 12 provinces and territories will
increase wasteful duplication and government involvement, not
lessen them.
Provinces taking over these co-op programs will have to add to
their bureaucracies and invest time in learning to administer
programs that CMHC will continue to oversee. In Ontario the
province intends to download those programs to yet a third level
of government, the municipalities. In that province three levels
of government would be involved.
As if that were not enough, co-ops face another threat from
these new agreements, the loss of financial security. CMHC only
guarantees funding to co-operatives to the end of their current
agreements. The $1.9 billion the federal government currently
spends on social housing are not guaranteed because the dollars
are not tied to existing programs and projects.
The provincial agreements promise a steadily shrinking federal
contribution. As existing programs and projects reach the end of
their funding cycle, federal funding will cease and there are no
assurances that anyone else will step in. The agreements reveal
a slow but definitive withdrawal of federal financial support for
Canadians with housing needs.
The new social housing agreements also do not require the
provinces to replace the funding. There is nothing in the
agreements that directs the provinces to assume that
responsibility or, for that matter, that obliges them to continue
spending the money they contribute now under the shared cost
housing programs. In fact the agreements give the provinces and
territories an incentive to reduce the number of social housing
units in their jurisdiction.
Clause 7(e) of the Saskatchewan agreement states:
—for greater certainty the removal of Housing from the Portfolio
of programs covered by the agreement (whether by disposition,
destruction, no longer being within a program in the Portfolio or
otherwise) will not entail any reduction of the total amounts of
CMHC funding—
There is however another solution. Next week, the Co-operative
Housing Federation of Canada, CHF Canada, will meet with the
minister responsible for CMHC and propose that a new non-profit,
non-governmental organization be set up to administer co-op
housing agreements.
1905
If implemented, this new agency would save governments a minimum
of $2 million a year plus $50 million over the next 20 years by
reducing program administration costs and would lead to a more
efficient use of federal subsidies. It would also meet the
federal government's goal of devolution of administration while
preserving the keys to the co-op housing success story: member
control and decentralized management.
The proposed agency will adhere to the goals and principles of
current programs and will operate within a strict accountability
framework. As important, the CHF Canada proposal will ensure the
continuing success of a housing system that many thousands of
people have worked very hard to build, an effective unifying
system working in every province and territory.
Recently an independent study commission jointly funded by CMHC
and CHF Canada examined a new draft of the co-operative sectors
proposal and compared it to CMHC's current operation with
improvements suggested by CMHC.
The consultant found that compared to CMHC's approach the CHF
Canada proposal would generate savings for government in program
administration costs and would assist co-operatives in increasing
the effectiveness of their operations. When a co-op saves money
in this operation it means more money to house people in need
either in that co-op or through other housing programs.
In closing, let me restate that I agree with most of what the
government has done in the area of social housing. Lumping
housing co-operatives with all other social housing and
downloading them to the provinces threaten to destroy what has
become a unique Canadian success story.
This debate is about optimizing the structure of government so
that it can best serve the needs of Canadians. There is a ready
alternative to the current round of provincial and territorial
grievances. I suggest the government take a good, long, hard
look at it before going any further.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I participate in today's debate to urge
the government to take steps to ensure the viability of housing
co-operatives.
I want to thank my colleague from the Progressive Conservative
Party for giving us this opportunity to debate this issue.
I should remind the House that, in the riding of
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which I have been representing since 1993,
there is a deeply rooted tradition of co-operative housing, with
more than 2,000 units.
I think it is our duty as parliamentarians, as our colleague
suggested, to outline the merits of co-operative housing.
Co-op members are involved in their community. They are involved
in a managerial capacity. Because they take their
responsibilities, they look after the well-being of the co-op, and
this can only reflect positively on the entire environment.
We cannot talk about co-ops, about ensuring their viability, by
allocating the necessary resources so that 20, 30 or 35 years
from now, co-ops are still a viable reality both in terms of
upkeep and subsidized housing, without mentioning that the
governments that have succeeded each other since 1992 have
systematically withdrawn from the co-op program.
I think that the more militant among us, the staunchest
advocates of social housing, will recall that when times were
good, there were three separate federal programs under which
housing could be built, operated and subsidized for members of a
co-operative. But after 1992, the government, following the trend
and figuring that subsidized housing should no longer be
subsidized, cruelly withdrew from that area.
I want to point out that 29% of Canadian households with the
greatest needs are found in Quebec, a province which has always
been very supportive of co-ops. This means that, with 25% of the
population and 19% of the funding for social housing, Quebec has
more families in need of assistance for co-operative housing or
any other form of social housing.
1910
Unfortunately, in this case as in others, the list could be
long. The Government of Quebec, the people of Quebec and the
taxpayers of Quebec have not had the support they were entitled
to expect.
It is important to say that the government announced a few
months ago in the Speech from the Throne it wanted to withdraw
and negotiate with the provinces the full transfer of all
matters relating to public housing.
Sovereignist that I am, I would see this as a matter to
celebrate, since the whole area of public housing is more a
matter for the Government of Quebec and, to some degree, for
municipal governments.
There is, however, cause for concern, because the government
wants to transfer, to all intents and purposes, nearly $2
billion.
Governments that signed agreements with the central
government—including Saskatchewan, and I will come back to it,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Northwest
Territories—signed at a loss. For negotiations to be fair and
to make it worthwhile to the provinces to sign, there must be
money to ensure the continued operation and upkeep of
co-operatives.
The co-operative housing movement got started in the 1970s.
We will therefore be looking at co-operative housing that will
require important investments for maintenance, renovation and
repair in the year 2000, 2005 or 2010.
What the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and its
counterpart in Quebec are asking is not just that the federal
government negotiate the transfer of responsibility with the
provinces, but that it have the generosity, the conscience, to
provide, in the negotiations to follow, for funds to be
transferred as well, so that the provinces that become
responsible for this co-operative housing are also given the
money to maintain and repair it.
But the government opposite is short-sighted and lacking in
vision, and governs by trying to offload its responsibilities
onto the provinces.
The $2 billion they are trying to negotiate will not be
sufficient to allow us to plan long-term projects for the housing
stock.
It is a strange thing. On the one hand, the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, the member for
Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, a fairly easy-going fellow, is not all
that worked up about it. The Government of Quebec has broken
off negotiations. The federal government is letting things
drift along and, right now, there are no negotiations taking
place between the Government of Quebec and the federal
government.
Why are there no negotiations between these two levels of
government? Because the offer on the table is unrealistic
and ridiculously low, because there is no desire to right the
historical wrong done to Quebec, which has, I would remind you,
29% of the neediest households within its borders. In the best
years, it receives 19% of subsidies.
Of course the Société d'habitation du Québec and the minister
responsible for housing in Quebec, Rémi Trudel, have calculated
the shortfall the Government of Quebec has experienced in recent
years by not receiving its fair share. The figure is in the
millions.
It is our responsibility to remind the minister that he must
give clear directives that negotiations with Quebec are to be
resumed.
1915
We are in favour of the Government of Quebec being able to
regain control over this area of jurisdiction, like all
governments wishing to do so, but not by selling out.
I wish to speak of a proposal to which my colleague has already
alluded: an agency. Where social housing is concerned, there is
already the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which
administers a certain number of operating agreements in
conjunction with the co-operatives.
It carries out real estate market studies. It carries out
analyses and tries to understand the major trends in the housing
market, not only construction, not only the private housing
market, but also the co-op market.
The Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada, which is certainly
the movement with the greatest expertise anywhere in Canada, has
made a proposal, and I believe they wish to meet with the
minister at the earliest possible opportunity. If adopted, their
proposal would save billions of dollars, as it would make a
community partner such as the federation the major administrator
of operating agreements.
I believe that, where English Canada is concerned, this is a
proposal worth considering. Once Quebec will have regained this
responsibility, along with the related budgets, and once there
can be a true housing policy—because the appropriate resources
will be available—it will be up to the Quebec government to
decide whether it wishes to have this type of partnership with a
community agency such as the one that is proposed.
I will conclude by saying that, out of all the provinces, Quebec
is the only one that allocated budgets for the maintenance of
co-operative and social housing, and our province is also the
only one that earmarked $40 million for development purposes.
This shows the degree of support for the co-operative movement in
Quebec, and I hope such support will continue in the future.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Tobique—Mactaquac who
brought this motion before the House. The motion directs the
government to take all necessary steps to ensure the continued
viability of housing co-operatives administered by Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Housing co-operatives play an important role in providing
affordable housing in my riding and in this country. Over
250,000 Canadians are members of nearly 2,200 non-profit housing
co-operatives located in all parts of Canada. The people who
live in housing co-operatives are often more satisfied in their
accommodations than those who rent privately or who live in other
kinds of social housing.
Turnover rates are about half those in the private rental
market. About one-third of renters say they would move into
housing co-operatives if they could. Forty thousand Canadian
households are on co-op waiting lists. Canadians who live in
co-ops are members, not tenants. They control their own housing
through elected boards of directors.
Co-op housing is unique. Among assisted housing providers only
co-operatives are committed to empowering ordinary Canadians to
manage their own housing. While co-ops are dependent on some
government support, they do in fact break the cycle of dependency
enabling Canadians who need affordable housing to take control of
their lives. Operating costs are below those of all other forms
of assisted housing, 19% less than municipal or private
non-profit housing and 71% less than government owned and
operated public housing.
Co-op housing would make an important contribution even if it
was not substantially cheaper than comparable forms of government
assisted social housing. Co-op housing allows members to learn
the skills of operating and managing the co-op. Co-ops have more
than twice as many single families than are found in the general
population.
1920
Canadians with disabilities and other special needs live in the
more than 5,000 units of co-op housing. They are counted on to
participate as full and equal members. Co-ops emphasize
abilities, not disabilities.
The majority of the co-op members are women and 10% of the units
are occupied by women over 55 years of age. Women participate
fully and equally with co-op elected leadership and staff. Nearly
two-thirds of co-op units contain families with children. Co-ops
help communities achieve sensible and sustainable urban
development and preservation of historic neighbourhoods.
All co-ops play an important role in this country whether they
be housing co-ops, consumer co-ops, farmer co-ops or financial
service co-ops. Indeed at a time of mega bank mergers I believe
that financial service co-ops will play an important role in
providing Canadians with options.
Perhaps nowhere is co-op housing more important than in British
Columbia. In the lower mainland of B.C., affordable housing is
often not available. Even modest housing can be extraordinarily
expensive. There are close to 15,000 people on waiting lists for
co-op housing. Housing co-operatives play an important role.
Co-op housing in B.C. fills the need for affordable housing for
families, seniors and low to moderate income households. I think
particularly of the housing co-ops in Steveston in my riding of
Delta—South Richmond.
Co-ops are adaptable and resourceful. They will seek to respond
to reasonable changes in government policy. But co-ops are
concerned about their very existence. The current government
policy designed to download or to devolve social housing
responsibilities to the provinces fails to protect housing
co-ops. The plan threatens to destroy a unique Canadian success
story that has taken over 30 years to build. Co-op members
across Canada are deeply concerned by this proposal which will
affect 250,000 residents and over 60,000 co-op homes and
apartments.
I call upon the government to change direction to find a
mechanism to protect co-op housing in its rush to download to the
provinces. The unique co-op self-management approach may well be
eroded in the downloading. Co-ops are not just another form of
social housing. Co-ops are the least costly form of all federal
social housing programs because of the commitment and involvement
of co-op members.
In future, co-op rents may rise dramatically and the buildings
may deteriorate physically as a result of insufficient federal
funding which may force cash strapped provincial governments to
cut spending for social housing. The risks are real because the
downloading agreements with the provinces do not adequately
protect the operating agreements between the co-ops and CMHC and
because federal expenditures have been capped at the 1995-96
levels.
The downloading has already taken place in Saskatchewan. The
Saskatchewan government is currently proposing changes which
co-ops believe will seriously erode their accountability and
authority for setting housing changes, budgets and the number of
households they will subsidize. If co-ops are forced to accept
these proposals, they will be forced to operate much more like
public housing.
I am impressed by the work done by the Co-operative Housing
Federation of Canada. It has proposed a viable non-governmental
alternative for the country's housing co-ops. The administration
of co-op programs would be contracted to a non-profit management
corporation operating at arm's length from government. This
approach would build on the co-op sector's decades of experience
and successful cost effective self-management.
Streamlined staffing and organization would allow considerable
savings in comparison with government management, be it federal
or provincial. Minimum savings are estimated at $2 million a
year in the cost of portfolio administration plus $50 million in
savings on project costs over 20 years.
The proposal from the co-ops, unlike the current government
policy of transfer to the provinces, would preserve the keys to
the co-op housing success story: member control and
decentralized management.
In British Columbia both co-op organizations support the
national organization's proposal for an agency at arm's length
from government. Furthermore I understand the province of British
Columbia is supportive of the position taken by our co-ops and
has written to the federal government to have co-ops taken off
the table in the transfer talks. The federal government has not
yet responded to this very critical need.
1925
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to respond to the motion concerning co-operative
housing and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This government understands the importance of good quality
housing to Canadians. We understand the importance of helping
Canadians meet their housing needs. We know that good quality
housing creates sound communities and a strong country.
This government is committed to playing a strong leadership role
in housing. On behalf of the Canadian government our national
housing agency, CMHC, is working in partnership with the
provinces and territories, municipal housing authorities and
non-profit housing co-operative groups to help low income
Canadians obtain adequate, suitable and affordable housing. We
are currently supporting more than 656,000 units of social
housing across the country at a cost of $1.9 billion annually.
We want to ensure that these resources are used efficiently and
are targeted to Canadians with the greatest need. That is why we
have offered to the provinces and territories the opportunity to
manage existing social housing, with the exception of the housing
programs for aboriginal people living on reserves. The decision
to offer the transfer of administration of social housing
resources to provincial and territorial governments was made in
order to clarify responsibilities in the area where both Canadian
and provincial governments are active.
The central goal of this initiative is to eliminate duplication,
increase efficiency and promote one-stop shopping for social
housing clients. It simply makes sense to have only one level of
government involved in administering the social housing resources
in this country. This approach will maximize the impact of tax
dollars by streamlining the existing arrangements and
facilitating one-stop shopping.
So far, agreements have been signed with Saskatchewan, New
Brunswick, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories and Nova
Scotia. Negotiations will continue with the remaining
jurisdictions.
Co-operatives, like other social housing groups, are included in
this transfer of responsibility to the provinces and territories.
I would like to make very clear that there are sections of the
new social housing agreements that require provinces and
territories to carry out all of CMHC's responsibilities to
non-profit and co-operative organizations and that oblige the
provinces and territories to respect the rights of non-profit and
co-operative organizations.
I also wish to highlight that existing project operating
agreements with third parties, including co-operatives, will
continue to be legally binding and can only be changed by mutual
agreement of the parties concerned. CMHC's rights and obligations
under these agreements are indeed covered.
The Government of Canada recognizes the close involvement of
co-operative and non-profit housing groups in the management of
significant portions of our federally assisted social housing
portfolio. These groups also provide an important link between
the government and the communities they serve.
I would like to assure my colleagues that CMHC is committed to
finding solutions that will restore any social housing project,
including co-operatives, to financial health where such solutions
are feasible. In all cases CMHC works closely with sponsor
groups and whenever possible provides the necessary assistance to
these projects.
As well, over the past year CMHC has been working with the
Co-operative Housing Federation to develop more streamlined and
flexible guidelines to facilitate major repairs or renovations
such as the replacement of roofs. Let me give the assurance that
the Government of Canada is not withdrawing from its
responsibilities to provide financial support for low income
Canadians with housing needs. On the contrary, we will continue
to meet our substantial financial obligations to social housing,
$1.9 billion annually as I mentioned earlier.
These new arrangements are expected to bring significant
benefits to a great many people.
People living in housing projects will benefit far more from a
streamlined management. Sponsors of social housing projects will
benefit because they are now dealing with only one level of
government, a level of government that will be able to better
tailor programs to reflect local and regional social housing
needs.
1930
In essence, the people of Canada are going to benefit from the
best of federal and provincial co-operation working together.
This new approach to administration of social housing resources
is about building on a solid partnership and working
co-operatively with provincial and territorial governments for
the benefit of all Canadians. It is about bringing government
closer to communities and people across this country. It is
about ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used in a most efficient
manner, and that is good news for all Canadians.
Through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation our government
is responsible for a number of programs that help ensure
Canadians are one of the best housed people in the world. In
addition to our significant contribution to social housing this
government provides support for several short term initiatives
designed to help certain groups make much needed repairs to their
homes. Programs such as residential rehabilitation assistance
program, the emergency repair program, and the home adaptation
for seniors' independence reflect the government's commitment to
involve as many quality housing projects as possible.
On January 30, 1998 the Canadian government announced a five
year extension of these three programs at a cost of $250 million.
These programs will benefit as many as 40,000 households and
create thousands of new jobs across Canada.
Of course, the families and individuals who have benefited from
these programs appreciate the government's role, as do the
partners in the housing industry. However, I am glad to mention
the interest and support shown by the provincial and territorial
governments. As well, they have worked with the municipalities.
The government's decision to spend $250 million over the next
five years emphasizes its commitment to stronger, safer
communities, to provide flexible federalism through
federal-provincial agreements and to create jobs.
One of the primary goals of this new allocation of funds is to
improve the quality of housing in low income neighbourhoods. This
initiative combines good social policy and good economic policy.
It also is an illustration of how well flexible federalism can
work. At the moment a number of provincial and territorial
governments cost share a large portion of these programs. They
are invited to continue under this extension and positive
responses have already been received from several provinces.
I realize that in addition to the $250 million there is
considerable more that has to be done over time. A reflection of
the importance of government ascribes to housing is very clear.
It is also a symbol of the success in controlling the deficit.
We have always said fiscal restraint was not an end in itself but
rather a means to a greater end. Our goal has always been to
restore order to public finances to be able to focus more action
and interest for Canadians.
I stress the government remains committed to ensuring Canadians
maintain the best housing for people in the world. For Canadians
housing is more than just a roof over our heads. It is the
centre of our lives. It is an important form of our
self-expression. It is a crucial determinant of the quality of
life. Good housing is a key to better building communities as
well as the cornerstone for a strong economy in this country.
It is very clear to say housing is one issue that unites us.
From Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland Canadians are coming
together to make sure we provide desirable housing for all.
Let us be very clear at this point. The government will show
leadership in housing and make certain that we have an enhanced
way of life through good housing programs for all Canadians.
1935
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, when we
think about housing, most of us spend our entire lives or at
least 20 to 25 years paying for one house. Housing is a human
right. We deserve to have shelter to protect us from the
elements. We bring up our families in our houses. Yet housing is
becoming further from most of us as poverty grows in this
country. As the gap between those who have and have not grows,
more and more people will be without housing.
The co-operative housing movement has provided places for those
who would not otherwise have a chance to put a roof over their
heads, for those who would not otherwise have a chance for home
ownership. Over the last 25 years that movement has provided an
avenue for housing.
For more than 25 years the co-operative housing movement and the
Government of Canada were partners in building a Canadian
co-operative housing sector. The unilateral decision by the
federal government to terminate this partnership will affect more
than 60,000 co-op units and far more individuals who live in
those houses.
No other housing program has created the strong sense of
community so characteristic of co-operative housing. Rather than
terminate such a valuable partnership, the federal government
needs to develop new and stronger partnerships between Canadians
and their housing co-operatives. This is one of the few supports
available for urban natives. There are very strong urban native
housing co-operatives across this country. They are completely
dependent on it. This change will destabilize that sense of
ownership, belonging and long term stability that co-operative
housing has brought to senior single mothers and urban natives
across this country.
The federal plan to devolve housing is threatening the future of
the co-operative housing movement. Co-operative housing
contributes to the alleviation of poverty and it increases living
standards and develops a sense of community. The transfer of the
housing co-operatives to provincial and territorial governments
is threatening the stable, well maintained co-op community
Canadians have built over the years and the investment the people
of this country have made in this unique type of good affordable
housing.
It is social housing self-managed by its members who are diverse
in income, culture and education. It is a tool of national unity
due to the fact that co-operative housing represents communities
within communities across Canada that share the same philosophy,
operating agreements and structures.
The federal government needs to recognize the uniqueness of
housing co-operatives and their national position in Canada's
social housing program and transfer that segment of the portfolio
to the co-operative housing federation to look after it under the
same contract it has had for the past 25 years to 30 years. The
federal government must work with the national co-operative
housing sector to find an arrangement that will preserve the
successful features of co-operative housing.
This housing makes up 10% of Canada's federally assisted housing
stock. The non-profit agency being proposed by the Co-operative
Housing Federation of Canada will specialize in managing the
co-operative housing portfolio. Carving out that portfolio among
12 different jurisdictions will leave the co-op housing sector
divided and without countrywide links to benefit all co-ops.
They are owned by their residents who volunteer time to their
communities. Their operating costs are 19% below costs of
municipal and private non-profit housing and 71% below costs of
housing owned by the federal and provincial governments. In 1992
the value of donated time ran between $900 and $1,400 per
household per year. Co-ops are accountable to their members,
their residents. This means built-in incentives to manage well
and keep costs low.
The federal government took steps to undermine the continued
viability of Canada's housing co-operative movement. The policy
being implemented by the Liberal government violates its 1993
electoral promises. In 1993 the Minister of Finance wrote a
letter to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the
co-operative housing federation, the National Housing Coalition,
supporters of non-profit co-operative housing and the Canadian
Housing and Renewal Association. He stated: “Our platform
document provides a framework for government in the 1990s. While
it does not specifically address our commitment to non-profit and
co-operative housing, let me make it abundantly clear that the
Liberal government is committed to stable and secure funding for
the non-profit and co-operative housing sectors”. This has
turned out to be untrue.
It is clear that the Liberal promise on social housing was like
the promise to eliminate the GST and abandoning people in one
million Canadian households living in need of adequate shelter.
It is similar to the abandonment of those with hepatitis C, the
east and west coast fishermen, our medicare system, young
students struggling for an education, the EI program and those
who are unemployed.
1940
Canadians need housing. The co-operative movement is ready to
take on that aspect and provide housing for those in need and we
should support that.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, it
is not very often in the House that we actually have a debate
about the need for housing. I thank the hon. member from the
Conservative Party for bringing forward this motion so that at
least there is some discussion in the House of Commons about what
really is a most fundamental and important aspect of people's
daily lives, the right to adequate, safe, affordable shelter and
housing in Canada.
Like my colleague from the NDP for Yukon, I believe housing is a
fundamental human right. If there is no adequate safe housing
there is very little else in life that can be dealt with because
it is such a fundamental issue.
I have listened to other members speaking on this motion and
actually have been very interested, quite surprised and dismayed
to hear the government member talk about how the government has
shown such leadership on this issue. If there is such leadership
on the question of housing then why is it that the federal
government abandoned social housing in 1993?
In my province of British Columbia if the federal government
were still continuing with its program of funding and developing
social housing, we would have another 8,000 units built since
1993. In my riding of Vancouver East there are numerous very
well built, very well managed, very good local neighbourhood
projects that are social housing projects and co-operative
housing projects. I do not think we can place a financial value
on the kind of stability those housing projects and co-ops have
produced in a local context. Housing co-ops and social housing
generally do help provide great stability in local communities.
In my riding of Vancouver East, particularly in a neighbourhood
like the downtown east side where there are still 6,000 people
living in substandard slum housing, in single occupant rooms, the
fact that the federal government has refused to fund social
housing, has refused to provide funds for co-operative housing of
which we have many in my riding of Vancouver East, is really
another indication of the failure of the government to address
the real priorities and the real needs ordinary Canadians have in
terms of housing.
In B.C. alone there are something like 20,000 on waiting lists
for social housing. B.C. is one of only two provincial
governments left providing social housing, but we could do a lot
better if the federal government were still a financial and
committed partner to the provision of co-operative housing.
The devolution of housing has had a devastating impact for
people who live in poverty and has contributed to the growing
inequality we see in Canada, the growing gap between the rich and
poor.
The federal government is devolving housing to the provinces and
what has been very interesting is that the co-operative housing
movement has shown a lot of initiative in coming forward and
saying to the federal and provincial governments it wants to be
involved in self-management and in the administration and
maintenance of co-operative housing projects.
It has been very disappointing to see the lack of response from
the federal government to this very positive initiative that is
financially sound, socially responsible and will ensure local
accountability, local management and a sense of national
standards and guidelines, something that has really been lacking
since the federal government has devolved housing to the
provinces.
We want to call on the government today to be very clear that if
it means what it says about showing leadership in this area it
should be clear with the provinces that the federal government is
willing to negotiate an option with provincial governments which
will allow the CHF to bring forward the proposal that it has and
to provide for the management of co-operative housing. This is
something that has a lot of support in my province of British
Columbia, which our provincial government is seriously
considering and is willing to look at. But we need the federal
government to be part of that negotiation and to say that it is
committed to allowing this initiative from the CHF to be
successful.
1945
I have already received many messages and cards from my
constituents who are fortunate to live in co-op housing and who
are writing to me as their local MP to say they support the co-op
sector's proposal for a non-profit agency to administer co-op
housing. I have had cards, for example, from the Paloma co-op in
my riding. A member of that co-op wrote “I love my co-op
because as a middle-aged woman living alone I feel safe and
secure and can go to university and get a degree and improve my
employment”. That is as a result of having a stable, secure,
neighbourly, protected housing environment which has come about
as a result of living in a housing co-op.
I would like to encourage the government to review its position
and to demonstrate an understanding that housing is a human
right. I believe that the government has to review its
abandonment of social housing. It has to go back and renegotiate
with the provinces to find a way to ensure that there is
provincial involvement but, critically, federal involvement to
ensure there is further development in social housing and
co-operative housing in Canada.
There is no question that co-op housing in this country has been
a Canadian success story. But that success story has now
partially been dashed by the abandonment of the federal
government in the devolution of co-op housing.
We are glad to have this debate today. We need to have more
debates on co-op housing and social housing. I want to say to
the government that in my riding of Vancouver East we have a
desperate need for more co-ops. We have a desperate need for
more social housing. We have people who are one step away from
homelessness. We have people who are living on the streets
because the federal government has abandoned its role in social
housing.
I want to call on the government today to reaffirm its
commitment to house people, to provide the funds, to negotiate
with the provinces and to say yes to the proposal from the Co-op
Housing Federation to ensure that the option that it has brought
forward is something that can actually be realized.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Tobique—Mactaquac. The intervention of the hon. member will
close the debate.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
members of the Reform Party, the NDP and the Bloc for supporting
my private member's motion because this is a very important issue
for co-op housing.
I wish I could say the same about the parliamentary secretary on
the government side. It is typical that when we have a program
that works well, the Liberals want to destroy it.
I heard what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, said. I
just do not agree. I believe there will be a devolution of
social housing which will threaten co-ops. What we are saying is
that there will be a loss of control.
I put forth five points.
The first one is that existing contracts are not protected under
the new social housing agreements. Second, the provinces can
unilaterally alter the operating agreements. Third, the co-op
residents were not consulted on these agreements. Fourth,
agreements do not protect the co-ops' autonomy. Fifth, co-ops
can be lumped in with other social housing programs. A sixth
point is that there will be a loss of financial security.
1950
I will outline two points: federal contributions will dwindle
as current funding expires and, two, new social housing
agreements now require the provinces to replace funding.
A new independent, regionally based, non-profit co-operative
housing agency will offer the federal government an affordable
way to protect public investment in co-op housing and to ensure
that public funds directed to co-op programs are spent as
intended and properly accounted for.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
this item is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BOSNIA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) moved:
That this House take note of the intention of the Government of
Canada to renew its participation in the NATO-led stabilization
force (SFOR) in Bosnia beyond June 20, 1998, in order to maintain
a safe environment for reconstruction and reconciliation and a
lasting peace for the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be in the House
this evening to share with my colleague the Minister of National
Defence a presentation on this take note debate on the future
extension of the Canadian contingent in Bosnia.
First let me recognize and express my appreciation to members of
both the foreign affairs and defence committees who travelled
earlier to Bosnia to review for themselves their assessments and
judgments about the activities in that area and to follow along
not only on their recommendation that an extension be approved but
also to take full acknowledgement of their recommendation that
there be a parliamentary debate. This evening myself and my
colleague are very pleased to follow through on that
recommendation.
The findings of the committee really confirmed what I saw for
myself just a few short weeks ago when I visited Bosnia. It was
really quite dramatic to see the changes that had taken place.
During my first visit to that area I was told to equip myself on
a daily basis with a bullet proof vest and helmet. This time I
just had to wear the bullet proof vest. It feels like great
progress has been made.
More importantly, there are political changes taking place,
particularly in the Republic of Srpska, where there is a new
government beginning to show some recognition of and willingness
to conform to the Dayton Accords. We are also beginning to see
some signs of economic reconstruction and, to some extent, a
reconciliation amongst the population itself.
UN High Representative Westendorp has said that the situation in
Bosnia has moved from the “critical list” to the “stable
list”. However, it is still quite apparent to most that a
certain form of life support is required by way of the presence
of the international community.
I still believe it is very essential to once again look at
what we have been able to achieve to judge where we want to go in
the future and also to look at the kind of priorities and targets
we can set in the forthcoming years in order to ensure that the
investment and the commitment which Canadians have made over the
past several years both under the UN and NATO can be fulfilled.
In saying that I would like to express the real, good sense of
gratitude that we have to our young Canadian men and women who
have served there and particularly to recognize the 13 Canadian
forces people who gave their lives as part of the Canadian
commitment to Bosnia. It is a demonstration of the worthiness of
the Canadian population, particularly those in our armed forces,
to provide the honourable role of peacekeeping. In this case
they can honourably say that is what they have accomplished.
I think what is important to note is that there has been quite
an important turnaround in the last year or so.
1955
Were I reporting to the House at this time last year, I think I
might have been somewhat more pessimistic in my sense of outcome.
In the meetings last spring of both the defence and foreign
ministers under NATO, the mandate was re-energized. Clear
directions were given to the new high representative to take a
very strong and stalwart stand to make things happen, to make the
Dayton Accords a reality.
Since then municipal elections have been held and I think they
were carried out successfully. The special police forces have
been brought under control. The seizure of the TV transmitters
by escort troops has, for the first time, opened up a degree of
free media in that area so there can be a full expression of
points of view. The SFOR troops were provided protection and
security for the mass execution graves so that war crimes could
be properly examined under the tribunal.
I think it is important to recognize that there are significant
benefits in the world. Countries are coming together to work
together. Some 34 countries are contributing. It is a model for
the future.
This has given NATO a new sense of direction and purpose in
providing a degree of stability and security. It has shown that
the troops themselves are not there simply for the classic
traditional peacekeeping purposes, but are engaged in a wide
variety of activities.
As the minister of defence would properly acknowledge in his
remarks, not only are the troops providing the basic security for
the Dayton Accords, they are also showing a model of tolerance
and co-operation.
Our troops are using funds provided by CIDA to help rebuild
schools. They are helping to demonstrate civic pride and
commitment. Once again they are an important factor in moving
that area toward more democracy. They are showing that the use
of military personnel is not just for conflict and confrontation,
but can really be used in a peace-building capacity.
SFOR is a symbol of the international community's readiness to
provide intervention and responsibility. At the same time we will
provide, through the SFOR commitments, an ongoing role which is
very crucial and which continues to provide stability as we look
at other hot spots growing in that area.
I visited the Kosovo-Macedonia area when I was in the Balkans.
Once again the fact that peacekeepers, including some Canadians,
are on the border of Macedonia is a real deterrent to the spread
of disruption and conflict taking place in that area. Once again
the capacity of the international community to intervene to
prevent conflict from taking place instead of only trying to
resolve it is a clear demonstration of what we can do.
At the same time, I think it is important to note that there are
lessons to be learned in this area. Each day that goes by, as
the committees have reported, lessons have been learned.
The tasks which lie ahead are perhaps the toughest of them all.
For those who think the job is about done, let us recognize that
there are still very important and significant tasks to be done
to complete the work which was undertaken when the Dayton Accords
were first signed.
The first and perhaps most significant task is to provide the
right atmosphere and control under which refugees can be
returned. The outstanding issue in the area is still the
hundreds of thousands of displaced people both inside and outside
the country. Without the security that SFOR has provided refugee
return would not take place.
Secondly, there are still some very difficult problems. The
major problem around Brcko in Bosnia is crucial in resolving and
reconciling the issues between the different factions in the
area.
There is an important need for a continuing presence to ensure
that the general elections taking place later this year will be
again conducted with no disruption or untoward interference by
those who want to destroy the Dayton Accords.
It is also important that we maintain pressure on war crimes.
What has been happening in a very interesting way is that
indicted war criminals are now giving themselves up because they
recognize they have no other choice.
Increasingly the influence of Karadzic and his control on the
area has been reduced because of the presence of the SFOR. They
have undertaken the Canadian notion of shrinking the area of
responsibility and control and the result has been that war
criminals are voluntarily giving themselves up to tribunals.
2000
Finally, in terms of future tasks I would like to mention the
important role for Canadians that our own forces are playing in
the Canadian land mine initiatives taking place in Bosnia.
With the agreement of my colleagues, the Minister of National
Defence and the Minister for International Co-operation, we
announced a major $10 million land mine initiative just about a
month ago in Bosnia. That will provide an integrated approach
between military, civilian, NGO and UN personnel to provide
humanitarian demining that would complement what is being done by
the Bosnia troops and would provide not only demining but also
new space, new land and new opportunities for the refugees coming
back. We are beginning to achieve multiple objectives by our
involvement. Once again in this kind of responsibility the
existence of our troops is very crucial.
Before I pass the floor to my colleague, I underline the
importance of our continuing presence partly as a member of a
broad international coalition and partly as a way of bringing to
bear the kinds of special values, capacities and skills provided
by the Canadian forces. They are also beginning to demonstrate
that the international community is prepared to provide real
assistance.
When it comes down to the truth the only people who can
ultimately resolve the issue in Bosnia are the Bosnians
themselves, but they will need continuing help. We would
recommend to the House that they accept and agree to an
extension.
With the kind of take note debate that is occurring tonight, my
colleague and I and the Prime Minister can then go forward and
make a decision about the future of this one.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to join my
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in commencing the
discussion tonight on the future of the Canadian military
involvement in the SFOR or the stabilization force NATO in
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I have had some firsthand experience with the situation in
Bosnia. Last fall I visited there and saw for myself the
destruction and devastation that followed six years of war. I
saw how horrible it is to live in a land strewn with almost a
million land mines. I learned how hard the men and women of the
Canadian forces are working to help rebuild that country. I
slept at Camp Holpina, a camp named after a Canadian solider who
was killed by a land mine, and I discussed with our troops how
they were doing. I was very proud to be Canadian as I listened
to these fine young men and women describe how they were helping
the people of Bosnia and Hercegovina rebuild their lives.
Since my visit there I have spoken with many of my counterparts
in NATO and I can say that they are like minded when it comes to
staying the course in Bosnia. This has always been and should
remain a multilateral effort. All of us have seen the benefits
of acting together in this way. We know this continues to be as
important today as it has been in the past.
[Translation]
Canada's numerous contributions to peace in the former
Yugoslavia are evidence that this tradition is still strong.
[English]
Canada has played an active role in this region since war broke
out in 1991. Canada participated first in the European Community
monitoring mission and UNPROFOR between 1992 and 1995 because
Canadians could not stand by in silence and witness such
destruction. Nor could we be idle in the face of crimes against
humanity.
Because we stayed there with our allies in the NATO led
implementation force and then as part of SFOR, so much has been
and is still being accomplished. SFOR has helped to guarantee
that municipal elections, for example, take place peacefully.
SFOR has actively supported the UN international police task
force in the restructuring of civil police, significantly
enhancing the freedom of movement.
SFOR has worked diligently with the local armed forces to
encourage them to increase their demining efforts.
As a result some 20,000 mines have been lifted in the last year
under SFOR monitoring.
2005
SFOR has also participated in operation harvest, an amnesty
program intended to reduce private holdings of illegal arms and
ordinances. It was conducted this spring. The Canadian battle
group played a vital role in this recovery effort.
Much has been accomplished but much however still needs to done.
We are still witnessing pockets of violence in places like Drvar
where we have recently seen that the return of displaced persons
can provoke violence.
With the expiry in June of SFOR's 18 month mandate the time has
come to take stock of our involvement and the continued viability
of an international military presence.
There is now enough stability to be able to put more focus on
economic recovery, on more demining, on the September 1998
general elections, on police reform, on the safe return of
displaced persons and on the building of common institutions.
However we along with our allies believe that until such time as
the many dimensions of the peace settlement are firmly in place,
the secure environment provided by SFOR is the only way these and
other reconstruction efforts of the Dayton accord can continue.
We can do this only by maintaining our current level of military
commitment. Right now Canada has over 1,200 military personnel
in the region. To continue to make a meaningful difference we
need to deploy a combat capable contingent of about the same
number of personnel. They would contribute to a renewed
multinational force by deterring hostilities, stabilizing peace
and thereby contributing to a secure environment to be able to
carry out the further reforms I have mentioned.
Our allies agree that a post-June SFOR is necessary. We are not
doing this alone. We are doing it in a multilateral context. We
believe that we must continue to help support the return of
refugees in minority areas, help install local governments and
help strengthen demining efforts.
[Translation]
Our allies are also of the opinion that any military
contribution must have clear objectives, in order to monitor
progress.
[English]
There should be a precise mandate and a provision for regular
review. That is why any Canadian renewal is only possible if
there is a transition strategy which vigorously and frequently
evaluates progress to ensure that we are constantly focused on
our task at hand and so we can assess how best to reach our
objectives. Once these objectives have been met we will be able
to withdraw, secure in the knowledge that we have helped bring
lasting peace to a troubled region.
Some may ask whether we are setting the stage for another Cyprus
if we do not impose an end date. The situations are different.
In Bosnia-Hercegovina there is a peace plan to which all the
parties have agreed. Nevertheless we must assume that the
problem there will take some years to resolve—we cannot simply
pull out—and that for at least part of that time NATO forces
will have to remain.
My visit to Bosnia convinced me of many things. It convinced me
that the work we are carrying out there is essential. Our forces
are making a difference to people's everyday lives. They are
proud to represent Canada as a part of this international
response.
It convinced me that Canadian participation in SFOR is a key
component in this multilateral NATO operation. It convinced me
that much still needs to be done and that Canada must be a part
of that effort.
2010
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to be able to talk about Bosnia again; it seems to
happen every six months or so.
I believe Canadians have a lot of questions about our
involvement in Bosnia. Everywhere I go people ask me to explain
why we should be there. They ask questions about the history of
Bosnia. They ask if it is a civil war, whether it has been going
on for a long time, what it is really like there and what the
people are really like there. They deserve answers to some of
these questions.
I like the two ministers who have just spoken have been there. I
have been on the ground, visited the people and taken pictures.
I changed my point of view many times because of what I observed
firsthand on the ground. This is an opportunity to express that
and to get it on the record. I will take this opportunity to
answer some of those questions.
It has been going on for a long time. We could go back to Roman
times when they were fighting in this area. We could go back to
the Ottoman empire when there was fighting in this area. We
could talk about the involvement of many countries, of Russia, of
Germany, of Greece, of France and of Britain. There has been
much involvement. There is a history there. There was the first
world war and Archduke Ferdinand. We could talk about the Nazi
occupation. Then we could talk about Tito and his rule until
1980 when he died.
Then we come to current history and to 1991. Two of the
strongest parts of Yugoslavia, which had been held together by
Tito, decided to opt for independence. When Croatia and Slovenia
decided to separate it was the beginning of the modern day
problems that would occur in this part of the world.
There is a history there. There is a history of turmoil and of
trouble. At this point there is also Canadian involvement first
with the UN forces. We were one of the first countries to be
involved. I like the others would say that I saw nothing but
dedication and great Canadians working with the people of
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I was proud to be a Canadian and to see the Canadian flag on the
tanks when they came around the corner. That made me proud as a
Canadian. Talking to some of our troops made me even prouder.
They told me about the little kids they had helped, the schools
they had reconstructed and that sort of thing. That was real.
That was something we could feel, touch and look at.
Many people thought at that point that Kosovo would have been
the next place to explode but instead it was Bosnia. That is all
history.
The 1995 Dayton accord supposedly ended the conflict. When I
went there as an election observer on the ground last September I
had the opportunity to see how the Dayton accord would work. I
will use my province as an example.
It was like if during the war all the people from Red Deer had
been moved to Saskatoon. Then the Dayton accord came along and
said to the people in Saskatoon that in 1991 they lived in Red
Deer so they should vote for the mayor and the council in Red
Deer. However they lived in Saskatoon. People of a different
ethnicity mix and of a different religion now lived in Red Deer
and had to vote for the mayor and the council in Red Deer.
Because of problems like the ones we just witnessed occurring
there some of the people from Saskatoon decided to go back to Red
Deer. That is why there is a problem.
How will that create peace? There is a built in conflict because
the people who designed the Dayton accord were in Dayton, Ohio,
and did not take into consideration the emotion, religion or
ethnic mix there.
2015
Yes they are all of Slavic background but they are of three
religious backgrounds. There are Muslims, there are Orthodox and
there are Catholics. It is very different and they feel very
strongly and are very emotional. In Drvar when the Croats
attacked the Serbs who were returning home it can be seen why.
That is going to continue and continue.
I wanted to find out what it was really like in that country so
I hired a translator and a car and off we went to cover Bosnia. I
visited schools. I visited mosques. I visited churches. I
visited community halls. I talked to farmers. I went to bars. I
went everywhere the people were and I talked to them.
Probably one of the most emotional feelings I got occurred when
I talked to a group of kids who were 10 to 11 years old. I asked
them to tell me how they felt about their country. I have pages
of their comments but I will quote only a couple which I think
say a lot. Remember that these kids are 10 and 11 years old.
They said they could not relax or run freely because there are
mines everywhere. That is what Bosnia-Hercegovina is like now.
Mines are everywhere. We found mines under Coke tins. The bottom
was cut out of the Coke tin and a plastic mine was inside. It
was placed on a picnic table, there for someone to pick up. Boom.
In cobs of corn, on the sides of roads, there are mines. There
are millions of these mines everywhere. Imagine living in that
sort of an environment.
“When I see my friend without a leg or a hand it makes me very
sad”. “I cannot wait to grow up”. “Suddenly there was heat.
My sister fell over me. Something exploded. There was smoke.
There were screams. Rivers of blood. I saw both my parents
dead. I called them but they did not respond. When I wanted a
drink of water I saw a head without a body. Since then me and my
sister cannot sleep at night”. That is what the kids of
Bosnia-Hercegovina are going through.
What about the people? The people are well educated. They are
handsome, good looking people. They are friendly. They are
concerned about families, about school, about education, the same
things we are. Yet there is something there that is different.
That something is a level of history and hate I have never
experienced before.
I could talk to someone and they would tell me about a war and
they described it as though it were yesterday. One person told
me about a war that happened in 1536 when the Ottoman Turks were
there. Another person told me about when the Nazis came in 1943.
It was as if it were yesterday. That is why they hate their
neighbour. Because their neighbour was involved with that action
and it has been regurgitated and regurgitated and everybody
remembers it as if it were yesterday. They are handicapped by
their history.
I will never forget the little old lady who had gone for a loaf
of bread. I asked if I could take her picture. She had a
beautiful face. Her face was stressed and strained and I thought
of what it had seen. She said she had to go home and change her
dress so I could take a picture of her with her loaf of bread. I
convinced her finally that I could take her picture without her
actually changing her dress.
I will never forget the old fellow who at a polling station said
“You are from Canada”. He asked me if I knew how to make
slivovitz. That is plum brandy. “Come to my basement and I
will show you”. He was so proud. His was the best in the
community.
I was also advised not to drink any of it as a person could go
blind. This was a real guy. He was proud of this. He was a
real person, someone that makes you say how can there be such
hate here? These people have such emotions, such feelings, such
beauty.
2020
In the countryside as well. It is like Switzerland. The only
problem is it is full of mines. We drove through some of the
valleys. The houses are destroyed. The fields are mined. The
graves are in the ditches. There are no birds singing in the
fields. Not having lived through a war, experiencing this
firsthand on the ground in a car with a driver and a translator
was quite an experience.
Should we stay in Bosnia-Hercegovina? We have several options.
We could leave. We could simply leave, saying that it is a long
war, that it is going to be like Cyprus and might last forever.
What are the problems if we do that? My feeling is that if we
were to leave at 12 noon by 12.30 there would be a full fledged
war again.
What would that mean? It would mean the potential of expansion.
The Turks are not prepared to see Muslims die. The Russians are
not prepared to see Serbs die. The Germans are not prepared to
see Croats die. The Albanians and the Greeks and the
Macedonians. The list goes on and on of possible future
expansion of warfare in this area. Kosovo is the exact same
example. What will Greece do? What will Turkey do? There are
so many people involved.
If we leave, what about the CNN factor? What about the killing
we would watch on our televisions? Are we prepared to do that?
These are hard questions. These are questions we need to ask as
we contemplate this decision.
Another choice would be to divide the country into three units
and say this is where the Serbs will be, this is where the Croats
will be and this is where the Bosnians will be. I guess that is
called ethnic cleansing but I do not know that that is acceptable
or possible. Certainly it is not something we would be prepared
to talk about.
Our third option is a short term plan in which we would do
something which I consider to be so typically Liberal. That would
be to simply extend our mandate and not really propose a
solution. It is similar to saying that the financial problem has
been solved even though there is a $583 billion debt, but it is
all solved because we balanced the budget.
My colleague is going to address the sustainability and what are
the costs to our troops.
I will put forward a fourth option tonight and hopefully the
minister will get a chance to read it. That option would be to
show some leadership in developing a long term solution, a plan.
I am not saying I have all the answers. I am not saying how we
would handle the refugee return or the war criminals. However we
need to have something longer than six-month intervals. I cannot
help but remember standing in the lobby in this House when the
former defence minister said “We will be out of there by
Christmas; there is no chance we will be there beyond
Christmas”. That was in 1996.
We need to look at something bigger. We need to talk about
costs, about mandates, about responsibility, about length of
stay, about a plan. I would like to see this government take some
initiative, do some planning, show something beyond a six-month
window in a problem like this one.
2025
I cannot stand up here and say we should not stay there. I can
now put a face on Bosnia-Hercegovina. It means people. It means
caring. It means that little man and his slivovitz. It means
school kids. However, we must do something better than simply
say that the Dayton accord is going to do it all. It is not the
answer and I have given just a brief insight into why it is not.
Finally, as far as the take note debate is concerned, I guess I
was naive when I first came here. One of the first speeches I
gave in this House was on Bosnia-Hercegovina. Did I ever work
hard to prepare that speech because I thought it really was part
of the decision making.
However, it was announced yesterday by the defence minister that
we are staying on for at least another six months. It is already
news. We are not informing anybody about anything. I think the
huge turnout here demonstrates how many people are really
interested in the take note debate. We are here so the
government in a week's time can say “We had a full fledged
debate on Bosnia and every party had a chance to speak. We
debated the issue and came up with this decision. This is
democracy”.
I put to the House that tonight may be the wrong night to talk
about democracy when we have just gone through what we went
through with a 15 year old boy being removed by our guards, I
hope not to jail. We saw the vote on hepatitis C. I feel
somewhat like a hypocrite to the Canadian people when I say I am
here to try to make a difference about Bosnia-Hercegovina because
I want to make a difference. I want to help the people of
Bosnia-Hercegovina. How do we get a government that does not
involve us to hear us? That is a plea I guess for the
democratization of Canada. We need that.
I have a lot of disgust for this kind of procedure. Yes it is
on the record, but I wish the minister could hear it or would
read it.
In conclusion let us come up with a plan. Let us talk about the
big picture. Let us not just do what makes us feel good. Let us
show some leadership and be part of the decision making process.
Let us talk about the cost of lives and the suffering. Let us
really make a difference to the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to speak this evening on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois to the motion regarding the renewal of the NATO
stabilization force in Bosnia.
I also have the pleasure of informing the House at the start of
my presentation that the Bloc Quebecois will support this motion
and therefore the intention of the Government of Canada to renew
the force's participation in the SFOR past June 20, 1998.
The renewal proposal follows an initial renewal of the mandate
of the Canadian forces in Bosnia in November and December last
year.
The initial renewal had the support of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on National Defence.
Several members of these committees, including myself, had the
opportunity to travel to Bosnia-Hercegovina to view the situation
there.
We saw during our visit the fragility, indeed the
precariousness, of the peace process, which involves not only
military personnel of NATO member countries and the OSCE
Partnership for Peace countries, but also civilian and police
personnel from many countries in the international community, we
must not forget.
2030
The events that occurred barely a few days ago, on April 24,
1998, prove this fragility. In northern Bosnia, in the
municipalities of Derventa and Drvar, tensions between Serbs and
Croats resulted in outbursts of violence, exchanges and
altercations between people of various nationalities in
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Canadian soldiers were called in to put a stop to the
confrontation in Drvar after Bosnian Croats set fire to
buildings and attacked United Nations' vehicles in response to
threats made to the life of a Croat bishop elsewhere in the
country.
The continued presence of the international community is needed
to provide this safe environment referred to in the motion
before this House. It is especially important to maintain this
safe environment since it is necessary for the reconstruction
and reconciliation efforts at the heart of the Dayton accords to
finally pay off.
By its presence, the SFOR will help ensure the safety of ongoing
civilian activities and particularly the social and economic
reconstruction operations identified in the three-year plan, as
established by the World Bank and the European Community,
operations in which mine clearance instructors from the
Department of National Defence of Canada are taking part.
It is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois that the civilian
activities aimed at consolidating democracy, which are placed
under the auspices of the OSCE, promoting human rights and
providing assistance to the great many refugees and displaced
people in Bosnia-Hercegovina, could not take place without the
continued presence of the SFOR. This is a force which also tends
to create a climate in which other international players in
Bosnia-Hercegovina can carry out their activities safely. All
these players—the international police force set up by the UN
Security Council, the ICRC, UNICEF, the High Commissioner for
Refugees and the many NGOs such as CARE Canada which does
important work in support of Bosnians—perfectly complete the
work done by intergovernmental organizations in Bosnia.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the renewal of the SFOR mandate
in Bosnia-Hercegovina should be accompanied by increased support
for the International Crime Tribunal, a more significant support
for this international court, which is playing a fundamental
role with regards to the aftermath of the conflict in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. We believe that SFOR soldiers, including
Canadian soldiers whose dedication I salute, should be given the
mandate to play a more proactive role in this respect and not
hesitate to arrest individuals charged with crimes and against
whom the chief prosecutor, Madam Justice Louise Arbour, has
issued arrest warrants.
The timid attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada in this
matter, which is the result of some comments he made, without
mentioning those from his government, which by the way has not
yet introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code with a view to
ensuring Canada's full co-operation with the International Crime
Tribunal, is unacceptable.
2035
The Bloc Quebecois urges the government to make amends and
support more that it has so far the efforts of the tribunal to
bring to justice the individuals suspected of the worst crimes,
international crimes, whether they are war crimes, crimes
against humanity or worst of all, the crime of genocide.
It is timely to remember, with respect to genocide, that this
year, in 1998, we will be celebrating not only the anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also the 50th
anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide that was breached by individuals in
Bosnia-Hercegovina, as the International Crime tribunal will
show, if it can bring to justice the individuals charged with
such crimes.
The renewal of the SFOR mandate is also important, especially as
it will send a message to those in the Balkans who might be
tempted to again threaten international peace and security in
the area.
I am referring to tensions in the Kosovo area, tensions that are
aggravated by the refusal by the Republic of Yugoslavia to enter
into a meaningful dialogue with Albanians from the Kosovo area
and to respond to the mediation proposal made by the
international community. These tensions do not favour the
withdrawal of SFOR's troops from Bosnia. On the contrary, they
favour their continued presence.
The international community should consider the possibility of
creating a similar force in the Kosovo area if the situation
continues to deteriorate in this part of the Balkans. Last week,
fighting in the region resulted in at least 23 deaths, and
border tensions are increasing.
Today, SFOR's presence is more needed than ever, just as sending
a protection force into Bosnia-Hercegovina was necessary a few
years ago, when the UN created UNPROFOR, which was replaced by
IFOR, the predecessor of SFOR, the mandate of which we want to
renew today.
At that time, some people criticized Canada for having waited
too long before taking action. Canada cannot repeat today the
mistake it made by not taking action and by not leading the
international community to take action decisively and quickly.
It cannot choose the same ambivalent approach.
In closing, I also want to say how disappointed I am to see this
debate taking place in the House when so very few people are
present. I think an issue such as this deserves more attention.
Not only should the issues of creating and setting up
stabilization or peacekeeping forces be looked at seriously by
the standing committee on foreign affairs, as was done in other
cases involving the creation or renewal of peacekeeping forces,
but it remains essential, despite the absence of members this
evening, that this issue also be debated in the House.
We should probably give serious thought to legislating the
creation and renewal of peacekeeping forces and requiring that
Parliament be consulted and give an opinion binding on the
government.
The practice in recent years seems to be lacking in uniformity.
Since I joined the House on June 2, I have noticed that the
issue of renewing forces is sometimes studied in committee, and
sometimes by the House in plenary. There does not seem to be
any real criterion behind the decision by Parliament or one of
its committees to approve the renewal or creation of such
forces.
2040
No doubt we should follow the example of certain countries that
accord Parliament a much greater role in the renewal and the
creation of such forces.
I think this issue warrants greater study since the members of
the opposition lacked important information in preparing their
position. The government did not deign to provide information
on the real mandate it wanted to give the Canadian forces or on
other terms of Canada's participation in the SFOR, which it
wanted to renew.
Without real information, the opposition parties are not able to
formulate positions that are as valuable as they might be to the
government in making its decision.
I would like to stress that the importance of renewing this
force is related primarily to the issue of maintaining and
consolidating the existing but fragile peace.
I would like to quote a friend, someone I met on my trip to
Sarajevo in Bosnia, a young Quebec woman who is serving as the
deputy ombudsman for Bosnia-Hercegovina and who introduced me to
a magnificent work I recommend you read. It is the story of a
young child who contemplates and analyzes through the eyes of a
child the effect of the war on the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
In looking at the war and trying to understand it, the child
thinks primarily of the stars on the sidewalks of Sarajevo.
There are many such stars in the Sarajevo market, among other
places, where the many shells fell killing so many people in one
night of catastrophe for Sarajevo.
Céline Auclair, my friend, wrote me at the start of this year,
January 19, 1998, and referred me to this work by a young
Frenchman, Mr. Lecomte. It is a very moving work and both she
and I found it overpowering. I quote her “Every time I see a
star on the sidewalks of Sarajevo I smile and catch myself
dreaming. Much better than before, when I stepped over the
scars left by the shelling, aware that I was in the shadow of
death”.
The shadow of death no longer hovers so closely over
Bosnia-Hercegovina. The SFOR's mandate must be renewed to keep
it away from this country.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to take part in this take
note debate and to consider the Government of Canada's intention
to renew its participation in the NATO led stabilization force in
Bosnia beyond June 1998 in order to maintain a safe environment
for reconstruction and reconciliation and a lasting peace for the
people of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I agree. I think it is important that Canada maintain its force
in Bosnia for the continuation of the kinds of work it has done
already to help maintain stability and ensure that Bosnians have
the opportunity to move forward into a more peaceful existence in
the near future, the mid term and the long term.
It is important that Canada continue to perform what is regarded
by most in the world including most Canadians as a critically
important function in contributing to a better world.
2045
Canada has legitimately and for extremely good reason become
well regarded for its peacekeeping and peacemaking role around
the world. It is important that we continue to do that for the
benefit of those in whose country we operate, in this case Bosnia
since it is important that we do our bit to ensure peace is
possible there. Bosnia and all the other hot spots around the
world have an impact on Canada too. In order for us to live
peacefully and constructively we need to ensure we play our role
around the world.
To put these supporting words into context I will make some
comments about the approach the federal government and Canada has
traditionally taken with regard to the role of its armed forces.
The auditor general and many within the armed forces have cast
considerable doubt on the ability of Canada's armed forces to do
the jobs they have been set to do. The main reason is that this
House and the Canadian government do not have a clear view of
what functions the armed forces should provide.
Without knowing where we are going it is very difficult to know
what resources need to be made available to the armed forces to
ensure their priorities are met. It is not clear to many
Canadians what our priorities are with regard to our armed
forces. The auditor general has quite rightly pointed out the
difficulties this generates for the armed forces, not only for
the front line personnel but for others who make important
decisions. It is not clear what place new equipment, refurbished
old equipment, or modernized equipment has because we are not
sure what role we want our forces to play.
The international community has gone through a dramatic
transformation since the end of the cold war. The end of the
cold war marked the end of close to a century of strife in which
the world was repeatedly torn apart by the varying rival military
alliances of the great industrial and military powers. They were
rivalries which brought us the two world wars and the cold war.
During such an age it was often necessary to seek security in
military alliances. It was equally true that the greatest
temptation of such an age was to imagine that security was
exclusively a matter of military strength and of participation in
the collective security of military alliances.
The NDP and the CCF before it were among those internationalists
who always argued that it was important to think of security as
something broader and deeper than the security associated with
collective military alliances. The CCF supported the view that
danger was found not only in military threats but in the social
and international tensions created by economic exploitation and
inequality, by the international arms trade and by the
manipulation of smaller states by great powers in their strategic
rivalries with other great powers. That criticism continues to
this day.
In the 1960s the NDP built on that CCF critique by adding the
nuclear arms race to the list of security threats. By the 1980s
global poverty, environmental degradation and widespread human
rights violations were also seen by New Democrats and by
progressive people around the world as essential elements of any
risk assessment that Canadians interested in security matters
should take into account.
The culmination of this perspective in international relations
for the CCF and NDP was a foreign policy statement entitled
“Canada's Stake in Common Security” prepared in 1988. It has
been the basic thrust of the NDP's defence and foreign affairs
policy since. The main framework of NDP policy was articulated
in it.
Common security instead of traditional collective security is to
be preferred and actively sought and modelled by a Canada that no
longer sees itself primarily or even at all as a stakeholder in a
collective alliance.
Canada's real stake is in a world run according to the rules of
common security. The paper of course is a little dated now, but
its essence remains the same and might be argued to be more
poignant.
2050
A policy of global common security is surely crucial to human
survival in the post cold war era. We must not put to rest the
bipolar world of the cold war only to slip back into a multipolar
world of competing regional if not ideologically based alliances,
or regress to the international anarchy of the international
system before the First World War. Neither should we assent to a
unipolar scenario that would allow the Americans to assume the
role of global policeman.
At the end of the cold war many Canadians had high expectations
for the possibilities of building a common security. Many hoped
that with the end of the horrifyingly surreal definition of
international security as a nuclear balance of terror there would
finally open up some real opportunities for an authentic
conception of common security. Such a common security would
continue to have a military dimension.
On the one hand, systems of mutual independent surveillance,
global arms reduction treaties and military information sharing
all integrated into a new global security architecture preferably
under the auspices of a reformed and revitalized UN would have to
be developed and maintained. On the other hand, governments
could spend more on international development, poverty reduction
and environmental protection and engage constructively in the
democratic development of developing societies as a way of
achieving genuine international security, rather than propping up
so-called friendly authoritarian regimes as happened so often
during the cold war.
Canada's New Democrats would want to mobilize this reservoir of
hope for a common security, but we realize there are fundamental
changes ahead. The end of the cold war has brought us a few
welcome steps back from the brink of nuclear holocaust. The
decades of addiction to grotesque levels of military spending and
the obscene accumulation of weapons of mass destruction have left
the world with a formidable hangover.
Nuclear weapons remain the single greatest threat to the future
of the planet. A flourishing arms trade, of which Canada plays a
part, ensures the world is still awash with military hardware.
Millions of innocent people are threatened daily with a plague of
anti-personnel land mines. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has
played a major role in addressing this issue. This hangover
takes the form not only of deadly war materiel, but also in the
social conflicts left in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet
Union and other former communist states in Europe and in the
breakdown of social peace in many African states.
At the same time the international community must respond to the
changing technological and social faces of war. For the
militaries of industrialized countries, new information
technology is leading to the development of an array of new
so-called smart weapons which are dramatically changing the
dynamics of warfare on the battlefield. In many recent conflicts
the social warfare is changing.
It is important that Canada play a major role in helping the
international community find its way through the military dangers
peculiar to the post cold war era and on building a democratic
world order where communities and finally the global community
can contain and shape the global marketplace to make it serve the
common good.
In that regard, it is important that Canada's armed forces
understand their role. The first call on Canada's defence policy
and armed forces, as it is for any country, must be to guarantee
the territorial integrity of the country. While we share the
longest undefended border in the world with the United States,
Canada's geography poses substantial challenges to the tasks of
guaranteeing our territorial sovereignty and environmental
integrity. Thousands of miles of coastline present challenges
to the prevention of illegal hazardous waste dumping and so on.
It is important that Canada's armed forces are equipped to meet
these challenges. The auditor general points out some problems
in this regard. Canada needs to be able to fulfil that primary
role, that of defending Canada's integrity.
Because of our commitment to NATO, Canada needs to be able to
play our role in the trans-Atlantic security issues. That is why
we are in Bosnia in the first place.
2055
Before the NDP, the CCF supported the creation of NATO and
Canada's membership in it from its inception and right throughout
the 1950s. In the course of the 1960s many members of my party
and many Canadians became increasingly critical of American
foreign policy and of NATO's first use of nuclear weapons policy.
They called into question the wisdom and legitimacy of Canada's
membership in NATO.
What has added to that concern in the recent past is the almost
complete domination of NATO by the United States. Were it the
case that Canada was participating in Bosnia under the auspices
of the United Nations, we would have absolutely no reservations
at all. But I think everybody is saddened by the fact that this
has to take place under the auspices of NATO and is largely then
seen as an American driven operation.
We have to ensure that we strengthen the United Nations. We also
have to make sure that Canada works toward the abolition of
nuclear weapons. We should also do our best to eliminate the
international arms trade.
There are two things we have to pay attention to if we are going
to focus on whether our armed forces have the tools to do the
job. This comes with regard to peacekeeping in particular and
also with regard to conflict prevention. I will say just a few
words on each. Canadians are rightly proud of Canada's record as
a leading participant in UN peacekeeping missions and want to
build on past and present experiences.
The tragic incidents in Somalia show the need for vigilance and
the maintenance of professionalism in the military and civilian
leadership of Canada's armed forces. The government has been
rightly criticized for the way in which it handled the Somalia
inquiry, for cutting it short and for not carrying out all of the
recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. It is crucial that as
Canada works its way through this period that the Canadian public
has confidence in the integrity of the relationship between the
civilian and military leadership in Canada's armed forces.
As Canada fashions its military policies to support the
peacekeeping missions we are so often called upon to make, it is
important to distinguish between the variety of UN missions. They
are often grouped together under the rubric of peacekeeping.
Often it is the case that Canadian military personnel find
themselves not keeping the peace that is in place but bringing
about peace among warring parties, as was the case in Somalia and
which I think is a component in Bosnia too. In other situations
military personnel are sent to secure food supplies and safe
havens for civilians in the context of civil or international
conflicts, which is plainly the case in Bosnia and in a number of
other missions. In these situations of peacemaking and
protecting civilians from conflicts in progress, the Canadian
military will need to maintain armed forces equipped and trained
to be combat capable.
Our military planning, so long attuned to the context of the
cold war where peacekeeping was of secondary importance, must
adjust to the primary importance of peacekeeping and peacemaking
for our armed forces. It is important for this place and the
government to make clear Canada's commitment to peacekeeping and
peacemaking and following that to ensure there are the resources,
the materiel and the personnel needed in order to appropriately
fulfil that requirement.
Canada needs to play a stronger role in conflict prevention.
Perhaps the Prime Minister's visit to Cuba this week is an
indication of a commitment to that. Certainly it is an
indication that we are prepared to be independent of the United
States on this important issue.
As a leading contributor of personnel and resources to UN
peacekeeping missions, Canada has a special responsibility to
work for a just international order of common security which is
geared to conflict prevention.
Preventing conflict means addressing the problems at their
roots, encouraging democratic development and human rights,
sustainable development to prevent resource depletion and an
international economic order that will reduce inequalities and
eliminate poverty. We have not done a very good job on these last
matters. We have not made a major contribution in this area. Such
a conflict prevention approach is not primarily a military matter
but it is a question of prevention.
2100
If we are to play our proper role in the world, we have to do
our bit on the prevention side. We know from various issues at
home, social programs, health care and unemployment, that we take
prevention issues seriously. We should do that in the military
too.
I have two final points to make. If we are to ask the Canadian
Armed Forces to play these important peacekeeping-peacemaking
roles, as I have said, we need to ensure that we have a clear
vision of what those forces are intended to do. We need to back
up that clear vision with resources in order to fulfil that
vision.
At the moment we have neither the vision nor the resources to
adequately fulfil the jobs we ask the forces to perform from time
to time. That is my first point.
The second point I want to make is that it is becoming
increasingly clear that the morale in Canada's armed forces is at
an all time low. One of the things we surely cannot expect to do
is to ask the men and women in our armed services to go into
dangerous situations in circumstances in which their morale is
low and in circumstances in which they feel they are not
adequately appreciated.
A former vice-admiral, Chuck Thomas, has said “We put our
troops in jeopardy when we don't give them enough money to
support their families. Soldiers have never been rich but I have
never seen anything like this”.
The defence committee is crossing the country and hearing on a
daily basis of how difficult it is for soldiers and their
families to make ends meet. Surely we cannot expect these men
and women to risk their lives for the benefit of the world in a
far off place unless we treat them well, unless we treat them
better.
We recognize—and indeed the Minister of National Defence
appears to have recognized it—that there is a serious problem
which needs to be addressed. That is one thing. It is another
thing to actually address it.
We have a situation in which our armed forces personnel are not
feeling very confident about their role within their
organization. They do not like the way they are treated, feel
they are undermined economically and socially, and have some
difficulty seeing why they should do what they are called upon to
do when they are not adequately appreciated. Indeed a recent
internal Canadian forces poll showed that 83% of the military has
lost faith in the leadership. That is not a very good sign.
The last point I would like to make is with regard to the
auditor general's report that was published today. It raises
very serious concerns about the ability of our forces to function
within present circumstances. He says, for example, that if the
status quo persists the department's available capital funding
may not be sufficient to equip and modernize the force that
national defence is currently planning. He points out the roles
that have been expected of the armed forces but calls for a
significant refocusing of the mission and a reallocation of
resources to do the job we are asking them to do today. He talks
about declining funds for equipment modernization. He talks
about the Canadian forces trying to cope with equipment
deficiencies and shortages. He says that the army has difficulty
keeping pace with technology and that the air force is facing
obsolescence.
None of these things is designed to provide any confidence in
the ability of our armed forces to do the job that is asked of
them. We all know that those men and women will do the job that
is asked of them, but are the government and the armed forces as
a whole up to the task?
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker, this
evening I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Chicoutimi.
[English]
I am pleased to speak today on the issue of whether Canadian
troops should renew their participation in the NATO led
stabilization force or what is better known as SFOR. Indeed my
party, the party that when in government first ensured Canadian
troops would participate in the former Yugoslavia under the UN
banner, is in favour of the present government's intention to
renew Canadian participation now under the NATO banner and beyond
the current June 20 deadline.
2105
Let there be no mistake about it. The debate we entered into
tonight has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the
Prime Minister is interested in the opinions of the other
parties. It has everything to do with optics.
After this debate and when this issue is raised in the public
eye the Prime Minister will surely declare that there was a
debate in the House, that all parties took part and that everyone
had a say.
That is not the case. For the record I would like to read the
motion put forward by the government, the one we are debating
this evening:
That this House take note of the intention of the Government of
Canada to renew its participation in the NATO-led stabilization
force—
“Take note of the government's intentions”. That is what we
are doing tonight. This is an important debate and my party will
make its voice heard.
The first point I will make is that this should not be a take
note debate. If the government had courage it would make this a
votable motion the way it should be. However the government has
no courage and no understanding. If it had either, the Prime
Minister would not have felt it necessary to make this evening's
vote on whether to compensate all victims who contracted
hepatitis C because of tainted blood a vote of confidence.
The Prime Minister of Canada is not confident that his
government is doing the right thing. He does not have the
courage to stand behind his government's decision. Instead he
had to use the authority of the whip to put his party's
government in line. That is not a courageous thing to do.
It is appropriate that I talk about courage tonight. If the men
and women who will be affected by the government's policy to
extend Canada's participation in SFOR have only one thing, it is
courage. As we represent Canadians in the Chamber they represent
Canada in uniform, carrying a gun and risking their lives in a
far off place that many Canadians cannot even find on the map.
They are armed with courage. I am sure they expect no less from
the government they are serving.
Unfortunately the current government always disappoints in the
department of courage. Did it take courage to whip government
backbenchers into line for tonight's hepatitis C vote? No. Did
it take courage last week when Canada abstained from a crucial
United Nations vote condemning the forced recruitment of child
soldiers in Uganda? No. Did it take courage for the Prime
Minister to stand beside the Cuban dictator in Havana while he
compared the current American embargo to the murder of six
million Jewish lives during World War II's Holocaust and not say
anything, not a word? No.
The government will always make excuses after the fact but it
has never shown courage at the appropriate time. The foreign
minister, an individual who while highly educated has not one
clue about the lessons this century has taught, has since
confessed that a mistake was made when Canada abstained from the
UN vote. That is simply not good enough.
This is a fearful government that celebrates easy decisions and
avoids the difficult ones. In fact the only reason we are here
tonight is that the Prime Minister does not have the courage to
stand up to the Canadian public and say bluntly that Canadians
are staying in Bosnia longer than expected because if they do not
stay we risk losing all that has been achieved.
Instead the Prime Minister will appear before the Canadian
public and say that parliament decided to extend Canadian
involvement. Even though it was the Prime Minister's
decision—and by the way it was a good one—he does not have the
courage to stand and say it was his decision just in case there
are Liberals out there who might not agree with him. Instead he
will hide behind tonight's meaningless take note debate.
When I said that if there were one thing Canadian soldiers would
be bringing with them to Bosnia it would be courage, I did not
mean to exaggerate. The government has cut the defence budget by
30% in the last five years. That is taking its toll. It is
taking its toll on equipment and on training. As the defence
committee travelled from base to base this spring we found that
it was taking its toll on the simple quality of life that my
party believes soldiers should enjoy.
2110
Yet, while the government expects Canada's forces to jump when
the Prime Minister gives the word and while the dedicated people
who make up the Canadian forces will always respond when the
government calls, the government abuses the forces. The
government abuses the force's dedication to the country.
I cannot think of a more disgusting waste of talent and
dedicated men and women than to abuse their dedication by not
providing them with the equipment, training and resources they
need to do their job.
If the government continues this trend of abusing the Canadian
military there will come a time when the Prime Minister says
“okay, boys, it's time to go” and the response will come “I am
sorry, sir, but we can't perform that mission”.
The answer will come, not because they will not want to perform
their particular mission, not because they do not want to come to
the aid of Canada, but because their government has let them down
and they no longer have the equipment to do the job. That day
will come, sooner than one would think unless the government
begins to show the smallest ounce of courage and do its most
fundamental job, protect Canadians.
I urge the Prime Minister, as I am sure the current Minister of
National Defence has done behind closed doors, to stop abusing
the Canadian forces, to show some courage in leadership and to
give them the resources they need to do their job, this time in
Bosnia.
We have already heard tonight good reasons why Canada must
extend its stay in Bosnia. Good work has been started and must
continue. To leave now would be to abandon all that has been
accomplished, but there is another reason that has not yet been
pointed out in the Chamber. It was hardly mentioned.
This issue came before the committee in November. When I
mentioned it at the committee to the NATO ambassadors they were
frank with me. NATO is undergoing change. There will be three
new member countries and, to his credit, the Prime Minister was
on the right side of the issue when it came to expanding NATO.
However, to be honest, NATO's role will have to be adjusted
somewhat if it is to continue being effective in this post-cold
war era.
The role of NATO and whether NATO should be expanded further or
at all, or whether NATO should even exist, are issues that will
continue to be debated. In fact they were being debated this
week on the floor of the United States Senate.
It is not my intent to enter into that debate tonight, but it is
important to note that while the world debates the current
usefulness of NATO all eyes are on Bosnia and the current NATO
forces there.
If NATO were to fail in its stated mission of implementing the
Dayton accord, the voices of those who would have NATO disband
will grow louder. For that reason and others mentioned here
tonight, my party supports the decision already taken by the
Prime Minister to renew Canada's participation in the NATO led
stabilization force beyond June 20, 1998 in order to maintain a
safe environment for reconstruction, reconciliation and a lasting
peace for the people of Bosnia.
My party's only concern with tonight's take note motion is that
the government expects Canada's soldiers to show more courage
than it ever has. We should all be thankful that the men and
women who wear Canada's uniform are up for the job.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
particularly grateful to my colleague for Compton—Stanstead and
my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska for sharing time with me.
I attached a great deal of importance to taking advantage of my
presence in this House to make a few comments on the renewal of
our Armed Forces commitment in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
First and foremost, this was because of my respect for our young
military personnel serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, of whom
we are very proud. We often see them coming to our assistance
when there are natural disasters.
My region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has had the opportunity to
benefit from their expertise, and above all has seen their
devotion, during the recent disasters, not only in my region,
but also in the Greater Montreal region and in the West.
2115
Yet, when we see them helping out their fellow human beings in
other countries, Bosnia in particular in the past few years, we
tend to forget them. The time has come for all MPs to try to
see the armed forces in a more positive light than they have in
recent years.
If you have listened to all the speeches within this debate this
evening, they indicate, I believe, that by far the majority of
Canadian MPs agree there is a very serious problem within our
armed forces.
Unlike my colleagues who have already spoken, I have not had the
opportunity to visit our military personnel on the battlefields
of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
However, I particularly appreciated what these members shared
with us this evening.
The common thread that runs through all these remarks, all the
judgments that have been made, is that we cannot keep asking our
military to do the impossible. Incredible efforts are demanded
of our troops as part of NATO, both at home and abroad, to help
foreign countries torn apart by terrible wars. In this context,
be it only for peacekeeping, everyone agrees that it takes
rather extraordinary courage to agree to serve in the Canadian
Armed Forces outside Canada.
I know that the committee is currently travelling across the
country. Some 25 military sites will be toured by our colleagues
from all the parties represented in this House. I do hope that
the committee's recommendations will not be left to gather dust
on a shelf.
As my hon. colleague said, morale in our armed forces is indeed
at its lowest. Unfortunately, it is not in a superficial,
strictly routine debate like this one today that we will be able
to make any real, significant contribution to the future of the
Canadian Armed Forces. All tonight's debate is good for is to
take note of the fact that the government intends to renew our
commitment to peacekeeping within NATO.
After a few briefings on various Canadian bases, I figure the
government must have gained some awareness of the kind of
recommendations and suggestions the military make to us through
the Standing Committee on National Defence. I want to
congratulate all my colleagues on this committee. They visited
the base in Bagotville, and that was greatly appreciated.
My colleague said that the climate is very unhealthy and, as we
know, there is severe attrition within the Canadian armed
forces. This attrition has its causes, and I think the committee
will be able to make a harsh judgement on our attitude toward
the armed forces.
It is not normal to continue to require incredible efforts of
our troops who have to work very hard with foreign forces that
are a lot better equipped than they are. We know we have the
best soldiers in the world. They have to make unlimited efforts
to be on the same level as soldiers from several other countries
within NATO because those people are better equipped.
Several NATO countries throughout the world have made an
important choice. Here, in the House of Commons, we have always
been reluctant to make that choice.
This is one rare occasion where almost all political parties
without exception agree that it is not normal that we do not pay
more attention to the quality of life of Canadian soldiers.
The defence budget was cut by 30 to 40% in recent years.
Everybody supports rationalization. However, I think that, if
there is an area that deserves a lot of consideration, it is the
area related to our Canadian troops, who must carry out mandates
that are extremely dangerous.
2120
Obviously, everybody agrees that the quality of our equipment is
at a minimum. We all know Canadian soldiers. The major regions
of this country all have military infrastructures. One must
listen to what these people have to say to realize how serious a
deficiency there is in this area. I do not know if it is bad
purchases or if priorities are not clearly identified, but the
bottom line is that our soldiers are really not equipped to be
part of such international forces.
It is the same for training and for salaries. Indeed, 20%, 25%,
30% and even 40% of pilots in certain squadrons leave and go to
work in the private sector, because the difference in the
working conditions is simply too great. It is not that our
military do not enjoy their work, but in the end the difference
in the quality of life in the armed forces and in the private
sector becomes too great.
I think our young military personnel have taken much abuse from
the federal government—including all previous governments. The
time has come to have, here in the House, a constructive
discussion on how we view the important role of our armed forces
and the type of contribution we are prepared to make to allow
them to be among the most effective in the world.
We are currently asking the impossible from our armed forces.
During the last election campaign, our party suggested—and this
was one of our major commitments—the creation of a special
intervention unit, an elite corps that would have integrated
members of the three branches of the forces, that is between
14,000 and 16,000 troops. This might have helped us to better
prepare about one quarter of Canadian troops for international
missions, and for missions in our own country.
One should make a careful reading of chapters 3 and 4 of the
auditor general's report. Unfortunately, I do not have time to
read the main excerpts, but the report stresses that Parliament
should be able to determine whether DND's resources are
adequate, given Canada's defence objectives.
I took a rather close look at this report, and we should listen
carefully to the auditor general's recommendations, regardless
of our political affiliation. Our troops are being asked to do
the impossible, both at personal and operational levels. I hope
that the report of the standing committee will make all of us
here more grateful to our military personnel for their services.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your recognizing me for the debate on this motion.
I want to read the motion because I think it is important to
look at something in the wording. This is a government motion by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs:
That this House take note of the intention of the Government of
Canada to renew its participation in the NATO led stabilization
force, SFOR, in Bosnia beyond June 20, 1998—.
Here we are almost in May.
We are in a take note debate because the decision was made and
announced some time ago. We are here debating whether Canada
will carry on its commitment beyond June 20, 1998. Clearly this
is a joke. Where is the planning horizon the government works
on? It clearly is not there. It really does not plan things. I
think that will explain some of the problems I will bring up
in my presentation.
2125
I will deal with three questions. First, can Canada deliver on
the renewal of this commitment for six months and beyond?
Second, what will the price be if this becomes a very long term
sustained commitment in Bosnia? What will the price be to the
forces and to the men and women who serve?
Third, what must change so that Canada can deliver should
Canadians choose to support it over the long term? That is what I
will deal with in my presentation today.
I would like to comment on the debate itself and the fact that
the debate is happening under these circumstances.
The first question is can Canada deliver. The answer is yes.
Looking at a six month commitment, which is what this motion is
about, and a force of 1,200 men and women then yes, Canada can
deliver and it will deliver. We have men and women in Petawawa
right now who have been training and preparing to leave in June.
They will serve serve well and Canada will meet its commitment
over the six month period.
If we are talking about a 10 to 20 year period which is probably
what will be needed to stabilize the area then the answer is no,
not with the lack of commitment the current government has shown
to our forces and to the men and women who serve so well. It is
no, not with the continued force of 1,200 or more which may well
become what is needed if things escalate. That certainly could
happen.
The answer is no, not with the current commitment Canada has in
other parts of the world. The answer is no with the current lack
of commitment to proper equipment that has been shown by this
government. The answer is no, not with the ever reducing number
of men and women in our forces.
The answer to whether Canada can deliver over the six month
term, which we are debating today, is yes. It can and will.
That is in spite of the level of commitment this government has
to our forces, not because of it. It is because of the
incredible men and women serving in our forces. That is
something you learn as you travel from base to base in this
country. The men and women in our forces are tremendously well
equipped in terms of their personal abilities and are well
trained and committed. There is no doubt about that. They will
deliver because of what they are, not because of what they are
given to work with.
What might the price be that our forces might pay if we end up
indefinitely, six month term after six month term? Those of us
who have travelled from base to base with the SCONDVA committee
started to realize what the price might be.
2130
The price is unacceptable in terms of what will happen to our
forces and their ability to do what they should be doing, which
is to defend the sovereignty of our nation, to be there in the
case of natural disasters like the floods and the ice storms, and
to be there to deal with civil unrest, which we have already seen
in Oka and which we could well see in various parts of the
country over the next years. I do not have the time to get into
any detail on the price, but the price that we have seen
manifests itself in several ways.
First, it manifests itself in terms of morale. Generally
speaking, we have seen from base to base across the country that
the morale of the men and women in our forces is not high.
Further deterioration in morale could well be the price they pay.
Families are being torn apart due to a lack of commitment, what
has happened over the past years and what will happen if things
do not change, if we maintain this kind of commitment overseas
and here in Canada.
One thing was made clear. Men and women are happy to serve.
When they are asked if they would like to go on a tour to Bosnia
they say yes. They say yes for a couple of reasons. One,
because they will get extra money which their families
desperately need. Their pay levels are not sufficient. They say
yes because they joined the forces to serve their country. This
is an opportunity to do that. They say yes because they know the
training they will receive in this area is second to none in
making them ready to be a part of a combat-ready force which this
country deserves and desperately needs to defend our sovereignty.
They go for those reasons, in spite of the price that they and
their families might and do pay. We have seen it.
The third concern I would like to raise is what must change so
that Canada can deliver, if Canadians determine that is what
should happen. Canadians have never been asked about this issue.
I will talk about that when I wrap up, when I discuss this debate
and the conditions under which it is taking place.
What is needed in very broad terms to change things so that
Canada can deliver? Specifically, what must this government and
future governments do to build a sustainable and top quality
military?
First, they must show commitment to change in the structure of
our forces and leadership. I am not saying that all the
leadership in the Canadian forces is not good. Certainly, some
of the men and women are top notch, as well as some of the
leaders in our military. They must show this commitment to
change, to change in leadership and to change in the structure of
the forces, separating the military from the civil service
branch.
Second, they must show commitment in terms of money. Spending
on our forces has been reduced from about $12.5 billion, when I
started looking at this in 1992, to $9.3 billion. It has been
cut too much.
Third, the government must demonstrate two things. First, that
it believes we need a strong combat-ready military. Second, that
it believes the men and women who serve in our forces are doing a
great job and that they are top quality. They must demonstrate
that.
I would like to ask this question. When was the last time a
prime minister in Canada said that our country, Canada, really
needs our military and that the very existence of Canada depends
on us having a good military?
When was the last time we heard a prime minister stand in this
House or elsewhere to say that the men and women in our forces do
a great job?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that the
hon. member's time has expired.
The hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
2135
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have listened to the debate in the House this evening
and it is very clear that the mood of the House is strongly in
favour of extending the presence of our troops for a renewed
mandate in Bosnia.
There is a great challenge to the world community taking place
in Bosnia at this time. As we watch what is taking place in
Kosovo we know how important it is for us to ensure that the
mission in Bosnia is successful, that peace in eastern Europe
depends upon it and that we Canadians are playing an important
role in guaranteeing that peace, that security, that development
of civic society that the Dayton Accords presage.
We listened to the NDP spokesman who said that the mandate which
has been given our troops and the role that the government has
provided is not clear. We heard a Conservative spokesperson say
that the morale of our troops is low. We heard our Reform
colleague just now say no to a commitment that would be too long.
I disagree with all of those opinions. I have had the honour of
going to Bosnia and the honour of speaking to our troops there.
They know what their role is. They have a high morale because
the challenges they face each and every day are challenges which
they have chosen to face. They have enormous responsibility,
requiring military ability, but also human qualities, an ability
to bring people together, to deal with sensitive political
issues, to demine houses, to act at the staff level, to control
movements and arrangements between some troops of some 23 nations
which bring into play the best qualities of all Canadians: their
bilingualism, their biculturalism, their multiculturalism, their
tolerance, their ability to encourage people to act together and
to work together.
What we are doing in Bosnia and the role of our troops in that
process is extremely important. Let me just recall a few
elements. In the first place there are the Bosnian elections. As
members know the international community through OSCE has
invested heavily in Bosnian elections as they are the instrument
for the success of the entire peace process. Municipal elections
held there in September 1997 were of great importance, given the
extent to which power is decentralized in that area. Elections
held in the Republic of Srpska on November 22 and 23 of 1997
established the first truly multi-ethnic government in Bosnia.
In September of 1998, this year, general elections will take
place, the second set to be held under the Dayton peace plan.
Canada's role in these elections has been important. We have
assisted the OSCE with the technical preparations for the
elections and we have committed over $6 million to this process.
Our assistant chief electoral officer has participated along with
other experts in forming groups necessary to assure the success
of these elections. These elections will not be successful and
indeed may not even take place if it is not for the presence of
our troops and those of our allies in that area.
[Translation]
There is a second element. There are in the former Yugoslavia
close de 3.2 million refugees and displaced persons as well as
persons affected by the war who need help. Current conditions in
Bosnia, both in terms of security and economy, make it difficult
for refugees to return home.
Canada has been advocating a concerted effort to identify those
who can and want to go home now so that they receive special
attention and help on a priority basis. Our country provided
close to $65 million during the war and in excess of $17 million
in humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia since the
end of the conflict.
The presence of our troops is essential to the success of this
operation.
[English]
There is a third element, which is the housing and the
rebuilding of infrastructure in ex-Yugoslavia and in Bosnia. An
estimated 50% of all housing units in Bosnia were damaged during
the war and 6% were completely destroyed. Canada provides
funding to the emergency shelter and materials fund of the United
Nations and has provided emergency shelter throughout the former
Yugoslavia. Under CIDA, Canada has established a special
facility to assist Canadian construction firms active in the
Bosnian and Croatian markets.
2140
We have many NGOs which are active in ensuring housing there.
Our troops not only ensure conditions of stability in which this
rebuilding will take place, they also personally participate.
It was very exciting and interesting for us when we were there
to see and talk to our troops. They have actually helped to
clean up and repaint the hospitals and schools. They had worked
on the hospital that we visited. The doctors were there when the
hospital was re-opened. There was a sense of tremendous
dedication on the part of the troops and a sense of tremendous
gratitude on the part of that local community when they saw their
hospital functioning again, thanks to the input of our troops and
their ability to work on the side, in addition to their other
heavy responsibilities, to achieve that and other goals.
The rebuilding and the infrastructure that needs to be replaced
in Bosnia will be assured by virtue of the presence of our
troops, not only by the security they provide, but by the
personal efforts they make to ensure this happens.
A fourth aspect of their presence that is equally important is
the aspect of the land mine clearance. According to initial
predictions it could take some 70 years to clear the three
million land mines left from the recent conflict in the former
Yugoslavia. Canada has taken a lead in urging increased support
for demining and for greater government and donor co-ordination
to help work in this area.
We consider the removal of land mines a priority for
humanitarian reasons, particularly to ensure the safety of
children returning to school after years of conflict and to
encourage the return of refugees. Mine clearance will also allow
for the reconstruction of infrastructure necessary for economic
renewal. We have contributed money and are contributing men and
effort to this process.
The land mines convention is one of the great prides of our
recent diplomatic efforts and the area of Bosnia is one place
where its success, at least in the demining aspect, will be
tested. The presence of our troops is essential, not only to
ensure the stability necessary to achieve that, but to also help
in the technical aspects of achieving that extremely important
goal.
Finally, I will turn to the health sector. It is extremely
important in a community ravaged by war to re-establish decent
health. We again had the opportunity when we were there to visit
hospitals. We visited the hospital in downtown Sarajevo which
was shelled and in which people operated under incredible
circumstances during the war.
We as Canadians are contributing to community based
rehabilitation in Bosnia. Queen's University is there providing
a self-sustaining program of physiotherapy to an estimated 40,000
people with war injuries and is training of some 200 health
workers.
There are other rehabilitation programs which are too numerous
for me to name. However, I want to share with the House one
example of an important program, the MAP international project,
which provided some $2 million worth of selected pharmaceuticals
to Bosnia. Members of the committee were there when these were
distributed. Some of them were given to the president of the
Republic of Srpska to reward her and her government for the
efforts they were making to ensure peace and co-operation with
SFOR troops in her area.
All of these important elements, the return of refugees, the
civil security, the return of decent government, assistance to
the health sector, the rebuilding of schools and communities,
depend on the presence of our troops, our young men and women who
are there extending their helping hand, not only providing
security, but also in a sensitive and an extraordinarily truly
Canadian way working with people in these communities to ensure
they can recover their lost and shattered lives.
Those troops deserve our support. I believe those troops want
to stay. I believe those troops believe strongly that they want
to be there to finish the job. We as members of the world
community owe it not only to ourselves and to stability in Europe
but also to our fine young men and women who have served and will
continue to serve to ensure that they will do the job to
guarantee peace and stability in a region that is very important
to us all.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tonight I have the
honour of speaking in support of the continued participation of
the Canadian forces in the NATO mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina
following the completion of the current mission on June 20 of
this year.
This follow on force will be tasked with preventing any renewal
of hostilities in the unstable Balkans region. Its purpose is to
provide general support to the enforcement of the civil
provisions in the Dayton peace accord.
2145
All our key allies and the international organizations working
in the area agree on the need to extend the SFOR follow on force.
The secure environment established and maintained by SFOR is
deemed vital to the reconstruction effort in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I encourage my colleagues to indicate their support for Canada's
participation for the following reasons. First, SFOR's work in
Bosnia-Hercegovina is not finished and the work of the Canadian
forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina is not finished.
Second, Canada has a tradition of responding to the call of the
international community whenever world security has been
threatened.
Third, we have a long and honourable tradition of participating
in multilateral operations. We have served under the flags of
the United Nations and NATO and in operations involving groups of
nations sharing the same interests.
Fourth, our continued participation in SFOR is consistent with
Canada's defence policy. In particular we believe in the
importance of collective security and we continually contribute
to preserving it.
For many years now Canada has invested heavily in terms of time,
resources and personnel to promote peace and security in the
Balkans. We have always played a pivotal role, serving with the
European Community monitoring system, UNPROFOR from 1992 to 1995,
IFOR from 1995 to 1996 and now SFOR.
However the military aspects of the hostilities are not the be
all and end all of the mission. The civil ramifications of the
military operations must be considered, especially in an area of
such deep rooted strife.
The military plans and operations within SFOR have been
cognizant of civil conditions and activities. Throughout the
military operations thus far it was important to improve public
security, fight organized crime and corruption, and promote
balanced media. Separating the warring factions was not the only
objective. That is why it is so important to continue the
mission. The civil provisions of the accord must also be upheld.
For example, the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees
belonging to ethnic minorities is presenting serious problems.
The political struggle between the various ethnic groups
continues to undermine efforts to consolidate peace. In other
words the parties involved are not prepared to assume
responsibility for their joint future. It is clear that they
cannot count on the involvement of the international community
indefinitely, but they clearly are not yet ready to go it alone.
Given the violence which erupted in Kosovo in March and which
nearly led to war, and in light of the riots which took place in
Drvar only a few days ago, we must acknowledge the fact that
instability continues to haunt Bosnia-Hercegovina and by
extension the entire Balkan region.
In short it is absolutely critical for Canada to extend her
involvement in SFOR. It is consistent with the efforts we have
made for many years aimed at establishing peace in this area of
the world by creating the stability required to implement the
Dayton accord.
If we look at the Bosnian situation within the historical
perspective of Canada's role in international affairs, we can
only arrive at the same conclusion. The fact is that in past
years when the international community called upon Canada to
preserve peace, liberty and democracy our country always answered
the call. Today we intend to carry on this honourable tradition
within our means.
Canada has traditionally shouldered its share of
responsibilities in the world's hot spots when international
security was threatened. Canada answered the call during both
world wars, the Korean war, the gulf war and on many peacekeeping
operations.
Canada's vast experience with multilateral operations has
allowed us to make a major contribution to international security
notably in Somalia, Haiti, central Africa, the Middle East, the
Persian Gulf and of course the Balkans.
At the same time the Canadian forces have managed to maintain
their traditional commitments with NATO. During every operation
they have conducted, whether in Canada or overseas, the men and
women of the Canadian Armed Forces have demonstrated their
ability to fulfil in outstanding fashion any mission assigned to
them.
Accordingly, continued Canadian participation in SFOR is in tune
with the tine honoured Canadian tradition of doing what we can to
guarantee respect for life and human dignity both in Canada and
abroad.
In the 1994 defence white paper Canada made a commitment to
continue its active participation in multilateral efforts aimed
at enhancing collective security.
This attitude reflects our national interests since Canadians
believe that their own security cannot be dissociated from that
of our allies. However, according to the 1994 defence white
paper:
Multilateral security co-operation is not merely a Canadian
tradition; it is the expression of Canadian values in the
international sphere.
2150
In a similar vein, the 1994 report of the Special Joint
Committee on Canada's Defence Policy declared:
If we believe Canada stands for values that are worth promoting
in the larger community, we must be prepared to invest resources
and commit Canadian troops in defence of those values. If we are
not prepared to do so, then what do we stand for as a country?
I would like to comment a little further on our participation in
not only this mission but in a large number of missions in recent
years. Despite a reduction in financial resources and personnel
we have asked our forces to do much more with less.
I was on the 1994 Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence
Policy. I agreed then and I agree today that we should
participate in international missions. I said then and I say now
we must provide more resources. Our forces are conducting the
missions, but at what cost?
The Standing Committee on National Defence as we heard tonight
is currently studying the quality of life of Canadian forces
personnel. We are hearing many stories from personnel about the
poor quality of services provided for them by the Department of
National Defence. It appears to me that when cuts are needed the
military is a prime target, but we must consider the impact on
the personnel on the armoury floor and in the field.
I am not saying we have cut too far yet, but I am saying we are
dangerously close to the point of no return. We must ensure that
our personnel have not only required equipment for their missions
but also the support services to assist them and their families
in coping with their missions.
I encourage my hon. colleagues not only to support Canadian
involvement in SFOR but our military in general. We ask these
men and women to put their lives on the line not only for us but
for others throughout the world. We must return that expectation
by meeting theirs, which is to provide them and their families a
satisfying quality of life.
Finally, we should consider the potential drawbacks of a
Canadian decision to forgo the participation in SFOR. Failure by
Canada to participate in the follow on force would fly in the
face of those values that Canadian forces are charged with
defending throughout the world.
Moreover, since Canada might possibly be the only NATO country
not serving with the new force, her failure to participate would
do serious damage to our reputation among our allies.
To conclude I urge my colleagues to support Canada's
participation in the SFOR follow on mission.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow
me first to congratulate you on the daily improvement of your
French. You know I am delighted to take part in the debate,
because there is always a consensus in this House on matters of
foreign policy.
I would remind those joining us of what we are debating this
evening in the special debate, since the House does not usually
sit beyond 7:30 p.m., and that is the need for Canada to
continue its involvement in peacekeeping in Bosnia.
You will agree that looking back on this century's history, we
will recall the Armenian genocide, the first world war, the
second world war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and especially
the heightened tension that led to the break up of the Republic
of Yugoslavia. People in my generation, especially those who
studied political science as I did, automatically associate Tito
and Yugoslavia. There was a belief that the Yugoslavian model
was a model of a revolving confederation, one that managed a
potentially explosive balance of various national communities.
Time has shown us that the Yugoslav model was very fragile
indeed.
I would point out that the Bloc Quebecois, since its arrival in
the House in October 1993, has always enthusiastically supported
all peacekeeping operations—in Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda and the
Central African Republic.
2155
We thought it was a generous way to deal with international
relations, an alternative way to use our armed forces, where
troops are sent as peacekeepers.
Of course, in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the situation was a bit
different. Things started to escalate in 1992. First, we had
UNPROFOR, then a stabilization force. It was only at the third
level of operation, in 1995, that we sent peacekeepers over
there.
Those who take an interest in foreign policy understand full
well that Canada has some expertise in peacekeeping. Despite our
sovereignist aspirations, we are very proud to remind people
that Lester B. Pearson, a former leader of the Liberal Party who
received the Nobel Peace Prize in the late 50s, was the first
one to suggest, always under the auspices of the United Nations,
that armed forces be deployed after a ceasefire has been reached
in a region where tensions run high.
Among the people watching the debate tonight, some might wonder
why a country like Canada, with no military engagement
tradition, where military service is not compulsory, a country
that was never directly involved in the war, that has no warring
tradition, would take an interest in what is going on outside
its borders?
When my constituents ask me that question, I simply give them
the example of Bosnia-Hercegovina, a country that has produced,
since the early 90s, 3.5 million refugees spread around the
world. Of course, in an era of globalization, when refugees look
for a new haven, when wars produce political refugees, it all
has an impact on our nation.
It is countries such as Canada, France, Italy and Germany that
have welcomed these political refugees. Our party believes that
it is important to make an additional effort in terms of
equipment, because, as you will remember, Canadians were
mobilized from Europe and North America for the Sarajevo airlift.
A Hercules was used to carry supplies. So, there was a Canadian
contribution in terms of material, troops—about 1,300—and
international assistance.
Since the early 90s, close to $80 million in taxpayers'
money—because Canadians pay taxes and because the government and
Parliament agreed to humanitarian assistance—was sent through
CIDA and various international co-operation agencies.
If we needed an illustration of how fragile the situation really
is in Bosnia, how things are not settled yet, how important it
is for NATO to continue its efforts under the supervision of the
United Nations, since this is what we are talking about, all we
would have to remember is that since 1992, 50% of homes in
Bosnia have been destroyed.
According to an assessment by the United Nations, it will take
US$4 billion over the next few years to complete the
construction and reconstruction of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
True, the peace is real, but it is fragile. It is fragile for a
number of reasons.
First of all, the Dayton accord, which was negotiated under the
auspices of the Americans in Ohio, turned Bosnia-Hercegovina into
a federated republic made up in fact of two states: Serbia and
the Serbo-Croatian Republic. This unification has not been
completed yet and they still need to establish national
institutions.
2200
Right now, there are a number of signs telling us, as foreign
observers, that the peace, however real, is fragile.
I will give a few examples. First of all, of course, there are
the Bosnian Croats. Although they openly, formally, officially
and publicly supported the Dayton accords, they did so with this
no doubt legitimate hope that could reach extreme proportions
and threaten peace efforts.
The Bosnian Croats, who supported the Dayton accords, still
dream, maybe somewhat secretly, of being reunited with Croatia.
This shows just how fragile the peace is.
There is, of course,—as you know, Mr. Speaker, because I know
that you are a keen and vigilant observer of the international
scene,—the whole question of Kosovo. Kosovo is a republic of
Serbia that was for a very long time an independent province and
that unfortunately saw this status challenged to the point that
the central government deployed troops there.
Kosovo is a hotbed of unrest, because 90% of the inhabitants are
Albanians who understandably have more affinity with Albania
than with the state to which they have been attached.
When all these factors are taken together, we are well advised,
as parliamentarians, to seek an extension of the participation
of NATO, under the auspices of the UN, with a high command. I
believe that the NATO and UN mission is very clear.
It is a preventive mission to ensure that the slightest
potential for hostility is nipped in the bud.
The seeds of potential conflict must be suppressed in order to
ensure that the situation that has prevailed since 1995 can
become more permanent and that all those, such as Canada,
Quebec, France and Italy, who believe in peacekeeping efforts in
the Balkans for the end of the century, can continue to invest
resources in international co-operation and humanitarian aid so
that the experience of the former Yugoslavia will never be
repeated.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is late in the
evening. There has been comment on the length of the debate and
on the opposition side some disparaging comments on the quality
of the debate. I will not enter into that but I would take issue
immediately with the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry who
made the comment that parliament did not have a big enough role
in this debate and in these general questions.
Parliament has taken a very dramatic step forward in the life of the
present government, although it began in the last parliament
under the present government, that is to say the commitment made
by the government that when Canadian forces would be involved in
military style activities abroad under the United Nations or
otherwise, parliament would get an opportunity to debate. It is
not a decision making role but it is an unprecedented step to
allow parliament to debate.
This has been honoured by the government since that undertaking
was first given in, I believe, 1994. It has been refined to the
point where if there is an issue of urgency such as when the
matter arose during the summer recess with the extension of our
mandate in Haiti I as parliamentary secretary contacted the
official spokespersons for all opposition parties and asked for
their interim approval. It was given.
We have made a step forward here. There is an involvement of
parliament and I think the debate tonight reflects that.
2205
It is worth noting of course that the present government
inherited the obligations to the United Nations in lineal descent
from obligations entered into by the preceeding government, the
Mulroney government. That was in response to a request by
Boutros Boutros Ghali, the then secretary general of the United
Nations.
Although SFOR is a different type of operation from the one the
Mulroney government engaged us in, the lineal descent is clear
and I think one of the large oversights was on the part of the
Mulroney government in not insisting in Canadian involvement in
the decision making group. We have not been part of the contact
group. We were not at the original time and we have not been
since, and so in a sense we are carrying out macro decisions that
others are making. It is not something one would recommend to
governments in future situations.
Going back to history which was referred to by the member for
Red Deer in a somewhat general way, of course we also inherit
past history. In Santayana's terms, we also inherit the
non-observervance of history, in his famous aphorism. The
lessons of the past were not applied, were not understood and so
wise decisions were not made. But they were not our decisions.
The present grand lines of the Balkan Peninsula, with the
disintegration of the Ottoman empire, were created at the
Congress of Berlin in 1878 and through two world wars and two
Balkan wars which were even bloodier in a limited environment
they were confirmed in their large lines. Everything else has
represented incremental changes or territorial adjustments.
There was Bismarck in 1878. There was not an equivalent
Bismarck in 1989-90 when the Berlin wall was falling down and the
cold war was ending.
One of the problems in a certain sense is that the European
statesmen in 1989-90, it has been said by historians, rushed to a
premature recognition of successor states to the old Yugoslavia.
I think their error was not in their recognition of the new
successor states for it was very clear Slovenia and Croatia had to
be independent. But they followed Tito's internal historical
boundaries which he had created through successive constitutions
from 1944 onwards, which were really designed to give population
and geographical balance but which ignored much more than the
previous historical boundaries under Austria-Hungary and under
Serbia, and ignored ethnocultural concentrations.
To a very real extent one had sown the seeds of later conflicts
in 1991-92, the problem of either exchange of populations or
radical constitutional adjustments for which nobody was prepared.
It was an example of the doctrine of uti possidetis being
misapplied and I think we are reckoning with some of the
consequences of that.
This is not to say, however, that facts cannot themselves
acquire a normative quality and I think one of the interesting
facts is President Chirac and his visit to Sarajevo earlier this
month. President Chirac is one of those who had the most
reservations about the dispositions made in 1989-90 in the
diplomatic terms, but he is referring in essence, echoing
German legal philosopher Mr. Jellinek, to the normative force of facts.
New
frontiers have been created and it is time now with eight years
of experience to try to make them work. We enter in that
context.
As we go into Bosnia again and the mandate is extended, we must
recognize this is a not a Canadian classic peacekeeping mission
under chapter 6 of the charter; nor, however, is it a chapter 7
mission, the peacemaking mission with all the legal powers under
chapter 7 to apply armed force. It is in between,
so it creates problems in deciding the limits of
competence of our troops.
We have to tread carefully because in a certain sense the peace
building role is not defined in terms of what can and cannot be
done.
We are subject to the general laws of war but we have a mandate
essentially to help in limited aspects of matters, maintaining
elections, trying to get the cities running again, and this is
something we do very well.
I think it is probably the biggest justification apart from
historical continuity. We have been there and we do not leave a
job in the middle before it is completed. That is the biggest
justification for going on.
2210
I would note here with great pleasure, as I think some earlier
speakers have, that there will be a massive role for our limited
number of Canadian forces in mine clearing. We all remember the
land mine treaty to which Canada contributed so much. We took
the initiative. We went ahead in spite of the reluctance or
opposition of superpowers and big powers, and 121 countries have
signed. There are 300,000 to 1 million mines remaining in Bosnia
in 18,000 mine fields. At the moment SFOR is clearing 22,000
mines a year. We hope to bring it up to 100,000 but it is quite
a challenge. I think all Canadians will feel great pride that
this is one of the responsibilities of our force in Bosnia at the
present time.
In suggesting to the House that it approve, not in the legal
sense the decisions made, but that it give its enthusiastic backing to
this extension, we entered in the task in good faith. There were
conditions that we would not have created if we had been in the
decision making at the beginning. But we continue in good faith.
We have a mission to fulfil and I think we are very proud of what
we are doing.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise
today to discuss the role the Canadian forces have played in the
former Yugoslavia.
As Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and a
member of the national defence committee I have had the
opportunity to visit the war torn Balkans on two previous
occasions. I have seen firsthand the excellent work of our
troops.
Everyone in this Chamber knows of the former Yugoslavia, a
country torn apart by war, families broken up, human rights
violated on a massive scale.
They know about the Canadian forces, a military organization
with an international reputation of excellence. I have no doubt
the international respect for the Canadian forces has increased
as a result of their operations in the former Yugoslavia.
Since 1991 Canadian forces have done their best to assist the
international community in dealing with the conflict in the
Balkans. Indeed they have been at the forefront in that regard.
Canadian military personnel have helped prevent the fighting
from spreading to other parts of the region and becoming even
more brutal. They have also accepted to save countless lives in
assisting in the delivery of humanitarian supplies and preventing
more massive assaults on civilian populations.
Our military contribution has included a broad range of
capabilities, at sea and in the air. As the mandate of the UN
and NATO forces evolved over the course of the conflict, so too
did the task performed by Canadian personnel. Duties ranged from
traditional peacekeeping functions such as monitoring ceasefires
to more challenging roles that test the skills and training of
our troops.
In June 1992 when the mandate of the UN protection force,
UNPROFOR, was expanded a Canadian battalion performed the
dangerous task of opening the Sarajevo airport. That was the
beginning of operation airbridge, the largest humanitarian
airlift ever. The air force made some 1,900 flights into
Sarajevo between 1992 and 1996 with almost 30 million kilograms
of food, medical supplies as well as 1,100 medical evacuations,
all under difficult and frequently dangerous circumstances.
Canadians were also the first troops to be deployed to the
former Yugoslavia and the republic of Macedonia. In the spring
of 1993 Canadians were sent to the tiny enclave of Srebrenica in
Bosnia, the first attempt at creating a UN safe area. In the
Medak pocket in September 1993 Canadian soldiers became caught in
a fire fight when they attempted to establish a buffer zone
between the opposing forces.
Operations in the former Yugoslavia have presented our military
leaders with many new and difficult challenges but they have
responded in magnificent fashion. Four of our soldiers served as
deputy force commanders in UNPROFOR and one, Major-General Lewis
Mackenzie, served as the force commander's chief of staff. They
have all received praise from the international community for
their courage and commitment.
I have talked most about our ground forces, but the air force
and the navy have also played a part in the instrumental role in
the former Yugoslavia.
2215
From 1992 to 1995 as part of the UN's operation deny flight, the
Canadian forces provided air crew for surveillance aircraft
monitoring the UN embargo over Bosnia and Hercegovina. Today our
air personnel play an important role in NATO's aerial
surveillance missions. As part of the ongoing operation bison,
they assist in the control of tactical intra-theatre airlift for
the NATO stabilization force.
Last year six of our CF-18s flew an air umbrella over Bosnia and
Hercegovina enforcing the no-fly zone and prepared to support the
troops on the ground if necessary. I understand that Canadian
soldiers found great comfort in knowing that there were Canadian
fighter aircraft patrolling up above.
The Canadian navy has also done yeoman service. Between 1992
and 1996, 11 Canadian warships and four Aurora maritime air
patrol craft patrolled the Adriatic Sea enforcing the military
embargo and economic sanctions imposed by the UN. That is a
significant commitment of Canadian sea power maritime capability.
The success of the Canadian operations in the former Yugoslavia
has not gone unnoticed by the international community. When the
implementation was first established in 1995, the Canadian forces
were called upon to establish a brigade headquarters in the
British sector, a clear indication of the respect they have
earned among our NATO allies. Their British commander later said
he had nothing but praise for the efficient, professional
approach adopted consistently by Canadians.
Civil officials with the UN have also had high praise for the
men and women in the Canadian forces. In a letter to the
Globe and Mail last July, the former leader of the World
Health Organization's humanitarian mission to Yugoslavia wrote
that the conduct of the Canadian army was highly professional and
at all times combined discipline with humanity, tact and—is it
necessary to say—courage in an extremely exacting situation.
We currently have 1,200 personnel in Bosnia and Hercegovina as
part of the NATO led stabilization force, or SFOR. Their mission
is twofold: to ensure compliance with the military aspects of
the Dayton accord and to help preserve the secure environment
necessary for the consolidation of peace.
Their operational responsibilities include providing local
security of vital points, deploying forces on both sides of the
ceasefire line and identifying the dominating potential
flashpoints. This is difficult, dangerous work but they carry it
out with a professionalism that has traditionally been the
earmark of the Canadian forces.
I would be remiss if I did not make reference to the
humanitarianism of the men and women of the Canadian forces
serving in the former Yugoslavia. During their time there, they
have participated in a wide range of activities including
repairing schools, hospitals and roads and providing medical
care. Let me mention one specific example.
In the summer of 1994 the crew of the frigate HMCS Halifax
provided much needed aid to a refugee camp in Slovenia. Sailors
donated 50 bags of toys and clothing for the camp residents.
Eight sailors conducted general maintenance around the camp
including plumbing, carpentry, roofing and painting.
What most Canadians do not realize is that much of the
humanitarian work done by the members of the Canadian forces,
including that done by the sailors of the HMCS Halifax, is
done during their off duty time. They do not have to do it.
They choose to do it. They choose to help out. That is the
measure of their compassion and dedication.
Canada's military personnel have faced difficult tests in the
former Yugoslavia including bad weather, relentless sniper and
artillery fire and have been taken hostage. Thirteen have made
the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives in the cause of
peace. They have persevered and in many cases have gone beyond
the call of duty to perform acts of bravery.
In July 1992 Sergeant J.S. Forest of the Royal 22nd Regiment
rescued two seriously wounded women while under heavy sniper
fire. As Captain Joseph Bélisle took aim at the snipers,
Sergeant Forest crawled up beside the two victims and carried
them to safety. While still under heavy fire, the two soldiers
helped the women into a military vehicle. Both men were awarded
the Medal of Bravery.
Then there is Sergeant Thomas Hoppe. Sergeant Hoppe received
the Meritorious Service Cross for his command under fire of a key
observation post located between Serb and Muslim forces in Bosnia
in July 1994.
2220
A month later Sergeant Hoppe performed another act of extreme
bravery. When he realized that snipers were firing on three
young children playing in a cemetery in Sarajevo, Hoppe dashed
out from behind cover to rescue the boys and hustle them into a
waiting armoured personnel carrier. For this action he received
the Medal of Bravery. Sergeant Hoppe is the only Canadian forces
member since the second world war to have won both these medals.
Canada has earned a well-deserved reputation for being there
when it counts. If Canada is to continue to play an effective
role on the world stage, it is critical that we maintain that
reputation. That means contributing to international efforts
aimed at enhancing global security efforts like SFOR.
The Canadian forces have done a lot of good in the former
Yugoslavia since they first went there in 1991. They have made a
real difference. In Bosnia and Hercegovina they continue to make
a difference. Although much has been accomplished, the situation
is not yet stable. Let us do the wise thing and keep the
Canadian forces there as part of SFOR until it is stable.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this debate. It
hearkens back to what we were doing four years ago at the
beginning of our first term in Parliament. Many of us made our
first speech in the House of Commons in an emergency debate
concerning the crisis that was taking place in Bosnia.
Although many people in the House spoke eloquently about the
issue, we failed miserably. Despots were prepared to rape,
murder, pillage and use their power as leaders to pit brother
against brother and cause the worst genocide that Europe and in
fact the world had seen since World War II. The bloodletting has
not finished.
The Dayton peace accord ensured that the former Yugoslavia would
fracture. It ensured that Bosnia would exist.
Through force we have managed to keep the Bosnian Serbs, the
Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims together. It is only by
force that we have managed to do this. One thing we have to
realize in this House is that Bosnia only stays together through
the power of international intervention by force. If that force
is removed, Bosnia will descend into the same bloodshed which
existed four years ago. The killings will continue. At the
highest levels of policy making in the world, leaders recognize
that. We have to recognize that.
I support completely the use of our soldiers in Bosnia at this
time. However unless we want another Cyprus in our midst, because
that is what Bosnia is going to be, we have to recognize that the
only long term future for Bosnia is for Bosnia to fracture
peacefully.
The Dayton peace accord was the proverbial finger in the dyke.
It served to prevent further conflict at that time and through
force we have prevented that. We have largely prevented further
bloodshed. In the future no conflict is going to be prevented in
the long term unless Bosnia fractures into two or three separate
groups and unless we are prepared to sit there for time
immemorial. So much blood has been spilled under the bridge that
people there will never forget that. As a result if we leave,
SFOR leaves and the killings will resume.
We can see it happening now. Again Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo
has started a war against the ethnic Albanians. He started a war
against the Serbian president in Bosnia. He has also started to
stir up problems and is in a cold war against the leader of
Montenegro. This is only an example of some of the future
conflicts that are stirring in this pot we call the Balkans and
which we have barely managed to keep a lid on.
Unless we are prepared to stay there forever, we have to enter
into peaceful negotiations to ensure that Bosnia fractures
through negotiations and not at the end of an AK-47. There is
much we can do.
2225
If we accept the fact that Bosnia has to fracture peacefully for
long term peace, then I challenge the minister to work with his
compatriots in the OSCE, in the UN and the members of the contact
group to accept that realization. Work toward a negotiated split
of Bosnia and separate the ethnic groups peacefully forever.
We also have to realize there are other issues taking place.
Yugoslavia represents the most egregious example in Europe in
recent memory. Conflict such as that in Yugoslavia sits under
our nose like a ticking time bomb for years before it blows up.
The genocide that took place in the former Yugoslavia represents
a very clear realization that we have learned nothing from the
concentration camps of Dachau and Auschwitz. We have proven once
again that we are impotent in dealing with impending conflict
when it is in our face. We have tools that can solve this
problem.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has developed a great deal of
capital over the last two years through his work in banning land
mines, through his work on human rights in China and through
other foreign policy initiatives he has produced. With that
capital he can work with other countries to deal with the larger
problem of conflict prevention.
There is a saying in medicine that prevention is a worth a lot
more than a cure. Preventing conflict is a lot cheaper, a lot
more effective and infinitely more humane than managing the
conflict after it has occurred.
I have presented a private member's motion in the House of
Commons. It calls on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to bring
like-minded nations together, as we did on the land mines issue,
in Ottawa or wherever to identify the precursors to conflict and
to put in the tools to address them. If we can build this nucleus
of like-minded nations, other nations will come on board.
Clearly it is in the best interest of any nation not to sit
beside or have conflict within their sphere of influence. Indeed
a conflict that may occur halfway around the world will come to
roost within our own borders either through the egress of
refugees and demands on our own social policies or demands on our
defence and aid budgets.
It is also important to realize that if a conflict blows up, all
the incredibly valuable work our Canadian soldiers are heroically
doing will be washed away within a period of days, weeks or
months when war breaks out.
If we revamp the International Monetary Fund, it can be used as
a tool, not only as a carrot but also as a stick. Wars need
money. If we choke off the supply of money then we choke off the
ability of a despot to engage in war. Most of the countries today
that are under the threat of war rely on money from the IMF. The
IMF can prevent despots from using that money. It can freeze
their assets.
The IMF can use its power as a carrot to supply money to
moderate groups that are prepared to work together with disparate
groups to build bridges of tolerance and understanding. It would
reward those who are engaged in peacemaking. It would reward
those individuals who would face despots and say “No, you are
not going to turn my country into a hell-hole. You are not going
to turn this into another civil war. You are not going to pit
brother against brother. You are not going to cause my people to
be killed”.
We are in an unusual position as a nation. Canada has an
unusual role to play in the international community. We have the
ability to act as negotiator to bring countries together to work
through multilateral measures to change the IMF and use it as a
tool for peace.
The United Nations needs a renaissance. It was effective when
it was put together at the end of World War II but it does not
have the ability to address the security threats that we as a
country and the international community face in the future.
2230
The UN needs a renaissance. Many countries feel the same way
but they are looking for a leader. We can be that leader. There
are very potent, cogent, economic, reasonable and pragmatic
reasons for getting involved and changing these institutions. War
hurts everybody. It costs us. It costs the countries involved.
It costs everybody and everybody loses.
I ask the government to work with other members of the House so
that we can use Canada's power as a force in changing these
multilateral organizations into tools of peace to address
security threats, be they military, environmental or otherwise.
In closing, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Burundi, Burma,
India, Kenya and Indonesia represent security threats in the
future. We need to deal with them now for everybody's sake. I
challenge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to work with us in
doing just that.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to speak to this House in support of Canada's
continued participation in the stabilization force, or SFOR, in
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I am particularly delighted, because in my capacity as the chair
of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs, in November 1997, I had the privilege of heading a
delegation of eight members of the defence and foreign affairs
committee on a visit to Bosnia.
We saw with our own eyes the components of the peace process in
Bosnia and Canada's contribution to its implementation.
Our military participation in the stabilization force headed by
NATO ensures peace is maintained.
Reconstruction is taking place with the help of the Canadian
International Development Agency, non-governmental organizations
and the Canadian Forces. Efforts at establishing democracy are
being carried out in co-operation with the Organization on
Security and Co-operation in Europe, the international police
group and other organizations.
Based on all we saw, we concluded that considerable progress had
been made in Bosnia in nearly two years, that is, since the
signing of the general peace accord known as the Dayton
agreement.
We were very proud to see and learn that Canada had played a
major role in military and civilian aspects of this peace
agreement.
Since considerable effort had been expended and progress made,
all members of our delegation felt the need for a continued
international presence in Bosnia after the expiry of SFOR's
current mandate in June 1998.
[English]
There was a consensus in our group that Canada should remain
among the forerunners in this international effort.
Let me tell the House what we saw and how this led us to our
conclusion. Our first stop was in Aviano, Italy. This U.S. air
force base was the location from which six Canadian CF-18 fighter
aircraft flew over 250 operational missions, enforcing the no fly
zone over Bosnia last year.
From Aviano we proceeded to Bosnia where over the next three
days we visited all four major Canadian military facilities. We
started at Black Bear Camp in Velika Kladusa where we received
detailed briefings on military operations in the Canadian area of
responsibility which is roughly the size of Prince Edward Island.
Coupled with the difficulties presented by the very mountainous
terrain in this area, the challenge of communication and travel
for our Canadian troops is immense.
2235
[Translation]
It is not easy to describe the pride we felt to see our Canadian
soldiers successfully meeting these challenges. We were struck
by the high degree of professionalism and the great pride among
the Canadian military personnel serving in the region. We were
impressed as well by their understanding of the mission and
their commitment to it.
We were all convinced that, if more Canadians had had the
opportunity to see what we saw over there, they too would feel
great pride in them.
We were also struck by the danger they were facing in this
mission.
One of the first briefings we attending was a mine awareness
session. We saw mines that were virtually undetectable, buried
in a small mine field used for training purposes. We were shown
the equipment the mine removal crew wore. We were given
explanations of how to avoid or to deactivate mines, and this
gave us considerable food for thought.
It was not merely a matter of learning to detect or to
deactivate mines, but also of learning to live with this
insidious and ever-present threat.
[English]
We were told not to leave the paved area of a road when getting
out of a vehicle. We were told not to walk on the grass
surrounding local villages. We were told that farmers fields
were sowed with mines and not crops. We saw miles and miles of
yellow tape stretched throughout the land marking potentially
mined areas.
We were also told that there were probably one million mines
left in Bosnia. We were moved by the horrendous impact that
mines can have on day to day living. It is difficult for
Canadians living in such a rich and free country as Canada to
understand such a horrible situation.
[Translation]
After this trip, we were convinced that Canada had to maintain
its participation in SFOR in Bosnia. I was also very proud of
Canada's efforts to rid the world of antipersonnel mines.
I will tell you what else we saw in Bosnia. In Drvar, we visited
a school that Canadian field engineers helped rebuild under one
of our restoration projects. We also took note of the enormous
task of reconstruction that will have to be undertaken to repair
that country's infractructure, to restore what the war detroyed:
hospitals, electric substations, bridges and roads. It will take
years.
Everywhere we went, people told us how important these projects
are.
They also asked us to thank the Canadian people and to convey
their gratitude for what Canadians have done to help rebuild
their country.
[English]
The military aspects of Dayton have been a clear success. The
fighting has stopped as far as help to guarantee that municipal
elections take place peacefully and as far as actively supporting
the UN international police task force in the restructuring of
the civil police are concerned. SFOR continues to monitor weapon
storage sites and SFOR is also engaged in many other projects to
help recovery.
[Translation]
However, the democratization process in Bosnia has been more
than slow. The main issues yet to be settled are the inability
of hundreds of thousands of displaced persons and refugees to go
home and the presence of individuals accused of war crimes.
We saw why it is so hard for people to go home. Despite minor
reconstruction work in some areas, houses in ruins can be seen
everywhere in the countryside. In village after village, we saw
houses that were destroyed by bombings during the war and others
that were destroyed to prevent their rightful occupants to come
back to them.
For all these reasons, I will be glad to give my unconditional
support to the continuing presence of the Canadian armed forces
in Bosnia.
2240
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was trying to examine, as I was sitting here listening
to the last speaker, why exactly I am here tonight. I was at
home. I was ready for bed. I have had several late nights. I
am one of those MPs who has to travel from the west so it does
get very tiring when one goes back and forth on a continued
basis.
I think I am here to speak in part out of guilt and the guilt
has nothing to do with the military. The guilt links to
something else that occurred tonight. Yet it all ties together
into why we are having this debate right now.
My guilt is because tonight we had a vote on a different matter.
We had a vote on compensation for people who have had a tragedy
enter their lives. We lost that vote and they lost. I left from
here and I went to a reception. I had a drink. I had some good
food. Then I went home. As I was sitting there getting ready to
go to bed I started thinking how unfair life was. Here I am. I
had my reception. I had my good dinner. Life goes on, but for
those people their lives do not go on. They have suffered a
tragedy and they got no help from parliament tonight.
I was about to turn off the TV but I changed a couple of
channels and happened to fall on CPAC to see a bit of this
debate. I thought how ironic it was for us to debate such an
issue tonight after the vote that took place. I started thinking
why we were talking about Bosnia.
Is that what we are really doing? The decision is already made.
It is not like the government is coming in here and saying this
is what it is thinking of doing and asking whether it should. The
government made that decision, so why are we here?
The decision to have the debate on Bosnia, this take note speech
or whatever it is called, is a simple diversion because of
Liberal embarrassment about the vote we had in this place
tonight. This is an opportunity for them to stand after having
done that and say “Aren't we good? Can't we be proud? Can't we
reflect the pride of our military, of our peacekeepers back on us
by the great thing we have done of simply authorizing them to be
there?” The answer is no, they cannot do that. I could not go
to bed and allow them to do that.
We heard the justice minister talk in the House about why there
was no compensation for people who contracted hepatitis C prior
to 1986. He said there was no way that government should be
compensating people, that it had no obligation to pay for people
who had a problem that was not the result of government
negligence.
Bosnia is not the result of the government's negligence. Hate
is not the result of the government's negligence. Cyprus was not
the result of the government's negligence or any of the other
places we went. Desert storm 1 and the almost desert storm 2
were not the result of government negligence, but when people
were in need the Canadian government responded.
Tonight people were in need and the Canadian government did not
respond. It responded to the flood in the Saguenay. Was that
the fault of the Canadian government? It responded to the flood
in Manitoba. Was that the fault of the Canadian government? How
about the ice storm?
It is despicable that the Liberals have the temerity to raise
this subject in the House tonight as a deflection of the vote
that took place. It demeans the good name of our Canadian
military. It is absolutely disgusting.
I have a reserve unit in my riding, the 44 field squad, an
engineer squadron.
It has served in Bosnia. It has helped when there have been
natural disasters. It has done an infinite number of good and
meaningful deeds in my riding and around the world.
2245
I received a letter recently from someone in my riding who is a
conscientious objector. She objects to the military and to her
tax dollars going to the military. She wanted to know whether
there was some way she could have her taxes go to some special
fund instead.
I wrote to her and suggested that I understood her position, her
abhorrence of war, and would hope we would all abhor it but
sometimes have to stand up for people who through no fault of
their own were being victimized. I suggested to her that our
military had a strong tradition of things other than violence
such as peacekeeping and helping when disasters hit the people of
this country. That is what we should be focusing on. We should
not be using that to deflect what happened in the House tonight.
Perhaps we should truly help the military and do something good
for it instead of pontificating about its role over there and how
proud we are that we sent the military there. Somehow it is
suggested that it makes us greater than them because after all
they are just the grunts who went there; we are the wonderful
people who sent them. Instead, maybe what we should be doing in
the House is looking at their lack of equipment, at their lack of
training and at the bases that have been shut down.
Some of the best bases in Canada have been closed. An almost
new base in Chilliwack was rebuilt, almost completely overhauled.
It was closed and the people were transferred to a base in
Alberta that does not have enough room for them and they have to
start adding additional facilities there.
What the government does to the military makes no sense. Yet it
somehow feels it is right that its members should come to the
House and suggest that they are good because they have sent
troops over to Bosnia.
I do not know if it does any good to speak tonight. Maybe I
would have done myself more good had I gone to bed and caught up
on my sleep, but I just could not do that. It seemed somehow
important to me to get this off my chest.
I did not expect any more of the justice minister. I did not
expect any more of the Prime Minister or of the government whip.
However I expected more of some of those backbenchers. I know
they were opposed to the government's bill. I know some of them
are people of integrity.
I have often said to people in my town hall meetings that Ottawa
is not what they think: “As I stand tonight as a Reform member
of parliament I will say something that will seem strange coming
from me. There are a lot of good Liberal MPs in Ottawa. It is
not the people. It is the system”. I am not going to say that
again because it is not true. Tonight, wipe that out. Tonight,
completely wipe that out.
I saw people on those backbenches who were opposed, who felt
that the victims of hepatitis C, of tainted blood were entitled
to compensation, and yet they knuckled under. They ignored the
victims. They ignored their constituents. They ignored their
duty to the country.
They had the temerity to come here and suggest that they were
good and wonderful because they sent our troops to Bosnia. Is
that timing not just a little curious? It was right on the heels
of the vote they knew was coming on which they were going to take
a lot of heat. What unbelievable timing. What an uncanny
coincidence that it should happen tonight.
I do not believe it. I do not think the Canadian people believe
it. I hope it took a lot of soul searching by the Liberals in
terms of this incident. If they truly feel what they have spoken
tonight about the military, I hope they will do something
meaningful in terms of equipment, in terms of bases and in terms
of training.
If they want to send them into harm's way, they should give them
the proper tools to do it. If they want to take pride in
something, they should make sure that notwithstanding the vote
tonight they do something for those victims, the people who
relied on them and whom they let down.
2250
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further speakers, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10.48 p.m.)