36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 10
CONTENTS
Friday, October 3, 1997
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1005
1010
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1025
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1050
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1055
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAUL HENDERSON
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
1100
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JEWISH COMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1105
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSEIL QUÉBÉCOIS DU PATRIMOINE VIVANT
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRE PREVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
1110
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSERVATIVE PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTFORT HOSPITAL
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1115
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1120
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSITION JOB FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1125
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1130
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1135
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1140
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAR CRIMINALS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAIRY INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1145
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABOUR
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1150
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BROADCASTING
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1155
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1200
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1205
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of debate on the Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1210
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1215
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1230
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1245
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1300
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1315
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1330
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1345
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judi Longfield |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1405
1410
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1415
1420
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1425
1430
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1435
1440
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 10
![](/web/20061116180656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 3, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion for
an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his
speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me in my capacity as Minister of Health to
address the House in the course of the debate on the Speech from
the Throne.
Before doing anything else, Mr. Speaker, may I extend my warmest
congratulations to you on your appointment. Your appointment as
Deputy Speaker reflects the respect in which you are held on all
sides of the House. Members are confident that you will preside
in a way that is both fair and appropriate.
May I also say, as this is the first opportunity I have had to
speak in the House since the election, how grateful I am to the
voters of Etobicoke Centre for, on a second occasion, affording
me the privilege to represent their interests in the Parliament
of Canada. May I reaffirm to the voters of my riding of
Etobicoke Centre my solemn commitment to devote all of my
energies to their service in the coming years.
The Speech from the Throne made clear that one of the three main
priorities of the government in the current mandate is going to
be health and health policy. I welcome the opportunity this
morning to elaborate on our plans and on our objectives.
All members know that medicare represents an extraordinary
Canadian achievement. It is an asset, both social and economic,
of singular value. It not only provides equality of access to
Canadians across the country to health care, it also embodies and
reflects shared Canadian values of compassion, of sharing and of
equality. It is an institution in which Canadians take great
pride.
It must also be said that in recent years medicare has become a
source of increasing anxiety among Canadians. Canadians worry
about whether it is going to be there to provide access to the
highest possible quality of health care as and when that care is
needed.
The source of this anxiety, among other things, are the cuts in
spending by all levels of government, and the necessary
restructuring that the delivery of health care services has gone
through in recent years.
The fact remains that the growing concern among Canadians about
the future of health care and about medicare must be addressed
because we cannot take the overwhelming support for the public
health care system for granted. Canadians overwhelmingly support
the single payer publicly financed system of providing health
services across Canada.
1005
That support comes at a price. It is part of a bargain between
the Canadian people and their government. Our part of the
bargain, if we are to retain that support, is that we along with
the professionals who are the health care providers and in
partnership with the provinces who deliver the services, must
ensure that Canadians will have access to the highest quality
possible in health care as and when it is needed. If we let down
our part of that bargain we shall lose the support of Canadians
for the publicly financed single payer medicare system.
Most of the levers that influence the quality and access of
medicare are in the hands of the provinces because they actually
deliver the services. But there are important ways in which the
federal government can assist as well. It is to those federal
contributions that we will direct our attention and on which we
will focus our efforts.
[Translation]
The first obvious way we can help is by ensuring that the
principles set out in the Canada Health Act are respected. Those
principles do not just reflect the priorities of the minister or
his department, they express the choices of Canadians.
As well, they reflect the position of this government and its
party, the same party which inaugurated health insurance some years
ago. Those same principles are still the object of strong Canadian
consensus today.
[English]
We will continue to enforce the principles of the Canada Health
Act, not out of devotion to stale ideology or some dated
catechism but because the Canada Health Act and the public system
of health insurance which it provides remains the best approach
to health care for Canadians.
I want to make clear that I see the federal role in health care
as something more than just the enforcer of the principles in the
statute. We have a very positive role to play as well.
This morning let me touch briefly on three ways in which I
believe the federal government can contribute positively and
constructively toward restoring the confidence of Canadians in
the quality of and access to health care.
The first thing we can do is to stabilize federal transfer
levels at appropriate amounts. That we have undertaken to do.
Commencing next year and for five years the cash portion of the
transfer to the provinces will be stabilized at $12.5 billion
annually, exactly the amount recommended by the National Forum on
Health, a blue ribbon panel that spent two years closely
examining medicare, its financing and its needs.
The prime minister has already committed the government as
surpluses become available to investing one-half of any future
surplus in social programs where need can be shown, and health
will be among the first priorities for that spending.
The second way the federal government can help in restoring the
confidence of Canadians in the quality of and access to health
care is by encouraging innovation. This we have started to do
with the creation of the health transition fund. In partnership
with the provinces we will invest $150 million over the next
three years. That effort, which we undertake in common, will
underwrite our efforts to develop more knowledge about four
aspects of innovation in particular.
[Translation]
First of all, by reorganizing primary care. Second, by
improving the integration of medical services so that family
physicians, specialists and other health professionals may work
together more effectively.
1010
Third, by finding out how the delivery, organization and
funding of home care can be improved and, finally, by exploring
various formulas for financial support and a potential drug plan.
The federal and provincial governments will be able to access
a wealth of information through investments in the Health
Transition Fund, particularly where innovations to improve the
quality and accessibility of health care are concerned. >
[English]
The third way that the federal government can contribute
directly toward assuring continued quality and access to health
care is by leading and co-ordinating efforts to establish a
national integrated system of medical information, cutting
through the walls that now separate the separate information
systems maintained from place to place around the country. Only
with such an integrated, comprehensive system will we enable
health care providers, administrators and governments to make
evidence based decisions about the management and the delivery of
health care.
In all of this let me assure the House that our objective as a
government will be not only to maintain medicare but to preserve
it. Our objective will be to achieve in the provision of its
services a standard of excellence. Canadians deserve nothing
less.
Apart from medicare there are other subjects of importance that
will preoccupy the government during the current mandate. We
will continue in a wide variety of ways to promote and protect
the health and safety of Canadians.
I can report to the House that over the summer considerable
progress was made, for example, in partnership with provincial
ministers and with the advice of consumer groups toward the
creation of a new national blood agency, an agency that will be
put in place in keeping with principles of accountability and
safety, learning from the tragic lessons of the past and based on
a format designed for the future.
I can say as well that we are committed to excellence in medical
research. Through the Foundation for Innovation we are providing
ways in which research infrastructure can be made available.
Through the Medical Research Council we are seeing to it that
peer review awards are made available for those who have
inquiring minds and who are looking for the treatments, the cures
and the technologies of tomorrow. Through the National Network
of Centres for Excellence, now with permanent status and
stabilized funding we are encouraging research at our
universities so that we can truly say that Canada is at the
leading edge of new ideas.
May I also say that we intend to be vigilant in our surveillance
and in our regulations to protect Canadians from threats to their
food and to the environment. The health protection branch will
continue to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard. Last week
I announced that we are undertaking a broad and very public
re-evaluation of the way in which the health protection branch
does its job. We will soon publish a consultation document that
will sketch out alternative approaches to the fulfilment of its
mandate. Our effort at every stage will be to ensure that it is
there to protect the safety of Canadians.
[Translation]
During the period of consultation, funding to the Health
Protection Branch will be maintained, until the outcome of the
analysis is known. Shortly, I will be announcing the creation of
a scientific advisory committee comprised of Canadians well known
and respected in their fields, whose wise advice and comments will
assist the Health Protection Branch in fulfilling its
responsibilities better.
1015
[English]
Finally, we will focus as always on the determinants of health
because the best way to ensure that we have sufficient supply of
health care is to reduce demand. By focusing on the determinants
of health, whether through diet or proper amount of exercise or
lifestyle choices, we are ensuring that Canadians of all ages
will preserve their health and will not need the health care
system.
Before closing let me touch on a separate but related issue,
Canada's children. By reason of my office I serve as chair as
the national children's agenda. The plight of Canada's children
is a shared responsibility of all levels of government. It has
now been identified as a priority both by the federal government
and by the premiers who, in a recent annual meeting, reaffirmed
that doing something about the level of poverty among Canada's
children is a priority for provincial governments.
It is often said that children are our most precious asset. We
must remember that they are our foremost responsibility. Child
poverty is now at such levels in this country, and of such
duration, that it threatens to create two tiered citizenship. We
all know the appalling numbers. One in five Canadian children
lives in poverty. Forty percent of today's welfare recipients
are children. We all know as well that a childhood spent in
poverty makes it far more likely that child will have difficulty
in school, will have problems with physical and mental health and
is more likely to become involved in the criminal justice and
correction system. Nowhere is the challenge greater than in the
aboriginal communities of this country.
Canadians and this government cannot tolerate this problem in
its present state. It not only makes good economic and social
sense to do something about it but it is also a moral imperative.
My colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in
the last year of the last mandate made a significant contribution
to this effort by negotiating with his provincial counterparts
the Canada child tax benefit, an investment of some $850 million
by the Government of Canada toward those who need it most.
We have undertaken to at least double that investment as soon as
resources permit. Apart from the family income side of the
equation there is more that the government can and will do. The
national children's agenda itself will provide us with an
opportunity to integrate the efforts being made now sometimes on
a fragmented basis by the federal and the provincial governments
to ensure that we are getting the most out of each dollar spent
toward helping children, to target those who are most in need and
to avoid duplication and overlap and, as said in the throne
speech, to measure the results of our efforts by looking at
outcomes such as a child's readiness to learn when they reach
school age.
The focus of our work will be on investing more, more wisely and
in a more integrated way, for example in the Canada prenatal
nutrition program, focusing on early intervention, attention to
children at the preschool age, learning from the research of Dr.
Fraser Mustard, Dr. Dan Offord and others who have spoken so
wisely in identifying the early years of life as the most
important as a precursor of an individual's success in the
future.
We will reinvest in the community action program for children, a
remarkable Canadian success story, a success that cuts across
lines of government, that combines the efforts of the Government
of Canada with the governments of provinces and indeed with
people in communities to serve the needs of children.
1020
Every day of every week in 700 projects in over 500 communities
across the country, 7,500 volunteer hours per week are devoted to
these projects that are intended to ensure that children have a
hot meal in the morning before they go to school, that they are
protected from abuse, prepared to learn and that they get the
kind of guidance they need in their earliest years.
We shall also establish a network of centres of excellence for
children to encourage and to bring together research about
children's needs so that we might know better how to help. We
shall invest in the creation of the head start program on
reserves so that aboriginal children on reserves might have
benefits that have been extended to others in the urban
environment.
Let me close by saying that all of these are but examples of
things that must be done in the health portfolio in the coming
years. Progress can be made and must be made toward the
objectives that I have described if we are to sustain and to
strengthen the high quality of health care of which we have all
become proud in this country.
It will not be easy, but it seems to me that this House, this
government is up to the challenge. Indeed, Canadians are up to
the challenge.
It is fitting that a Liberal government will lead the way. The
Liberals tamed the deficit that so constrained government action
just four years ago. The Liberal Party put medicare in place
three decades ago and it will be we as Liberals who will reinvest
in the priorities of the Canadian people. When Liberals are
faced with challenges they do not simply throw up their hands.
They roll up their sleeves and get the job done.
Liberals do not seek to avoid tough choices, we face them head
on. If we meet this challenge, if we restore the confidence of
Canadians in the public system of health care, if we ensure that
our part of the public bargain is kept then we will have achieved
what I believe is within our grasp, the achievement of a
generation.
Together we must get on with this job because quite simply we
have an inheritance to honour and a legacy to leave.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I would like to congratulate the minister on his re-election
and wish him the best of luck in his new job.
I am very tempted to remind him that the last time he rolled up his
sleeves and got down to work, it was to make cuts in transfers to the
provinces, but that is not the point I want to discuss with him today.
I know the minister shares my concern about the national AIDS
strategy. Some $40 million is to be spent in the next few years to fight
AIDS.
Of course all diseases are important. All degenerative diseases, all
diseases that cause suffering are important, except that AIDS is a viral
disease. We know the ways in which it can be transmitted, and we know we
could get this epidemic under control.
I also know that the Minister of Health has proceeded with an
evaluation of the strategy, and I may recall it consists of five main
components. It makes it possible for community groups to provide
services locally. There is also a research component funded by the
community strategy. There is also a treatment component. There is a
component for co-ordination, and there is, of course, the laboratory
centre for disease control which is more concerned with epidemiology.
I have two questions for the minister. Could he let us know what he
intends to do about component three of the strategy, considering that
his department is proceeding with an evaluation? I also want to remind
the minister that when I was vice-chairman of the committee, I had the
privilege of presenting a motion that was accepted by the government, as
a result of which we spent three years examining the whole issue of
AIDS.
I may recall that we spent some time discussing drug licensing. We
found that the health protection branch had far fewer human resources
than its U.S. counterpart. Furthermore, a number of witnesses suggested
we might consider a joint licensing process for the United States and
Canada. Has the minister had time to consider this?
1025
Those are my two questions. What direction does the minister intend
to give the national AIDS strategy and is he considering the possibility
of resorting to joint licensing by the United States and Canada to
accelerate the process?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that we reiterated in the Speech
from the Throne the commitment we made during the election campaign
to invest $40 million annually over five years in the fight against
AIDS.
I am very much aware that we have to consult those involved in
preparing an integrated strategy for the money we intend to spend.
I can tell him that officials in my department and in my office are
currently talking to those involved across Canada in the
preparation of this strategy.
I agree with the hon. member that there are various elements
to this strategy, such as research, treatment, co-ordination
between laboratories, pharmaceutical companies and so on. We
intend to include all these elements in the strategy we are
preparing.
In fact, in the coming weeks I myself will have the
opportunity to meet with the experts and those active in the
community. I will be in Montreal shortly to meet these people.
Last week, in Toronto, I took part in the march against AIDS
and I met a number of those leading the fight in Toronto.
I hope later this fall to be able to announce the details of our
strategy. But I would stress that we intend to fully honour our
commitment to invest in this strategy to ensure that every possible
effort is made in the fight against AIDS in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think I have had the opportunity to congratulate you on
your appointment. We certainly look forward to your impartial
judgments on all of our proceedings. That was not a tongue in
cheek comment.
I believe Canadians all across this country are very concerned
and have some very grave reservations not only about the health
of our country in terms of our national unity but also about the
health and well-being of the many important matters that fall
under this minister's purview.
We have had in the past few years some very strong confidence
shaking concerns in matters of health in this country. We have
seen the whole blood transfusion system in this country put in
grave jeopardy. Perhaps the results of the Krever report and the
recent supreme court judgment will finally give Canadians some
real answers about where blame should be laid in that very
important area.
Those of us, including myself, who take natural health products,
25 percent of all Canadians and 34 percent of all Americans,
cannot understand why this government continues in many cases to
deny each one of us freedom of choice in the purchase and use of
natural products which many of us have been consuming all of our
lives and which people around the world have in some instances
been consuming for 2000 years.
1030
The owners of health food stores in my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan have told me about the arbitrary removal of
hundreds of products from their shelves by the health protection
branch. The ministry is cutting not only into their profits but
more important also into Canadians' right of access to natural
health products and their freedom of choice.
This problem has to be resolved by the minister and the
government. As the deputy health critic for the Reform Party, I
and the rest of the members of the Reform Party will hold the
government and the minister accountable for actions in this
matter.
Recently we heard from a senior official who at one time was the
assistant head of the health protection branch of the Department
of Health, Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards. She continued to express
some very grave concerns about inadequate testing of drugs which
Canadians use daily. Standards often are not as high as we find
in neighbouring jurisdictions such as the United States.
Recently in an interview she talked about the drug Imitrex which
is used to combat the debilitating effects of migraine headaches.
My wife is a user of this drug. As her husband I want to be
assured that it is safe. When I hear a former official of the
health protection branch expressing grave concerns, I worry about
the competence of the minister and his ministry.
I want to assure the minister that we will do all we can to
co-operate in his agenda but we are going to be keeping his feet
to the fire on these issues.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon.
member from Nanaimo—Cowichan for touching on these important
subjects.
First in relation to the blood system, we all await the delivery
of the Krever report. Mr. Justice Krever is bound to make an
important contribution toward our knowledge of the best way to
ensure the safety of the blood system. When his report is
received it will be made public and Canadians will see our
reaction to his recommendations.
On the subject of herbal remedies, there is somewhat of an
inconsistency in the hon. member's position. With respect to
herbal remedies, he decries the regulation by the Department of
Health that it interferes with the unrestricted access by
Canadians to certain products. On the other hand when it comes
to medication, in this case for migraine headaches, he says that
there is not sufficient regulation, or the health protection
branch is not interfering sufficiently.
Let me assure the hon. member that our focus is on getting it
right. With respect to herbal remedies, we do recognize the
importance of choice by Canadians. We recognize the importance
of allowing Canadians access to appropriate natural products
which they believe will enhance their health.
At the same time we have to worry that there is the appropriate
amount of regulation to ensure that Canadians are not victimized
by those who would swindle them or make unfounded demands or put
improperly labelled products on the shelf. Striking the right
balance between regulation for safety and choice is something we
will work toward. I will have an announcement in Toronto tomorrow
that will deal with this very matter.
On the subject of the health protection branch, Canadians should
not have to choose between a former employee who is critical and
a minister who responds about what the health protection branch
is doing. Instead they should have confidence in the health
protection branch and that confidence should be engendered by an
open appraisal of its work.
1035
That is why I announced last week that we are publishing a
consultation document about the way the health protection branch
is organized. We are appointing an arm's length independent
science advisory board to offer its views about whether we have
it right and let Canadians know whether we are doing the job
properly. And we are suspending all further cuts in the branch
until that process is finished.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for this opportunity to respond to the government's Speech
from the Throne. I would like to inform the Speaker that I will
be splitting my time this morning with the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River.
I would like to start by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, for
your appointment to the Chair and also the hon. Minister of
Natural Resources for his appointment, the minister that I will
be critiquing in this Parliament.
I would also like to thank the constituents of the constituency
of Athabasca for re-electing me to represent them for a second
term in a riding that certainly without any question is key to
the energy future and the energy self-sufficiency of Canada. I
am honoured to be able to do that.
At present the natural resources industry is confronted by many
impediments to its continued contribution to Canadian employment
and wealth creation. It is my hope that the newly appointed
Minister of Natural Resources will heed the many voices from
within the industry and use the expertise of the Canadian
population when deciding what his legislative priorities will be
and which policies he will be advocating.
At this time I would like to express my regret over the lack of
attention to the natural resources industry in the Speech from
the Throne. No more than four lines made reference to natural
resources and not a single mention was made of either forestry or
mining. This is perhaps understandable but nonetheless
astounding considering the significance of the contribution the
resource sector makes to Canadian wealth and employment.
In 1995 mining, energy and forestry contributed a combined total
of $91.6 billion to Canada's GDP which constituted over 13.5
percent of Canada's total GDP. These three industries directly
employ 750,000 Canadians and create countless spin-off jobs in
the industry and in the service sectors. The products of these
three industries alone account for approximately 38 percent of
Canada's domestic exports.
The government's total lack of attention to these significant
contributions is indicative of the low priority that this
government and past Liberal governments place on the needs of the
resource sector. I hope the limited mention of natural resources
in the Speech from the Throne was simply an oversight and not a
continuation of the Liberals' traditional lack of attention to
the important role of natural resources in the Canadian economy.
I am particularly concerned about the future of the mining
industry in Canada, an industry that accounts for approximately
16 percent of Canada's exports and generates employment for over
400,000 Canadians both directly and indirectly. Approximately
150 communities which are home to over one million Canadians are
supported almost exclusively by the mining industry.
At present the future of the mining sector is in some doubt
because mineral reserves are being depleted at a faster pace than
they are being replenished. Mineral exploration is absolutely
critical to the replenishment of the reserves.
Significant changes need to be made in mining regulations, and
environmental regulations need to be streamlined if mineral
exploration is to flourish. A single environmental assessment
process based on nationally agreed upon standards is crucial.
These were the conclusions of the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources, in which I participated, in reports tabled in 1994 and
1996. In the federal government's response to the report tabled
in 1996 the government expressed agreement with many of the
recommendations and solidly committed to make environmental
regulations affecting mining more efficient. Yet the government
has been slow to streamline mining regulations, placing projects
like Voisey's Bay nickel in serious jeopardy.
The Newfoundland court of appeal's decision to halt construction
of a road or airstrip at Voisey's Bay without a full scale
environmental review may cost 3,000 construction and 2,000
permanent jobs in a part of Canada that most desperately needs
employment. It is impossible for a company to know whether it
wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a complete
environmental assessment until they know the size and extent of
the ore body. Without a road or an airstrip, site exploration is
impossible.
1040
If Voisey's Bay is to set the precedent for other mining
projects, making a full scale environmental assessment necessary
before exploration is completed, we can be fairly sure that
mining companies will be more reluctant to undertake new
exploration projects.
The formation of a joint federal-provincial review panel to hear
concerns regarding the Cheviot mine project in Alberta was an
important first step toward establishing a national environmental
assessment process based on nationally agreed upon standards.
Government endorsement of the joint panel's recommendations was
equally important.
The outcome of this first attempt at streamlining is commendable
but the process is far from complete. The panel hearings were
far from efficient, drawn out over a period of three years. In
the mining industry this is unacceptable as time is of the
essence because of the volatility of the markets. However I am
encouraged by this small step in the right direction.
I was certainly less than encouraged by the brevity of the
mention of greenhouse gas emissions in the Speech from the
Throne. So brief was this mention that it failed to even hint at
the prime minister's intentions regarding a legally binding
greenhouse emissions cap.
The secrecy surrounding the prime minister's intentions is
alarming given the serious impacts that such a cap would have on
the Canadian economy. The oil and gas industry will suffer
tremendous financial losses as will the electrical industry in
Alberta and now in Ontario which will return to coal burning
after serious problems at Ontario Hydro nuclear plants. If a cap
is introduced, Canadians can expect dramatic increases not only
in gasoline and home heating fuel but also in electrical energy
rates. At this time it is imperative that the prime minister
proceed with caution.
While some scientists and environmentalists have developed
models that imply a link between rising greenhouse gas emissions
and global warming, not all scientists subscribe to this theory.
I am not trying to imply that this lack of consensus means that
the government should not act. However, given the lack of solid
scientific evidence in support of the theory of global warming,
it seems a legislated emissions cap is premature especially in
light of the fact that many companies have thus far shown
compliance with voluntary programs aimed at reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
If as anticipated the prime minister announces a legally binding
emissions cap in Kyoto, Japan in December of this year, the
announcement will effectively kill the goodwill built between
government and industry and will result in a loss of jobs as well
as government wealth generated through taxation and royalty
revenues. Precautionary measures like voluntary programs are much
more economically viable and are in fact making progress.
Suncor Energy for example, a company with oil sands operations
in my riding, has released its third annual progress report on
Canada's climate change voluntary challenge and registry program
in which it states that in compliance with commitments made in
the Rio accord, it is on track to stabilize greenhouse gas
emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Other large corporations in the oil and gas industry are also
making tremendous progress in the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. A legislated cap will only serve to jeopardize the
viability of other operations that are unable to reduce emissions
as quickly as the cap might require.
To force compliance by imposing harsh penalties is an extreme
and unco-operative approach. Regardless this seems to be the
approach the government is taking with greenhouse gas emissions
legislation as well as with Bill C-65, the Canadian Endangered
Species Protection Act.
If the Liberal government resurrects Bill C-65 in its flawed and
accusatory form, it will be a slap in the face to all of those
farmers, ranchers and resource industry workers who are already
participating in programs and initiatives designed to protect
endangered species and who have already set aside sections of
their land as wildlife habitat.
If resurrected, Bill C-65 may result in the expropriation of
private land and the prevention of industrial expansion in areas
housing endangered species. There is no question that these
species need to be protected but private landowners must be
compensated for their loss.
The recent tendency of government officials to too quickly side
with environmentalists is especially frightening to those in the
forestry sector. Over 800,000 Canadians are directly and
indirectly employed in the forestry sector, yet the same
government that claims to be so concerned with job creation
strategies seems to give more credence to environmental lobby
groups than it does to experts from within the industry.
Public consultation is also necessary before this government
agrees to import over 100 tonnes of plutonium from Russian and
American nuclear warheads to burn as fuel in Candu reactors.
The recent problems with the premature failure of the Candu
reactor and disclosure of the problems within Ontario Hydro by
its employees and the people who run the reactors should
certainly give government pause for concern over that program.
1045
In this 36th Parliament of Canada I call on the government to
stop advocating policies and legislation which are damaging to
the resource industries and instead effect change that will
promote the growth of the industries. The continued success of
natural resource industries is in the best interests of all
Canadians who benefit from the wealth and employment these
industries create.
I would suggest that the government discard the same tired ideas
that have been used over the past 20 years and put some faith in
the judgment and ideas of the industry and individuals they were
elected to represent.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to respond to the hon. member's discussion on the
issue of resource development.
North America has matured in the last few years. Resource
development is taking place.
He talked about replenished resources in the mining industry and
offering them to the lowest bidder, at any environmental cost,
for the sake of creating jobs and profits. Usually the
interested parties are away from the mine or forestry sites.
Being a neighbour of his constituency, a lot of the emissions
that are being released in Swan Hills from the many industries
from which his province profits end up in northern Saskatchewan.
A lot of these resources have an end. The coal mine in Cheviot
will be developed because the resources were depleted in Luscar.
They are going to a very pristine valley and digging up an area
that will be 23 kilometres long by three kilometres wide. This is
a huge undertaking, but at what price? That is what the
consciousness environmentalists are telling the government. That
is why the aboriginal people are reminding you of the whole
global climate change which is taking place.
He talks on the one hand of the emissions that are creating
ozone depletion. On the other hand he applauds the coal miners
for digging up more coal which will create more emissions. These
things have to be looked at in a global perspective.
We can think of the forest industry and the people of Voisey's
Bay. A lot of people live in the forest regions and in the areas
rich in resources, which are usually found in north. As his hon.
leader said, it is the final frontier. The north is not a place
where the rich come to exploit the lands of the people and take
back the profits. We want development the involves local people.
The people of Voisey's Bay are saying that. They do not want
roads built through their traditional areas without considering
the environmental and the long term impact it will have on their
communities. Any development needs a second look, and should
involve the local people. They should be involved in the
ownership and profit sharing of the development of our resources.
Without Canada we would not have resources. Without resources
this Parliament would not be here. We would still be in Europe.
Let us respect this continent. Let us respect who we are and
where we are going. Let the member consider his conscience and
let us work together. It is not a one-way street with one guy
holding the money.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, that certainly was a classic
NDP speech. I am surprised that the member is not speaking to us
wearing hemp sackcloth clothing and living on bean sprouts. That
is what he would have us all do if we were to follow his advice.
We have just as much concern as anyone else does for the
environment.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My hon. colleague from Churchill River would not stand
up, because it is unparliamentary, to ask the member to take back
the remark he just made. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that he take back
that remark, which borders on racism toward this man's heritage.
I ask that he—
1050
The Deputy Speaker: I think the remarks the Chair heard
were not of the kind described and as the hon. member is
suggesting. I suggest that we continue with the answer of the
hon. member for Athabasca.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I would only suggest
that the member should visit some of the modern day mines in
Canada and look at the work that is being done for environmental
reclamation.
Why would he not visit the Syncrude and Suncor sites in my
riding where the mined out areas are now rolling hills retrieved
with pine, spruce and poplar. The grass is growing and buffalo
are grazing where they have not grazed for 300 years. Why would
he not visit the TransAlta Utilities mine site west of Edmonton,
Alberta where tremendous work has been done and the coal mine has
been reclaimed to a state that is far more productive and just as
aesthetically acceptable as the ground and the country ever was
before.
I get so tired of the rhetoric that we hear on the issue. We all
enjoy our standard of living and the wonderful wealth of this
country. More than any other reason it is because of the
development of our resources.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since this is my first speech of the 36th Parliament I
would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy
Speaker. I am sure you will do a fine job in overseeing the
sometimes rowdy debates which take place here.
I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the
Speaker, the hon. member for Niagara Centre, on for his election
to that post, as well as the assistant Speakers from Edmonton
Southwest and Saint—Lambert. I am sure they will all do a
wonderful job and do honour to this place.
I would also like to congratulate the other 300 MPs who were
elected to Parliament on June 2 which will bring a wide
divergence of opinion in this place and across the land.
However, that does not detract from the fact that we have one
common goal, which is to represent our constituents as best we
can. Congratulations to all members of Parliament.
I noted with some sadness that yesterday we heard of our first
vacancy of the 36th Parliament created by the resignation of my
colleague, Sharon Hayes, the past member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam. She will be sorely missed.
As is customary in making the first speech of a Parliament, I
want to begin by paying tribute to my riding and my constituents.
I have been honoured three times in 1997. It has been a pretty
good year for me. On January 18, knowing that an election was in
the air the Reform Party in the riding of Prince George—Peace
River held a nomination meeting to choose a candidate and I was
chosen by acclamation. Some would say, surprise, surprise. What
is the big surprise in that? Those people would be somewhat
ignorant of the procedure in the Reform Party of Canada. Two of
my colleagues from the 35th Parliament learned that in the Reform
Party every nomination is an open process. As a result of that
process, we now have two rookie MPs sitting in the Chamber.
I thank the Reformers of Prince George—Peace River for allowing
me to carry our banner through a third election campaign.
Second was the huge honour bestowed on me by the electorate in
Prince George—Peace River. Fully two-thirds of the men and
women who chose to cast a ballot on June 2 voted for me and the
Reform Party. It is my pledge to them today to continue to build
on the experience that I gained during the last Parliament, to
continue to work as hard as they do and continue to work toward
my goal of becoming the best MP possible in representing my
constituents here in Ottawa.
1055
I would like to digress for a moment and speculate on the
increase in support that was given to me because even though I
was very pleased and honoured to be supported by about 56 percent
of the electorate in the 1993 election, that grew to somewhere
close to 67 percent on June 2.
Maybe not a lot of people in the House know that 13 Reform MPs
out of a caucus of 60 had 60 percent support or over at the polls on
June 2. Almost half of our caucus received 50 percent or more.
I am sure members know how hard, in Canada's multiparty system,
it is to get a majority win.
I would ask members who were present last time to reflect back
on the 35th Parliament. Reform was constantly accused by the
government and the two other old parties of being a one election
anomaly. We were, supposedly, a protest vote. “You won't be
back” echoed in these chambers. No more. We are back, bigger
and stronger than ever. A third of our caucus are fresh recruits
eager to join the veterans in the verbal battle in this place.
The third honour I had was when the Reform leader asked me to be
the chief agricultural critic in the official opposition shadow
cabinet. In addition, my colleague from Fraser Valley, the
official opposition whip, asked me to serve as his deputy.
Despite the fact that some of my colleagues started calling me
the half-whip, I consider it to be an honour to serve in those
two capacities. In the weeks and months ahead, I will endeavour
to live up to the expectations and trust that these people have
shown in me.
In the three minutes that I see are remaining in this, my maiden
speech, I want members present to be assured they can look
forward to many more great speeches by me in this place over the
next four years.
Now I turn my attention to the throne speech. Never in the
history of throne speeches has so much been said about so little
to so few. If members recall the throne speech—it is quite a
while ago—it seemed that even the Prime Minister appeared to be
having trouble staying awake.
From an agricultural perspective I will be blunt. I think the
throne speech was absolutely pathetic. It very clearly showed
that the government is picking up where it left off in April,
ignoring the needs of farmers.
While the term aboriginal was heard 17 times during the
51-minute speech, agriculture was mentioned once. I commend the
government for its apparent commitment to our country's natives,
but other Canadians require attention as well. I say apparent
because like most of the rhetoric coming from the government, all
is illusion. If money could solve the problems facing native
Canadians, it would have done so long, long ago. Where is the
vision?
All we find is continued support of the Indian industry, the
chiefs, councils, government bodies, the lawyers, the
accountants, the consultants but mostly the bureaucrats. It is
my contention that DIAND should be renamed the department of
Indian and northern dependency.
What about the people? There is no vision for the people. Other
people too require some vision, require some leadership from the
government. Where is the vision for agriculture to carry this
vital industry into the new millennium? It is not there.
The Deputy Speaker: I am very reluctant to interrupt the
hon. member in what he is calling his second maiden speech but I
think it is time to move on to statements by members. He will
have two and a half minutes remaining in his speech after
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PAUL HENDERSON
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize Paul Henderson who grew up in my riding
of Huron—Bruce.
1100
Most Canadians born prior to September 28, 1972 recall when
Henderson scored what has come to be known as hockey's most
famous goal. Team Canada was playing against the sport's top
ranked team. Both the series and the game were tied. However,
that changed as Henderson snapped in a rebound and scored the
winning goal in the final 34 seconds.
For a nation with an identity crisis the goal did more than
reaffirm our hockey supremacy. That spine tingling victory
somehow became a symbol of Canadianism. Canada rallied behind a
team that refused to give up even when defeat seemed inevitable.
The resulting emotional rush bolstered our national confidence
and the sport's overall image.
The 25th anniversary of the Summit Series sparked a flood of
reminiscence. The effects of Henderson's goal are as profound
today as they were when the puck first slammed against the meshing
of the Soviet net. As a result of that single unifying event we
were given a tangible reminder of what it feels like to be
Canadian.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Saskatchewan farmers are caught between the devil and the deep
blue sea. Farmers say the devil in this case is the minister
responsible for the wheat board who seems incapable of getting
the grain moving from prairie elevators to port.
A private supermarket can get thousands of products to thousands
of consumers on the very day they need any one of them, but the
wheat board cannot get one product to one port in the month the
customer wants it let alone the right day. The government blames
the railways, the railways blame the wheat board and the farmers
pay. Bureaucratic inefficiency has cost farmers between $65
million and $115 million.
Some farmers in the Yorkton—Melville area have been denied this
year's initial payment from the wheat board because they have not
been able to pay back last year's initial payment. And why is
that? They have not been able to sell their grain because all
the elevators are plugged, again thanks to government
intervention in the marketplace.
Farmers are telling me it is time for an exorcism to get the
devil out of the grain transportation system in the prairies.
* * *
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday residents of Vaughan—King—Aurora gathered
at St. Joan of Arc High School in Maple to discuss the Speech
from the Throne and the government agenda for the next few years.
Residents were united in their desire for the government to stay
the course on deficit reduction. They agreed that a balanced
budget is essential to our nation's economic health. They
approved of the government's plan to invest in key areas of the
economy such as trade and technology, but they urged caution,
calling for wise investments that produce results.
The residents also applauded the government's continued resolve
in the area of youth unemployment and took the opportunity to
call on local businesses, community organizations and all levels
of government to continue to work together to create
opportunities for youth. Residents also discussed the importance
of preserving and improving our health care system and expressed
their support for an efficient, affordable and effective
pharmacare and home care programs. They want the federal
government to continue to exercise leadership to ensure Canada
remains a strong and united country.
* * *
[Translation]
JEWISH COMMUNITY
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec is an
open and tolerant nation made up from people of every ethnic background
and various religious faiths, who came from every corner of the world to
find in our province a sense of freedom.
Today is the first day of an intense and important time of year for
thousands of our fellow citizens. On behalf of the sovereignists in
Quebec, I would like to wish a happy new year to the Jewish community in
Quebec and in Canada.
Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, marks the beginning of a Holy
week culminating with Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.
What better occasion to gather with one's family and friends to reflect
on the old year and the new.
We take this opportunity to wish them peace, happiness and health
in the new year. Shana Tova.
* * *
[English]
THE FAMILY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October
6 will mark the beginning of national family week. Each year
thousands of communities across Canada celebrate this special
occasion. Family Service Canada in partnership with Health
Canada is working to improve the well-being of the family.
Throughout the years it has worked to lay the foundation for
positive family relationships and communication in family
friendly communities.
We are celebrating world teachers day on October 5. It is a day
to reflect on the importance of education and the contributions
of teachers to education.
I see a correlation between education, teaching and the family.
Let us celebrate what we have done but keep in mind that we have
more to do.
* * *
1105
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Senator Andrew Thompson is one of the reasons why Canadians have
such a low opinion of our upper House.
Senator Thompson's attendance record is the worst in the Senate.
He shows up about once every two years and yet he continues to
collect his pay cheque of around $85,000 per year.
This not only brings into question the internal workings of the
Senate, but obviously senators cannot or refuse to police
themselves. It also begs the question that if the prime minister
has the power to appoint senators should he not have the power to
dismiss senators.
As Mr. Thompson is a former Ontario Liberal leader, it is
doubtful our prime minister would toss him out despite Senator
Thompson's being the most rotten apple in an ancient—
The Speaker: I would encourage all hon. members to be very
judicious. I did not know exactly where the member was going in
his statement, but as a general rule we do not criticize
specifically members of the other House.
* * *
BREAST CANCER
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Sunday, October 5 Canadians from across the country will run for
the cure. They will be running, walking and jogging in support
of breast cancer research.
The CIBC, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and an expected
50,000 participants in 18 cities across this country are hoping
to raise $3 million for breast cancer research, education,
diagnosis and treatment. I am proud to be part of that effort.
I am reminded of those who came before us in this fight, Ms. Pat
Kelly and the Breast Cancer Action Group who fought hard to
overcome systemic barriers to raising money for breast cancer
research but, more important, fought to gain a voice for women in
determining how breast cancer research dollars would be spent.
The run is the main fundraising event of this year for the
Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. One of the many
accomplishments of the foundation has been the establishment of
the first Canadian chair on breast cancer research located at
Women's College Hospital in Toronto.
I am heartened by the enormous effort and contributions of the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
* * *
[Translation]
CONSEIL QUÉBÉCOIS DU PATRIMOINE VIVANT
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from
October 3 to 5, Jonquière will be, for the first time, host to the rally
of the Conseil québécois du patrimoine vivant, the fifth in its history.
Jonquière, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, is a great
place to hold this momentous event. Under the theme “La grande criée
d'automne au Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean”, this event will showcase, through
conferences, workshops and performances, the various aspects of our
region's heritage, including folk tales, traditions, legends and
heritage sites.
I join with my hon. colleague from Jonquière and take this
opportunity to extend our welcome to everyone visiting our beautiful
region and to thank the Corporation de sauvegarde du patrimoine de
Jonquière and the William Price interpretation centre for their
contribution to these activities.
* * *
[English]
FIRE PREVENTION
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, none
of us expect when we start out each day that our homes or offices
might be destroyed by fire. Yet it was on a busy day much like
this 81 years ago that our predecessors in the House of Commons
found themselves in the heart of an inferno.
On February 4, 1916 Canada lost its original Parliament
Buildings to a horrific destructive fire. That tragic event
serves as a reminder that fire can strike any time, anywhere and
no one is immune to it.
From October 5 to October 11 Canada will observe fire prevention
week to remind Canadians of the danger of fire, to promote fire
prevention and to honour the dedicated firefighters across this
country who risk their lives for the safety of others.
Each year in Canada fire claims hundreds of lives and incurs
hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The latest statistics
for 1995 show that 62,346 fires resulted in 389 deaths, 3,792
injuries and a direct property loss of over $1 billion—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Gatineau.
* * *
[Translation]
BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given that the
government's policy is to create jobs, and that this can only be
achieved in a strong and growing economy, I find it hard to understand
the Bank of Canada's decision to increase its rate, when there is no
indication of a rise in inflation.
1110
The chartered banks immediately doubled the rate increase set by
the Bank of Canada. This could generate some concern among Canadians
who, in the past, have been hard hit because of high interest rates,
with a large number of businesses having to fold and many families
nearly went going bankrupt because of high mortgage rates.
[English]
The government's policy of attempting to control our economy by
manipulating interest rates must be questioned. It continues to
cause our economy to lurch from boom to bust and by this every
move turning the stock markets and serves only to make increased
profits for financial—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton East.
* * *
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday a Tory member questioned the government and its
ministers on allegation of influence peddling and improper
fundraising. These allegations are being raised ironically by a
member of the Tory Party. We will long remember names like
Cogger, LaSalle and Moores who faced criminal charges while
members of the Tory administration.
Presently the Tory leader is raising money in Saskatchewan and
perhaps stopping in on the trial of Senator Bernston who is
facing charges of criminal fraud. Maybe he will visit the group
of convicted Tory felons who now call the Regina correctional
institute their home away from home.
It is this type of Liberal-Tory hypocrisy which breeds voter
cynicism. Reform is here to bring integrity back to the House of
Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis deemed it necessary to
explain, in the House, her disparaging remarks concerning French
Canadians.
She denied calling us second class citizens. Yet, the official
report of the Debates reads, and I quote: “As a French Canadian, I am a
second class citizen”. The member went on to say that francophones
outside Quebec could count on her support.
I say to the Bloc Quebecois member that we French Canadians outside
Quebec have no use for the kind of support Bloc members have been giving
us from time to time since they arrived in this place, by using our
problems to promote their separatist goal.
Such negative support is harmful to our cause and we can easily do
without it.
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for years we
watched as the national Reform Party seduced the national Liberal
Party into acting in a bizarre right wing Tory way. But its B.C.
cousins are taking these new political liaisons to astonishing
new levels.
The B.C. Liberals and B.C. Reformers have developed a close
political relationship over the past few years and have recently
decided to jump into political bed with each other. The Liberals
are even debating whether they should change their name in an
effort to reflect this new political love affair.
Canadians have always known about the Liberal-Tory, same old
story, but now it is Liberal-Reform, same old form as Liberals
jump into bed with Reformers and Tories are there whining at the
door to be let in on this new political orgy.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTFORT HOSPITAL
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to shed some light on certain comments made regarding the role of
the federal government in the case of the Montfort hospital.
If and when the federal government decides, through the heritage
department, to provide financial support to the establishment of a
network of health care services in French, this network will be managed
by the Montfort hospital to fulfill the mandate given to it by the
Ontario health care restructuring committee.
There is no reason to accuse the federal government of interfering
in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Rather, it is important to remind the public, and ourselves, of the
federal government's mandate and role regarding official languages
minorities across the country, that is to say in all the provinces
except Quebec for the French speaking minority, and in Quebec for the
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Today, Mr. Speaker,
the minister of agriculture has recognized October as
agricultural awareness month in Atlantic Canada. Is this simply
lip service as in last week's Speech from the Throne? Agriculture
was conspicuous in its absence.
In this government's rush to embrace technology as the wave of
the future it has disregarded agricultural sustainability. Since
producers are the backbone of this industry it is they who have
been disregarded by this government.
The federal agriculture minister recently, talking about the
government's fiscal dividend, said that when agriculture
producers came forward with ideas he would go to bat for them. Is
the minister of agriculture prepared to go to bat for the
agriculture producers?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1115
[English]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is incredible to watch the Liberal damage control machine kick
into high gear. These guys are starting to make Brian Mulroney
look like an amateur.
The facts do not lie. We have a senior Quebec fundraiser in the
Liberal Party who is now under criminal investigation for trying
to shake down companies that are applying for government grants.
This fundraiser tried to blackmail those companies by demanding
they give thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party or risk
losing their grants.
My question is for the prime minister. Who in the government
leaked the names of the companies applying for grants to the
Liberal Party?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should have begun his question by
congratulating and praising the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
He should have praised him because the minister acted quickly,
responsibly, and with integrity by immediately bringing the
allegations to the attention of the RCMP.
The hon. member, in his supplementary question, may want to
explain this very serious lack in the content of his question.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
will get to that, actually. The RCMP learned about these illegal
Liberal fundraising tactics in March from a boy scout in the
Ministry of Human Resources Development.
The big boys in the prime minister's office refused to listen to
him. They did not fire this bagmen until June, after the
election, several months later.
During the four months the prime minister and his Liberal
campaign managers knew that their fundraiser was under criminal
investigation, which ministers continued to associate with the
fundraiser under investigation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not have that information. It does not pertain to the
administrative responsibilities of the government. More
important, there is a criminal investigation under way and I am
sure the issues the hon. member has raised will be gone into
thoroughly in the course of the investigation.
It is important to let the investigation proceed in the normal
and effective fashion the RCMP will be undertaking. We will see
what comes out as a result of the investigation.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us just talk about that for a moment. We know the RCMP is
investigating the Liberal Party for its corrupt fundraising
practices. I do not care as much about the corruption in the
Liberal Party as I care about corruption in the government.
We know the RCMP is investigating the Liberal Party, but will
the prime minister launch an independent inquiry into potential
corruption in the government itself?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think one has to reject the premise of the hon. member's
question. It has not been confirmed exactly who the targets of
the investigation might be. The solicitor general said yesterday
they could be on one side of the House or his side of the House,
or it could involve any Canadian.
Therefore it would be improper, if not unfair, to speculate and
create innuendo about something that is under investigation,
unless the hon. member wants to take steps to prevent the
investigation from reaching a successful conclusion. I hope that
is not his objective because that would be wrong.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1995, 70 percent of the top contractors with CIDA made significant
donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. That compares with
less than onepercent of Canadian companies overall that give to
the Liberals. This sends a clear message to business: “Give
money to the Liberals or you won't get government business”.
How can ordinary Canadians have faith in the government's
tendering process when being a Liberal is obviously the first
qualification checked?
1120
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have always been especially careful when we have had to deal with
the contracting process in whatever portfolio I have been
responsible for.
If you have any proof, would you please bring it forward instead
of making these unfounded allegations.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to address both the
questions and the answers to the Chair.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals are on the take and they just keep on taking.
Business people—
Mr. Julian Reed: Say that outside.
The Speaker: I ask all hon. members to be very judicious
in their choice of words. That is the first point.
Second, I remind hon. members that in putting questions they
have to go to the administrative responsibility of the government
as opposed to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or the
New Democratic Party.
I ask members to be very judicious in their choice of words.
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that 70 percent of
CIDA contractors were big Liberals and given the latest RCMP
investigation into corrupt Liberal fundraising it is crucial that
the government clear the air and clean up its act.
In order to restore faith in the integrity of government, will
the prime minister convene an independent inquiry into how the
government doles out contracts?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada has a system called the open bidding system.
That is how contracts are allocated.
People tender for them and win them based on how good their
tender is. CIDA puts its contract on the OBS as well.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Human Resources Development admitted that at
least five funding proposals being processed by his department
were the subject of blackmail and influence peddling to raise
funds for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what concrete measures his
government has taken to ensure that in future no one will have access to
Department of Human Resources Development funding lists?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the minister pointed out yesterday, immediately upon receiving
the information regarding these allegations, he brought it to the
attention of the RCMP.
At this point, all we have are allegations. But it is obviously
up to the Minister of Human Resources Development to review the
procedures in his department and I think that, with his integrity
and good judgement, he has the matter under review. But, for the
time being, the situation is—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon.
member for Verchères now has the floor.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we now
know that a close collaborator of the Liberal Party of Canada
with responsibility for the Mauricie region in the last election
may have had access to Department of Human Resources Development
funding lists.
In this specific case, what has the government done to ensure
that this collaborator will no longer use confidential government
information for the purpose of influence peddling?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the time being, allegations are all we have. No formal
complaint has been filed.
At the same time, I am certain that the Minister of Human Resources
Development will be reviewing procedures in his department.
* * *
TRANSITION JOB FUND
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
1125
In his letter of March 5, 1997, the Minister of Human
Resources Development informs us that at least six projects were in
the analysis phase with a view to ministerial approval under the
transition job fund.
Can the minister inform us as to whether these projects have
been approved since then?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not have that information. I will do my best to obtain it for
my hon. colleague. For the moment, I can only quote the letter
from the minister. He says, in his letter to the RCMP:
[English]
“Allegations have come to my attention that at least five
different proposers”, et cetera, et cetera.
[Translation]
We must make sure that we refer only to allegations at this
time, but the entire situation is under RCMP investigation.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the current
investigation. We just want to find out about the projects.
Can the minister clarify the situation and make things more
transparent by tabling a list of these projects?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be pleased to bring the hon. member's question to the
attention of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
But I am again asking why the hon. member has not
commended the minister for his promptness, integrity and good
judgment in immediately bringing these allegations to the attention
of the RCMP.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Four years ago his leader stood in the House and asked the
Conservative government why it always sided with the
multinationals instead of with the people who need drugs.
In the last election the government promised national pharmacare
based on its own forum recommendations for a universal single
payer drug plan. This is in question with the government once
again cosying up to the big brand name drug companies, and I
might add with a little pressure from the Reform Party.
Today I put the same question that his leader asked on April 1,
1993. Will the government commit today to a universal national
drug—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health, if he likes,
could answer the preamble.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is profoundly misinformed. We are complying with the
commitment we made during the election campaign.
I know the hon. member would want us, before embarking on a
national pharmacare program, to look into its design, its funding
and its delivery. That is exactly what we are doing.
In the months ahead I will be meeting in a national conference
with my provincial counterparts, with interested and
knowledgeable people, to talk about how Canadians can be best
served by a pharmacare program that will work.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, that was an awfully vague answer about a specific
question. Let me ask about a very specific concern.
We know that lobbyists for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association of Canada, which is fighting to scrap a national drug
plan, are coming from former employees of the Patented Medicine
Prices Review Board.
Given the revolving door between industry and government and
real concerns about conflict of interest, we want to know if
Canadians can be assured that the federal government and not the
brand name industry is setting drug prices.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member can be assured that when the government puts together
its policy toward the creation of a pharmacare plan we will do
what is in the best interests of Canadians.
We will look at ideas that come from all quarters. We will look
at models in other countries. We will look at what Canada can
afford and what will deliver the services best to Canadians. That
is exactly what the government will do.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to put a question to the government.
Yesterday, we heard that the Minister of Human Resources
Development, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Public
Works and even the Prime Minister knew on March 6, 1997 that the RCMP
was aware of dubious fundraising practices.
Would the government confirm information to the effect that
ministers of the Crown, despite the RCMP investigation, continued to
accompany the person or persons being investigated, in the course of
fundraising activities and visits to businesses in Quebec?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
neither confirm nor deny the allegations in the hon. member's question.
For the time being, we are talking about an investigation, not
about charges made before the courts. If an investigation is underway,
which was confirmed yesterday by the RCMP, we must do everything we can
to avoid obstructing the investigation in any way.
I hope that was the purpose of the hon. member's questions.
1130
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the Deputy Prime Minister that the role of the Conservative
opposition members is to help provide Canadians with good government.
I am pleased to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister that the
Minister of Human Resources Development has changed the procedures in
his department with respect to documents.
That being said, I would like to ask the government how it intends
to give Canadian businesses the assurance that their requests for
assistance from the government will nevertheless be confidential,
considering what we heard this week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. Minister for International Cooperation said, the
government's bidding is an open bidding system. There are public
tenders. The results are published. I think this is in part an
answer to my hon. friend's question. In any event I am sure the
hon. Minister for Human Resources Development would want to
review the procedures in his department and take any necessary
action.
I might add, if the Speaker says I have a couple of seconds,
that in the last sentence—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Three hundred modern-day war criminals are reported to have
gained entry and are living in Canada. The government has
already proven that we cannot get rid of Nazi war criminals in
this country.
How will the minister rid Canada of the 300 modern-day war
criminals and the 38,000 illegal refugees harboured in this
country?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to correct the facts and figures
provided by the opposition critic. First, when we are talking about
38,000 individuals, these are not illegal immigrants but people who are
seeking refugee status.
Second, the 300 people who are suspected of committing war crimes
or crimes against humanity are only suspects; they have not been
convicted by the system.
When reports are made by my department, this proves there is a
strong interest in these questions and that in the
department—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but the hon.
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast has the floor.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1994 there were 50 to 100 war criminals in Canada
and 17,000 illegal refugees. Now there are 300 war criminals in
this country and 38,000 refugees who came to our borders and
entered this country illegally. In the government's own report it
has predicted it is going to double very shortly.
Can the minister advise the House what the government is going
to do to stop this flow into Canada and to protect Canadians?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party critic should not perpetuate myths
in this country. We are not talking about illegal immigrants, but about
refugee claimants.
That being said, we take very seriously all cases of persons
suspected of contemporary war crimes who try to enter this country. I
can say that Canada is one of the leaders on the international scene for
its success in preventing these people from getting access to the system
that confers refugee status, and in deporting them.
When we compare our system with those in the United States, France
or Great Britain—
The Speaker: I am sorry but the hon. member for Charlesbourg has
the floor.
* * *
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Still on the subject of influence peddling, we have the
impression that all the federal Liberal ministers from Quebec were
aware of what was happening. The Prime Minister knew, the Minister
of Public Works knew, the Minister of Human Resources Development
knew and the President of the Treasury Board knew.
Which other ministers of this government were aware of the
events?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have no information to indicate that other ministers were informed,
not of the investigation, but of the very general allegations.
If I do receive other information, I will advise my hon.
colleague as soon as possible.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
misappropriation of funds the government and the Liberal Party are
allegedly involved in occurred in the regions, and in particular
that of the Prime Minister of Canada.
1135
My question is for the minister responsible for regional
development in Quebec. Was he aware of these allegations, and if
so, what measures did he take to stop influence peddling in the
Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development—Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is
no, I was not aware.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in question
period yesterday it was obvious the government has no grasp of
the situation involving the use of Canadian passports by
attempted assassins. First it told us they were forged, then
maybe they were stolen. The department has not seen them yet.
This government has not told this House anything concrete about
this issue.
We have a real name and a real passport. Will the government
tell us what it is doing about this or should we just call the
media?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am trying to discern what the member's question is. I
can only deduce that he is responding to the allegations about
the fact that a Canadian passport was used.
We have said they are forgeries. Signatures were forged, false
photographs were used. We are now having this individual work
and co-operate with us to determine exactly how it happened.
I can guarantee to this House that Canada was not in complicity
with any act of assassination or criminal attempt.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
Canadian, Mr. Ron Reddy who has called us. He has called the
embassy over there. He has been told to stay in his hotel room.
We talked to him last night in Amman. He says that the situation
is very tense over there. This government has shown little
regard for the safety of Canadians.
This morning we have received over two dozen phone calls in our
office alone from concerned Canadians about the safety and
integrity of this travel document. Can the minister tell these
Canadians and any Canadians travelling internationally what he is
doing to prevent this—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I should report to the House is that we
contacted the hon. member's office for information about all
these calls and we have yet to receive any of that information.
I am quite happy to respond to any specific request when I
receive it and I would ask the hon. member to give it to me.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ: Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Public Works.
The issues raised by the ongoing investigation into allegations of
influence peddling throws the whole federal government contract award
process into question.
Can the public works minister give us the assurance, beyond all
doubt, that he has taken every measure possible to prevent all
influence peddling in the award of government contracts?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure this house and my hon.
colleague that all government contracts are awarded by public tendering,
open to all. The hon. member and all Canadians can put in a bid, they
can even use the Internet to do so, and I can assure you that there is
no influence peddling and that it is all done by the book and in
accordance with the law.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Given that 37 percent of all federal contracts, totalling $3.2 billion in
1995, were untendered, does the minister not recognize that this
approach opens the door to all sorts of abuse, including strong
possibilities of influence peddling?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, it does happen, in an emergency or
for security reasons, that we award what is called sole source
contracts.
However, I should point out to the hon. member and to the House
that, when we took office in 1993, 50 percent of government contracts were
awarded that way, compared to only 35 percent today. And we will keep reducing
this number.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I tabled an affidavit by Mr. Dennis Coffey, a 25-year
customs investigator, in which he confirmed allegations of fraud,
nepotism and abuse in the Department of National Revenue.
The minister has repeatedly denied these allegations. He must
have some pretty compelling evidence to offhandedly dismiss Mr.
Coffey's claims.
1140
Has the government conducted an investigation into these
troubling allegations, what evidence does it have if any, and
will it table such evidence in the House today?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear.
The member opposite should very well know that any matter before
the Public Service Commission Appeal Board will not be disclosed
in this House because it is inappropriate to comment on it at
this time.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
these are publicly made allegations, publicly reported in the
newspapers about fraud, corruption, nepotism and abuse in the
department. Surely the government takes that seriously enough to
investigate those independent of the appeal happening.
Does the parliamentary secretary deny we have learned that Mr.
Coffey has alleged that Marvin Goodman, a senior customs manager,
authorized the use of a government office at 1 Front Street in
Toronto for his sister to run a dress shop rent free.
What does the government think of this? Does it think it is
appropriate for government officials to be using government
office space for the personal financial benefit of members of
their families?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allegations that Revenue
Canada gives preferential treatment to any courier company in
this country are false and unfounded. Right now there is a risk
management system that has been in place and is supported by all
courier companies.
If any member of this House has any evidence that we should be
investigating, let them place it before us and we will
investigate.
* * *
[Translation]
WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Today, the media are reporting that a committee appointed by the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has stated that Canada makes it
too easy for war criminals to enter the country.
Can the minister tell the House how many war criminals her
department has currently identified in Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me to correct the facts. The statement was not
made by a committee appointed by the minister. It is found in a report
written by an officer to his director. The officer is a member of the
department's war crimes section.
This shows that we do have a departmental war crimes section, where
an inventory of about 300 suspected people was made, and I emphasize the
word “suspected”.
* * *
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The United States have announced that they will challenge our dairy
production system before the World Trade Organization, on the grounds
that we subsidize our dairy product exports.
What measures will the minister take to protect Canada's dairy
industry?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate
the member for her election to the House. I look forward to
working with her which she has already shown enthusiasm to do.
The government and the dairy industry are already putting a
strategy together to deal with the section 301 challenge that the
United States has put on a track toward the WTO. If that
challenge does go through the whole process and to a final panel,
we will use those strategies to defend the dairy industry as we
did in the NAFTA panel. I remind everyone Canada received a
unanimous decision in our favour. We will again defend the
Canadian dairy industry vigorously.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, customs
staff were pulled away from inspecting planes for drugs and
contraband so that Federal Express shipments could be fast
tracked. The Minister of National Revenue says that they want
more facts. We have a statement on legal stationery confirming
that Dennis Coffey will provide sworn evidence exactly to this
effect.
How many kilos of cocaine and pounds of pot were smuggled into
Canada because planes from Jamaica went uninspected?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada is
responsible at the customs border points. Between the border
points we have RCMP co-operation. A lot of our information is
intelligence based. We work co-operatively on our anti-smuggling
initiatives. There are money and resources behind this and
Revenue Canada works on assessing high and low risk and will not
be letting smugglers know how we do this in this House.
1145
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, speaking
about higher risks, how about high priorities in terms of sisters
of employees and whatnot making money on the taxpayer in that
department?
We have learned that one of the top officials of the Minister of
National Revenue is trying to gag Mr. Coffey, threatening him
with disciplinary action and making these allegations public
before the appeal board. In fact the government has the letter.
We tabled it yesterday.
If Mr. Coffey's evidence is not true then why is the minister
and his staff trying to shut out and shut up Mr. Coffey? Why are
they doing that?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate and
hopefully it will be clearer this time. The employee in question
has filed an appeal with the Public Service Commission Appeal
Board that he was inappropriately denied an acting appointment.
While this appeal is ongoing we will not be commenting on the
particulars of this case no matter how many times members of the
opposition ask.
* * *
LABOUR
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In what the front page of the New York Times calls “a
child labour victory”, the U.S. Congress is set to ban the
importation of goods made by bondaged child labourers.
In light of the fact that there is an estimated 15 million
children working in Southeast Asia and in light of the fact that
the APEC conference seeks to increase our trade with these
countries, will the minister use the weight of his office to pass
comparable legislation that would outlaw the importation and sale
of goods manufactured by child labour?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, while I compliment the member on question, I would
like to remind him that last year we set up a special fund to
encourage Canadian enterprises and organizations to come forward
with a series of initiatives to deal with the importation of
products made by child labour.
Second, we are now working with the ILO to come up with a new
draft convention dealing with children working in hazardous
industries.
Third, as he probably knows, Canada is one of the few countries
which has passed legislation that gives us the right to prosecute
Canadian citizens who go abroad to exploit children.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
White House has also initiated a process that has led to a
workplace code of practice for monitoring the garment industry in
that country. In our country some garment contractors use
sweatshops and homeworkers on piece work often in violation of
wage and labour standards.
Will the minister and his cabinet colleagues commit to develop a
similar code of conduct to end the exploitation of sweatshop
workers and to help the many fair Canadian manufacturers who
suffer from this unfair competition?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member three pieces of
information. First, we are working actively to have an
international standard through the Oslo convention. Canada is
sponsoring one of the founding meetings that is leading toward
that international code.
Second, we have worked to develop a code of conduct for private
businesses. They announced it about a month ago and our
department was very much involved in pulling it together.
Third, we are attempting to develop specific projects overseas
through the work of CIDA to help remove children from hazardous
child labour and provide alternative working opportunities for
them in company with local NGOs in those areas.
* * *
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister would have us believe that the
Minister of Human Resources Development is to be congratulated
for taking the initiative of calling the RCMP.
My suggestion is that this is simply not enough. Just to bring
it to the attention of the RCMP is not enough.
What we would like to know is who knew, when did they know and
what have they done in the meantime to ensure that this practice
has stopped?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's question was answered in part yesterday and I
answered the rest of it in my earlier responses to other members
of the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, my question surrounds the contradictions that seem to
exist. There is information that suggests that the Prime
Minister did not know and then there are other suggestions that
he did.
What we want to know is who in the government was aware of this
illegal practice? The investigation was under way. Why did a
person in the employment of the parties continue to work for the
party?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's question does not pertain to the administrative
responsibilities of the government. I think it was confirmed
yesterday by the Prime Minister's office that he was generally
informed of the allegations but not of the investigation as such.
If I am wrong, I will correct myself.
1150
In any event, the government acted through the Minister of Human
Resources Development quickly, responsibly and with integrity by
immediately bringing the allegations in question to the RCMP when
they reached his attention.
I wonder why my hon. friend does not recognize that and stop
raising innuendoes and insinuations that could harm the success
of the process.
* * *
IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for CIDA.
Ten years ago Canada began an international immunization program
and immunized hundreds of thousands of children in 25 countries
against six fatal diseases. It appears that the program is
ending. Could the minister please explain why we have ended that
program?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
after 10 years and many successes this particular program has
ended as planned. However, Canada remains committed to global
immunization.
As a matter of fact, CIDA has recently adopted a strategy for
health which stresses Canada's commitment to improving the health
of children worldwide. A key aim of this strategy is the
immunization of every child and the eradication of polio and
measles worldwide.
At the moment we are actively involved in efforts to eradicate
polio in West Africa and we are examining a variety of possible
next steps to see how we can best use our resources to help
immunize the world's children.
* * *
BROADCASTING
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the CRTC violated its own rules by awarding a wireless cable
broadcasting licence to a telephone monopoly.
The CRTC stated that the earliest it would accept an application
was June, but it made a special exception and accepted an
application in February from long distance carrier Teleglobe's
Look TV.
Why does the Liberal government condone the CRTC violating its
guidelines? Does it want less choice for consumers, or more power
for monopolies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I must advise the hon. member that I cannot
comment on the particulars of the case in relation to the
decision of the cabinet about upholding or sending back a CRTC's
decision.
Given that a court has already made a ruling on the particulars
of the allegation he is making, I think he may unfortunately find
himself in contempt of court.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Following what appears to be the fraudulent use of Canadian
passports by the Israeli secret services, we have learned that this has
apparently been a common practice among the secret services of many
countries for quite some time now.
What does the minister intend to do to tighten up protection of
Canadian passports so that such situations do not recur?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
The international body that looks after all travel documents is
the ICAO organization which is situated in Montreal. We will be
working with ICAO and making representations to it about the need
to provide a stronger international covenant or convention to
ensure that all countries live up to their obligations.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the U.S. post office handles 40 percent of the world's
mail and its Postmaster General, Marvin Runyon, makes $205,000
Canadian per year.
Canada Post, which handles 3 percent of the world's mail, just
renewed President Georges Clermont's obscene salary and benefits
package to $380,000 Canadian per year, which by the way is not
for public information.
My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. If
the government is so willing to quickly settle a contract for
Georges Clermont why will he and Canada Post management not apply
the same attitude toward the current concerns of the Canadian
Union of Postal Workers?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, if we compare the salaries
of the presidents of about 15 companies in Canada which do the
same volume of business as Canada Post, Mr. Clermont's salary is
the lowest.
Second, we are doing our best. I encourage my hon. colleague to
speak to his friends in the postal union and get them back to the
table. I will do my part by speaking to management to make sure
that we have a labour agreement as soon as possible and deliver
the mail.
* * *
1155
RCMP INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, as much as the government would like this matter to go
away we have one simple point we would like to establish today.
Which ministers were travelling with which fund raisers? Who
was under investigation at that time?
The Speaker: At this point at least, the member has not
gone to the administrative responsibility that I can see of any
one minister. The question, as it is phrased, is not receivable.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
In recent years the number of applications for CPP disability
benefits have increased dramatically, thereby necessitating that
these payments be paid in a timely fashion.
My question is simply this. Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, can
you share with the House—
The Speaker: I ask all hon. members to please direct your
comments to the Chair. I will permit the parliamentary secretary
to respond.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
that very important question.
Obviously people who are on the Canada disability pension would
want to find out why it has been taking so long. Part of the
problem is that applications for the CPP have doubled.
Because of that and because of the changes we are bringing
forward in the House, and the definition of the people who are
eligible to make this application, have caused us some problems.
In order to deal with that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
over 25 percent of the population use or rely on natural health
care products. These people have galvanized support for the
right of Canadians to freely choose these products, and they want
an answer.
Will the government change its current policy to permit the
unrestricted use and access to safe alternative health products
instead of making criminals of ordinary Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the challenge facing any government is to strike the right
balance between regulation to protect consumers from fraud or
abuse and, on the other hand, allowing Canadians freedom of
choice for health related products. The government is determined
to find that right balance.
Tomorrow in Toronto, I am going to be making an announcement
that will make clear the intention of the government with respect
to the approach toward herbal remedies and natural products in
general. I commend it to the hon. member in response to his
question.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board.
With respect to pay equity in the federal public service, the
President of the Treasury Board said this week in the House, and I quote
“We stand ready to apply the various judgments once they are made
final”.
Is the President of the Treasury Board saying that he will not send
a representative to the bargaining table and that he intends to use all
the legal stalling tactics at his disposal to delay a settlement?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, we have
made over $1 billion in equity payments in recent years.
We have made an offer of $1,3 billion and we intend to leave this
offer on the table, and when the unions are ready to negotiate, they
have only to come back.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
There is a public health emergency in Vancouver's downtown east
side. It is an epidemic of HIV infection, particularly among
injection drug users, and Vancouver has now had the highest
incident rate in the developed world. Death from drug overdoses
is the number one killer for men and women aged 30 to 44.
1200
Will the minister commit here and now to show the leadership
that is called for in the national action plan?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have personal knowledge of the awful tragedy to which the hon.
member refers. I have walked with the police of Vancouver
through the back alleys of downtown Vancouver. I have visited
the areas to which she has referred and I have seen people who
have died as a result of abusing drugs and using dirty needles.
There is no one simple answer to this issue. The municipal
government—and I have spoken with the mayor of Vancouver about
it—the provincial government and the federal government must, as
we are, work in co-ordination to provide social services, proper
policing and treatment to those very much in need.
The hon. member has my assurance that we will continue in that
effort.
The Speaker: I believe there is a question of privilege.
Does this matter arise from question period?
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during
question period today the foreign affairs minister suggested that
he had called my office any number of times to get the list of
people we are talking about.
We have been in our offices from 7.30 a.m. until about 9 p.m. or
10 p.m. every night and he has—
The Speaker: I believe that is a point of debate, not a
point of privilege.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, a report from
the Canadian Branch Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
concerning the 36th Canadian regional conference which took place
July 12 to 18 in Regina, Saskatchewan.
* * *
PETITIONS
HEALTH
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have several petitions to present, so I ask for your indulgence
as I go through them.
I am pleased to present two petitions with the signatures of 80
Canadians from my constituency who are concerned that their
freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly
curtailed and threatened by government regulation.
The petitioners request a number of specific amendments to the
Food and Drug Act which would ensure that health foods and
dietary supplements are not defined and regulated as drugs.
They request also that the only foods the Government of Canada
may restrict from the market are those which are proven unsafe or
fraudulently promoted and that in all cases the burden of proof
shall be on the government.
JUSTICE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the next group of petitions are signed by 58 of my constituents
who are asking Parliament to make several changes to the way
crimes of violence are treated in the law and by the courts.
They ask for the following changes. First, the law should
require all bail hearings in crimes of violence to be presided
over by a judge.
Second, the law should require money or security to be posted
before the release of a person accused of a violent crime. Third,
the law should hold agents of the crown directly accountable for
the actions or omissions in permitting the release of offenders.
Fourth, the law should ensure that sentences reflect society's
abhorrence for the criminal act in order to act as a true
deterrent and to protect the public.
1205
Finally, they ask that public safety be given a higher priority
than the rights of the violent offender for early release. My
hope is that the government listens to these petitioners.
HEALTH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from hundreds of citizens of the Peterborough region
who are concerned about the impact of the Food and Drug Act and
its use in a range of products, including vitamins, herbs and
various minerals.
These citizens ask that section (3) of schedule A of the present
Food and Drug Act be deleted so that true claims for any product
that prevents, treats or cures any of the 46 specific conditions
can be allowed.
I have another petition on a similar topic also from hundreds of
constituents of the Peterborough riding who are concerned about
freedom of choice in health care.
They are concerned that this choice is increasingly threatened
by legislation and statutory regulations of the government. They
ask that the Food and Drug Act be revised in various ways,
including that the definition of food include dietary supplements
and foods for special health uses and that the definition of drug
be amended to read “drug includes any substance other than
food”.
Finally, they request that the expression dietary supplement
include any substance that is intended to improve or augment the
nutritional quality of one's diet and may include tablets,
capsules, powders or liquids containing one or more of the
following ingredients: a vitamin, a mineral, an amino acid, an
herb or other botanical or concentrate metabolite constituent,
extract or combination of these ingredients.
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to christen this new bench in the House of Commons,
close to the bar.
I have a petition from Canadians in the provinces of Quebec and
Ontario who call on Parliament and the government to declare
that Canada is indivisible and that Canada's boundaries should not
be altered without a free vote of Canadian citizens or using the
amending formula contained in the Canadian Constitution.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the
opening of the session.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before the important business of question period, and it is too
bad there is not a little answer period as well, I was on a bit
of a roll and it is really hard when interrupted to get back up
to speed.
During my brief remarks I was congratulating you, the other
speakers and all members of Parliament on their election or
re-election to this august Chamber. I was remiss in not
congratulating the new minister of agriculture on his
appointment. He has a very difficult job ahead to convince his
cabinet and his caucus colleagues to develop a new vision for the
industry that will keep pace with the vision that is being
developed out in the real world by the farmers.
Our party has been quite critical of the so-called 50:50
arrangement in the throne speech that has been put into place
with a commitment by the government once we move beyond a
balanced budget.
Two days ago an open line show was conducted in my riding of
Dawson Creek. There were about 69 calls from Canadians. About
eight and a half were in favour of increased spending for social
programs, and about nine and a half favoured tax relief.
Interestingly enough, 51 calls favoured debt reduction. That
says to me this government is on the wrong track, that the
majority of Canadians recognize the huge threat to the Canadian
economy, indeed to the security of all Canadians, that $600
billion of debt represents.
1210
They recognize it out in the real world and I suggest this
government wake up and recognize it not only in the throne speech
but in the way it governs this country.
Farmers in Canada will not survive because of government action
but because of their own ambition, innovation and initiative.
That is the way it has always been, that is the way it will
always be. But this government can take some leadership, show
some vision and help the farmers not only in my riding but across
the nation to achieve their goals, and it is not doing it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
my colleague from British Columbia on a wonderful speech. He
made a number of commitments.
I was interested about the role of a member of Parliament. He
talked a little about that, about the aspirations he had in
representing his people here. I would like him to give us a
little comment on the record of the Liberals versus the record of
Reformers on listening to the people, responding to them and
representing them in this House. That would be an interesting
part to his speech which he really did not get into that much.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, every member of the Reform
Party could go on and on at great length about the lack of real
representation that has come from the opposite side of the House
over the life that we have been here which is only one Parliament
for most of us with the exception of our deputy leader.
This Liberal government is not representing the wishes of its
constituents by and large. Something interesting was pointed out
in the 35th Parliament which I am sure we are going to see
repeated in the 36th Parliament. Time and time again when a
member who sits on the government side truly tries to represent
the best interests and the wishes of his or her constituents, if
those interests run contrary to the position of the government or
that of the cabinet and the prime minister, what happens?
What happens with the old parties? We saw it under the Mulroney
Tories before the Liberals. Members of Parliament were
disciplined, at times even thrown out of their parties for trying
to represent the interests of their constituents. That is also
what happens with the Liberal Party. We saw that in the last
Parliament with the hon. member for York South—Weston when he
tried to represent his constituents.
He ran his campaign on the issue of abolishing the GST, as did a
lot of members in this House who sit opposite on the government
benches. He had the integrity to vote against a budget measure
because he said it did not fulfil that campaign promise. He was
bitterly disappointed in the government for not taking decisive
action, for not living up to its campaign promise. Therefore he
voted against it and what happened? He was thrown out of his
party and sits now in this House as an independent. It is a
credit to him and to the Canadian electorate in his riding that
it re-elected him as an independent. It is a tough job to get
elected as an independent.
The question dealt specifically with the representation provided
by Reformers versus the representation of Liberals and Tories and
the other parties in this place. I suggest that we really
need some reform of this place. We need to see many more
free votes in this place, real free votes, where individuals
regardless of partisan political stripe can really represent the
interests of their constituents.
1215
Backbench Liberal MPs I believe if they were not so muzzled by
the party discipline in the Liberal Party would be crying out
along with us for those types of reforms so that they can really
represent the interests of their constituents and not worry that
the big broad axe is going to fall on their necks and they are
going to be publicly disciplined and chastised by their
leadership and perhaps even ultimately thrown out of their party.
I spoke earlier in my remarks before question period about the
fact that Reform is in this House despite the fact that in the
last Parliament they said we would not be back. But we are back
and we are going to continue to come back until this place is
reformed and we have real democracy in this House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil.
I would like, if I may, to begin by speaking to my
constituents in the riding of Rosemont. I would like to thank the
people of Rosemont and Petite-Patrie, as well as all of my riding
volunteers, for the trust they have given me in the last federal
election.
I thank them in particular for the confidence they have shown
in my generation and in the future of Quebec, a Quebec which we
wish to be modern and sovereign, a Quebec that reflects my
generation, open to the world and master of its destiny.
I would also like to offer thanks on their behalf to the man
who defended them with vigour throughout the previous two mandates,
Benoît Tremblay. Mr. Tremblay always had an attentive ear to the
needs of his fellow citizens of Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
The throne speech again shows that the voters of
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie were right in their choice. By electing
a representative of the Bloc Quebecois, they have made sure that
any threat to the democratic interests of the Quebec people will
be condemned. With their support solidly behind me, I rise today
in the House of Commons to react strongly to the thinly veiled
desire of the government across the way to put Quebecers back in
their place.
My fellow citizens who still had any doubt could see in this
speech that the Liberals have dropped the commitment they made in
the 1995 referendum to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
They dropped this description of Quebec because Canadians felt it
gave too much to Quebec. Rather, they adopted the notion of unique
character proposed in Calgary. So they want to force Quebeckers to
choose between being like Pacific salmon or facing the threats of
plan B.
Never has a government in a Speech from the Throne so openly
questioned Quebec's right to decide its future alone. Naturally,
after the action taken in the supreme court, it would be surprising
if the government were to change its tune and try to accommodate
Quebec.
The Prime Minister said during his address on the Speech from
the Throne that elections were fascinating, that they provided him
with the opportunity to meet Canadians of all walks. He said that
the dreams and aspirations of young Canadians were a source of
inspiration for him.
Today I would like to say to him that young Quebecers dream of
freedom and aspire to sovereignty. Nothing in the government's
legislative agenda meets the political expectations of the young
people of Quebec.
1220
This throne speech is an outstanding example of a strategy for
centralization. After slashing budgets for health care, education and
social services in Quebec and the provinces, this government now claims
to be concerned about the well-being of our citizens. In fact, this is
just the logical continuation of a long federal offensive to interfere
in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
My colleagues previously condemned many examples of this
interference in the throne speech. I would rather use the time I am
allowed today to discuss a matter of the utmost importance to members of
my generation.
Protecting our environment is important to all of us and it is a
matter of concern for Quebeckers.
I was astonished to see this government allowed this important question,
the environment, only two short paragraphs. And since this government is
extremely vague about its intentions and would rather not discuss its
far from outstanding record in this area, I would like to recall some of
the main points.
The Liberals have often claimed that their strategy for the
environment was a perfect example of enlightened, open and decentralized
federalism. However, during the previous mandate, they had no
compunction about tabling bills that were a direct intrusion in the
jurisdiction of Quebec. There are plenty of examples.
First of all, the Environmental Assessment Act, which came into
effect during the previous mandate, impinges directly on provincial
responsibilities and in many ways duplicates Quebec's legislation in
this area.
Then this government tabled a bill to replace the existing Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. The proposed legislation would once again
have given the federal government greater power to interfere in order to
protect the marine environment and reduce atmospheric pollution, to name
just two sectors.
Finally, this government tabled a bill for the protection of
endangered species. Enforcement of this legislation could have been
extended to provincially held land, and all provincial environmental
ministers opposed it. This government rejected the amendments suggested
by the Bloc Quebecois to uphold the provinces' jurisdiction.
Returning to the throne speech, I read and reread it, but did not
find a single line telling us what this government intends to do with
these two bills, which died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament.
I am, however, pleased to note that the throne speech raised the problem
of the emission of greenhouse gases. I am still, however, trying to
find out exactly where the government stands on this issue.
I do not need to remind anybody that, in under two months, this
same government will be representing Canada and Quebec at the
international conference on greenhouse gases in Kyoto. With only two
months to go, there is still no news on where Canada stands on this
issue. Worse yet, it looks like the Liberals want to develop the entire
Canadian policy on greenhouse gases behind closed doors. This would
perhaps be less disturbing if the government's track record in this area
were not so disastrous.
In 1992, in Rio, the Canadian government made a commitment to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2000.
In addition, in 1995, the Liberal government repeated this commitment at
the Berlin conference on climate change. On that occasion, it
introduced a framework of voluntary measures in its national action plan
regarding climate change in Canada.
What must be pointed out is that the most recent data, including
those from Environment Canada, show that Canada has not respected its
commitments. In fact, the Royal Society of Canada estimates that, in
the year 2000, greenhouse gas emissions will exceed the 1990 reference
level by 9.5 percent.
It is not surprising therefore that the former environment minister
tacitly admitted before the UN Commission on Sustainable Development
last April that Canada was falling short in its efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, Canada is still lagging behind OECD countries as a whole.
This government must now stiffen its resolve and meet its
responsibilities.
The consequences of global warming are too serious to be taken lightly.
Also, we must bear in mind the economic implications of the commitments
that will be made in Kyoto. In that sense, it seems unacceptable to me
that the position that will be put forward as Canada's position be taken
by a mere handful of Liberals and senior civil servants.
1225
We are dealing with an environmental, political and technological
problem that leaves no room for improvisation. In that context, I am
puzzled by the priorities of a government which, in its Speech from the
Throne, seemed to give as much importance to celebrating the coming of
the next millennium as to the challenge of global warming that faces
humanity.
The young people in Quebec want to build a fair and responsible
society, while at the same time taking an active part in the great
international currents of the third millennium, and they want to do so
with all the tools available to a normal country or society. That is why
we are convinced that sovereignty is the only option for the future of
Quebec.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I endorse, with
great pride, what my hon. colleague just said.
He spoke of his generation and we, who are of an older generation
shall I say, share the same concerns and feel more acutely the urgency
of finding a solution to these problems. He discussed at length the
greenhouse gas issue, but that is not the only issue.
It is very important that all that is done be done under the
national urisdiction, without affecting all that comes under provincial
jurisdiction. I must say that one of the Quebec government's priorities
is indeed to protect the environment. I consider that we have gone far
enough in that direction to know something about agriculture, for
instance. We have exceeded by far every national standard and do not
wish to lag behind, but at the same time we expect a great deal of
transparency in that area.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I think it was clearly shown
in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development that we in the Bloc want to improve our environment.
We think that Quebec, like Canada, is an ecosystem and that the
provinces and Quebec are capable of establishing their own
standards and environmental policies.
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member speaks of commitment to democracy. He is committed
to the democratic process or he states so. The hon. member seems
very focused on protecting democracy. If he is telling the
truth, I ask will he break ranks with his party and respect the
majority of Quebeckers as they demonstrated in the last
referendum? Democracy has spoken, sir, will you listen?
The Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. members that it is
necessary to address the Chair. And of course it is assumed that
all members in the House are always telling the truth.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it would be
appropriate to recall some of Quebec's recent history.
I would point out that, in 1980, a referendum was held in
Quebec on that question and, as far as I know, the Government of
Quebec honoured the choice of the majority of Quebeckers.
I would also point out that, in 1995, another referendum was
held. Even if the sovereignists lost the battle by 50,000 votes,
we are a democracy, and the Government of Quebec is democratic. It
honoured the democratic choice of Quebeckers. In this respect, I
hope the Government of Canada will honour the results of the next
referendum, because Quebec has always been a democratic nation.
1230
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member
for Rosemont. He is a quality replacement for Benoît Tremblay, a
member of Parliament who represented Quebec in the past. I am
particularly proud to see that young people are providing
reinforcements to the sovereignist ranks.
We have been trying to find a solution for twenty years. We
have tried every way to get Canada to budge. In the end, the only
way will be for Quebeckers to accord a political mandate.
I would ask the member for Rosemont what he would like most to
be achieved at the end of this mandate so that, when he leaves
Parliament, he can say “mission accomplished” to all Quebeckers.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I think young Quebeckers are
joining the legitimate march of the people of Quebec in the course
of their history. Young people in Quebec have always believed in
the political action of the people of Quebec in its history.
The best indicator of the future, as all the polls show, are
the results of the 1995 referendum, which were clear. What young
Quebeckers want is to be part of the changes that are happening now
in Quebec, but the only way we can fully achieve our collective
destiny is by becoming sovereign.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the first
words I speak in this House are directed to those who supported me from
the very beginning and believed in me. In Longueuil, we proved that when
people want something, when they put all their energy into a plan in
which they believe and a dream they cherish, the combined strength of
these individuals can move mountains.
I want to thank those who give me their encouragement, support and
advice during the last election campaign, so that I could come here to
represent them. I want to thank all the volunteers who worked so hard to
ensure that the riding of Longueuil is once again represented in the
House of Commons by the only party that looks after their interests and
has done so since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois.
To all those men and women who put their trust in me, especially my
family and my husband, I say thank you from the bottom of my heart. I
also thank the people of Longueuil who voted for the youngest woman in
this Parliament. Today I want to reiterate my commitment to serving and
representing them to the best of my ability and with the utmost
dedication.
I also want to thank my friends among the hearing impaired whom it
is always a pleasure to meet. Today I want to confirm my commitment to
working for the deaf. It is an honour and a privilege to salute them.
I was curious to read the throne speech, and I was disappointed
when I read it a second time. The only conclusion I could draw is the
message sent to Quebec: Be satisfied with a centralist Canada as it is
now. Otherwise, it will be plan B.
After repeating this message for months and after it was almost
unanimously criticized by Quebec, the Prime Minister has come back
again, with the same centralist message, this time in writing, saying he
thinks he knows what is best for Quebec.
Is the Prime Minister again trying to scare Quebeckers? Is he
trying to make Quebecers accept the “lesser of two evils”? Never before
did a throne speech contain such direct threats to Quebec's right to
determine its own future.
Quebeckers will never agree to be satisfied with the “lesser of two
evils”, much less with the alternative, which we all realize consists in
making Quebec go along with the centralist vision of the Liberals and
give up its historical expectations.
1235
Yet I would not be honest if I did not admit that I agree with
one point which passed virtually unnoticed in the torrent of words
in the throne speech. I interpret it as a surprise overture coming
from our friends across the way.
As everyone is well aware, what we representatives of the Bloc
Quebecois want is a country for the year 2000. That we have never
hidden. Now, in reading the throne speech to keep myself awake
between coffees, I see in black and white that the federal
government is prepared to form a partnership with the Quebec
government to celebrate the new millennium.
Of course we will have suggestions of activities to submit to
the government, and we may even perhaps send an invitation to the
head of state of the next country to come celebrate the new
millennium with us in Quebec.
That is the least partners can do, celebrate with pomp and
circumstance the occasion of an event as important as the arrival
of a new country among the nations.
I am pleased to accept the idea of the Canadian Prime Minister
and I invite him to Quebec three years from now. We will drink a
toast to the new economic partnership between Quebec and Canada.
With the exception of this small overture, what can be seen
clearly in this speech is the federal government's stubborn
determination not to recognize the legitimate right of Quebec to
decide its own future. The federal government even seems to want
to reserve the right to draft and impose its referendum question
during the next referendum. One wonders whether the referendum
ballot will have a red maple leaf printed at the top.
What I find most upsetting in this speech is that the sovereignist
movement's proposal is misrepresented by the excessive repetition of the
word “partnership” when what is meant is interference, overlap and
costly duplication. You will agree that this is not the same thing as
the real economic partnership we are proposing to Canada. We are used
to seeing this government glibly twist any proposal coming from Quebec.
They have outdone themselves in the bad faith department.
At this point in my speech, I would like to turn to a subject of
great interest to me and one that my party has entrusted me with
defending: the status of women.
First of all, I would like to express my surprise and
disappointment at the throne speech's complete silence on women's
concerns. Nothing in this speech has women in mind.
Worse yet, no one is speaking about them or for them. The government
has not even taken the trouble to “feminize” the text. My search for
some reference to women netted only one occurrence, in the very first
line of the speech, where the Governor General tells us how happy he and
his wife were to welcome Her Majesty the Queen last June. Need I say
more?
If this is the best our political system can do for women, I can
tell you that we have our work cut out for us.
In case he is listening, I would like to remind the Prime
Minister some facts about the most beautiful country in the world
and the best country in the world to live in, as he likes to say.
In Canada, women hold 75 percent of the ten lowest paying jobs;
36 percent of women work part time, because they are unable to
find full time jobs. In 1996, Canadian women earned 73 percent of
what their male colleagues made. Moreover, 57.3 percent of single
mothers with children under 18 years of age live in poverty.
Need I go on about the tragic plight of women in the most beautiful
country in the world and the best country in the world to live in? The
government must realize that it is women who are paying the price for
the cuts made in recent years.
The cost-cutting measures taken by this government were felt more
deeply by women than by any other group in our society.
The government does not seem to be too upset, since nothing is provided
for women in the throne speech.
Today, the government has a duty to do something to help women
because, in addition to the numerous cuts, the government also reduced
by some 26 percent funding for women's programs, which were already operating
on a shoestring budget. The government has got its priorities wrong.
Ideally, women should get a little more to make up for what they lost.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the women who
preceded us and who worked so that, today, the situation has improved
somewhat, thanks to the many battles they fought. We have come a long
way, but the road ahead is still a long one.
Thanks to these women, some progress was made regarding equity,
including the “equal pay for equal work” principle.
I thought the government had understood the meaning of this principle
when it passed its pay equity legislation, in 1977. Unfortunately, it
was just wishful thinking.
Given all this, you will agree with Canadian women in saying that,
if the Liberals really want a just society, as they claim to in their
speech, they forgot to show that they are concerned with economic
equality for women, otherwise they would have acted differently.
1240
I have always felt that my environment, my way of being, my
education, my language, which make up my culture, make me a Quebecker.
Therefore, you can understand my disarray when the Liberal government
arrogantly claims there is no Quebec culture. I always thought culture
was the nourishing element of a people. My people is being insulted
whenever such remarks are made.
Worse still, the federal government is now holding accountable the
major Canadian cultural institutions which funded sovereignist Quebec
artists. We recently learned that Telefilm Canada refused, for political
reasons, to provide financing for Pierre Falardeau's film on the
Patriotes.
This is a tragic decision for all Quebeckers, but the government does
not care, because the Quebec culture obviously does not exist.
As you know, I am a young person. But do you know that the plight
of young people is a source of concern, particularly the high rate of
unemployment and poverty? In 1997, just barely one young person out of
two has a full or part time job.
At this point, allow me to make a short digression and to offer my
most sincere condolences to the families and friends of the four
teenagers who recently committed suicide in my riding. I want to assure
them that I will support any initiative to prevent young people from
committing suicide. To all those affected by this ultimate act of
despair, my thoughts are with you.
To conclude on a happier note, I would like to repeat the line
which the late Doris Lussier, an artist who made Longueuil his home,
often quoted from the great writer Félix-Antoine Savard “I have much
more to do than to worry about the future: I must work toward
it”.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for her comments. I understand the
emotional aspect of her speech, particularly at the end. I think
all of us in Canada can identify with these kinds of
circumstances and we realize they are something we all have in
common. However, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.
In her speech, which was very fine, she said the best country
in the world in which to live and then went on to talk about
Canada. I would certainly agree with her.
However, why does the member and her party, in light of that
kind of statement which I believe we both find to be true,
continue to attempt to break up the best country in the world?
The words of the old proverb are true, united we stand, divided
we fall.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, once again, we, in Quebec,
are misunderstood. I quoted the Prime Minister who said that Canada was
“the best country in the world in which to live”. We, however, believe
that Quebec is, not Canada. Sorry.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to express to my hon. colleague from Longueuil
that when it comes to issues such as the environment, suicide and
pay equity she can be assured that I and my colleagues will
assist her in any way we can in order to get the necessary
funding and the help required in order to meet those needs.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon.
colleague.
It is indeed comforting to know that we can count on our
colleagues. The fact is that, to further any human cause, people have to
work together.
1245
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
struck by the compassionate and passionate speech by the member
for Longueuil.
I appreciate her comments about women. I think she would know
that all of us in this House welcome members who are women. We
made much in the last Parliament about there being more women
representatives than in any previous Parliament. I am not sure
whether that is true of the 36th, but I believe it is. I believe
that the hon. member's party has been instrumental in improving
that ratio.
I have no difficulty in acknowledging that Quebec has a culture.
The member said that Quebec was its culture and it is what made a
people but that somebody did not seem to recognize that. I would
suggest that many of us recognize that. I certainly recognize it
and I applaud it.
I wonder whether the member is not being a little hard on
everyone else in that the premiers in Calgary indicated that the
other provinces in this country believe there is a distinct
culture and a unique character to Quebec.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
hon. colleague across the way.
I think he should have a word with his own colleagues. As far as
pay equity is concerned at leat, if he really has the cause of women at
heart, I think he should sit down with the minister—
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am here today speaking on the Speech from the Throne
that this government gave to the country outlining the
government's policies and the government's priorities leading
into the next millennium.
The Speech from the Throne is a product of work done not only by
the bureaucrats but also by members of Parliament, backbenchers
and by members of the Liberal Party who have worked in little
policy groups across this country bringing forward ideas and
bringing forward priorities with which they feel the government
should set its policies.
All governments that bring forward their priorities and policies
in speeches from the throne do so within the fiscal framework
that the country faces at any given time. When we first started
as a government in 1993 our priorities were set by the fact that
at that time we faced a $42 billion deficit. Anything we did, any
ideas we could bring forward always had to be tempered by the
fact that the government was spending $42 billion more than it
was taking in.
That was one of the first priorities that our government in 1993
went after. I feel we succeeded. We succeeded in bringing that
deficit down to a point where in 1998-99 there will no longer be
any deficit.
Had I promised in 1993 that we would be able to do that, I do
not think I would have believed it myself, but we have done it.
Now we can move forward. We have a dividend and I believe our
party and our policies over the next five years will be to help
Canadians, the Canadians who have had to pay the price so that we
could get that high deficit under control.
Indeed it is our responsibility now to move forward and to
recognize that young Canadians, old Canadians, seniors, children,
Canadians who have had to pay the price get some of the benefits
from this dividend. That is what this Speech from the Throne
tries to do.
1250
As members know, unemployment has been one of the problems
facing not only this government but governments around the world.
Youth unemployment is certainly far too high. If we look at the
numbers over the last three years, the economists say that we
have created over a million jobs in our last mandate. I see that
as a priority this time and it is a priority in the Speech from
the Throne to do that.
I want to take not only my constituents who are listening but
all Canadians through the Speech from the Throne. I encourage
them all to pick up a copy—they can call their member of
Parliament's office—and read the speech from the throne because
it is what their government is going to be doing over the next
five years. I think it is important that they read it for
themselves rather than listen to our colleagues across the way
who somewhat filter it.
I find it surprising that my colleagues on the other side of the
House would be scared that Canadians would actually pick up the
Speech from the Throne and read it. They should be proud of it
because it sets out an agenda for the next millennium.
As I said, speeches from the throne are always set up by any
government due to the fiscal situation. Certainly all Canadians
recognize that the economy has turned around. The economy is
starting to grow.
One of the problems in this country, and it has been a problem
for some time and has been mentioned in this House over the last
few hours, is the whole question of national unity. There are
different approaches to the question of national unity and how
the government should respond to the problem.
We listen to what our colleague from British Columbia in the
other House has been saying about this country. One wonders,
given her long history with the former Conservative government,
why she would try to grab headlines at the expense of a nation. I
find it very shameful.
I might as well at the same time remind our colleagues at the
other end, the NDP, I also find it shameful that somebody would
stand in this House and try to one up the Conservative Party, try
to grab the stage on national unity in British Columbia at the
expense of a country. It is not the way to do it. It is not the
way to build a strong country.
I believe we set out in the Speech from the Throne the way to do
it. We should co-operate. We should work with the premiers and
the territorial leaders in bringing together those areas that can
be worked on. We have seen the work done in Calgary by the
premiers and the territorial leaders. We have seen this
government go from province to province to province consulting on
the best way to do it. That is right.
An hon. member: Boring.
Mr. Bob Speller: I get calls across the way that it may
be boring. Well I do not think so. I do not think a long
concerted effort to try to save this country is boring. I do not
agree with the approach of the last government which was to build
some national consensus through the media on a constitutional
decision, roll the dice and that is the way to solve the problem.
I think this approach that we have taken in the Speech from the
Throne is a serious approach. From what we have seen in recent
polls taken in Quebec and in the co-operation shown across this
country in areas such as child care and health care, this country
can work. I do not think we need to make constitutional changes
to make that work.
I support and continue to call on all members of this House to
take this issue seriously and to work with their respective
premiers or territorial leaders in making sure that the proposals
put forward are understood and are a reflection of what Canadians
want in a country.
One of the problems outlined in the Speech from the Throne,
which is a serious problem, is the whole question of children and
children living in poverty. We certainly need to put more effort
into that.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Cut taxes.
1255
Mr. Bob Speller: Yes, we have balanced the budget. The
hon. member says to cut taxes. I totally agree that is one of
the best approaches we should have to this problem. But there are
serious problems in this country that need to be addressed, that
cannot be addressed by saying we can solve them just by reducing
taxes. There are investments in our future, in our children that
this government needs to make. It is important that the Reform
Party recognizes that.
There are many children living in poverty. There is a role not
only for private business but there is a role specifically for
government to be involved in solving these problems. That is why
we have decided in the Speech from the Throne to establish
centres of excellence, why we have expanded the aboriginal head
start program.
I know the hon. member across the way mentioned the fact that we
mentioned aboriginals in the Speech from the Throne eight or ten
times. They are an important aspect of this country I remind the
hon. member. If his party would recognize that, we might have a
better way of working together in this country.
The present minister of aboriginal affairs has done an exemplary
job of working together with aboriginal communities in trying to
solve some of the problems. There are enormous problems on
reserves in this country and the Reform Party should recognize
that rather than just trying to bring aboriginal communities and
aboriginal peoples down.
On quality health care, the Speech from the Throne talks about
the importance of health care in our society. We have indicated
that now we have brought the economy under control and we are now
going to have a dividend that a lot of this dividend will be put
toward health care.
Because my allotted time is ending, I will wrap up, Mr. Speaker.
I believe all Canadians should take a look at the Speech from the
Throne. It is important for all Canadians to call their members
of Parliament to get a copy to understand where the government is
going and how we plan to take this country into the next
millennium.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to ask the hon. member a question or two, or
three, or four.
One thing I am really getting tired of is hearing all the warm
fuzzy talk. Yes it is true the deficit has come down. That is
really good. But the member nor anyone else on that side of the
House ever mentions for a moment that they have just added over
$100 billion to the national debt. Servicing that debt is now
the hugest chunk of the pie that it takes to operate the business
of this land. They brag about those kinds of things. They boast
and boast, yet they never mention anything about that huge black
cloud called the national debt.
The member talked about the aboriginal people. He made some
comments about what the throne speech said about that. In 1993
in my riding the Stony reserve had programs in place that were
doing good work for a lot of the aboriginal people. In 1997
those programs are gone. There is no help at all. They have just
disappeared.
The hon. member is not talking about all the things that are
disappearing. He is talking about all the warm fuzzy stuff that
the government is doing.
I would suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to send
out the throne speech to every Canadian throughout the land it
might be a good idea. It could be the magic cure for insomnia.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the electoral system never
ceases to amaze me.
The hon. member talks about the deficit. I can understand the
hon. member's real concern because that was their policy. Their
policy was to bring it under control and these spendthrift
Liberals as they call us could never do it. Well we did it. We
brought it under control. We made a commitment in the red book
to make sure of that and because we now have a dividend we can
turn some of that toward the national debt.
1300
At the same time I cannot see how the hon. member cannot
recognize that Canadians helped to pay so that we could get this
deficit under control. They should be able to reap some of the
benefits now that it is under control.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bob Speller: If the hon. member would listen he would
know that I specifically said it was in the red book. If the
member would like a copy, I would be glad to send him over one.
We plan to take half that dividend and put it toward the debt.
It makes common sense to do it that way, and not the whole lot.
I think Canadians deserve to get a little back for all their
hard work in helping us to get the deficit under control.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
speech made by the hon. member opposite, and remember previous speeches
of his. I know that, in his riding, there are tobacco producers, whose
interests he tried to defend in the past.
I was critic on tobacco in the last Parliament. A promise was made
just before the election campaign regarding the anti-tobacco legislation
that did not find its way into the throne speech. We were told that the
legislation would be amended as soon as possible with regard to
international car races. The Prime Minister said so, but I have read
nothing to that effect on the throne speech and, so far, the Minister of
Health has not said a word about this commitment.
This is of serious concern to me, not so much for producers as for
sport and cultural events.
A recent study conducted in the Quebec City area shod that every dollar
invested in the Quebec summer festival, for instance, generated $8 in
tax revenues and so on for the federal government.
I would like to hear him on that. Will he made representations to
the Minister of Health to have the legislation changed?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon.
member was just making a point. He might want to address that in
a question during question period to the Minister of Health.
He is right that in my area I represent about 90 percent of the
tobacco growers in the country. I always make sure they are
represented.
I know the Reform Party has never supported tobacco growers. I
know it has a hard time recognizing that tobacco growers are
legitimate formers with a legitimate right to farm.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I speak today in support of the government's
Speech from the Throne.
Let me begin by saying that it is a pleasure to be back in the
House on behalf of the people of Cambridge, Kitchener, Ayr and
North Dumfries.
Before I go any further I would like to thank my family, my
staff, Betty, Stan, Elizabete, Debbie and Stevie in the riding
office, as well as all my supporters, all the people who were
involved in the election campaign on June 2, 1997.
As I have said on many occasions, in my riding I am the servant
of the people. My constituents are my priority and I promise
never to lose sight of that.
On June 2 the people of Canada put their faith in the hands of
the Liberal government for the second time in four years. The
results on election night were a strong indication that Canadians
have faith in the direction the government was taking them. They
were pleased that we had won the war against the deficit, that
the unemployment rate had dropped by over 2 percent and that
974,000 jobs were created by September 1997.
Canadians also expressed confidence in the government's
commitment to the protection of social programs on June 2. The
Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the commitment of the Liberal
government to issues that matter to all Canadians: jobs, health
care, safe streets and national unity.
As we enter the 21st century the government will begin to
reinvest the fiscal dividends that will come from the elimination
of the deficit. We will do so in a responsible manner by
applying one half of any budgetary surplus to the social and
economic needs of Canadians and the other half to tax reduction
and the national debt.
1305
We will not act in the wasteful manner that the opposition
parties would have everyone believe. After all, why would we
plunge the nation back into bankruptcy after we have worked so
hard to free it from the deficit burden? It makes absolutely no
sense.
Among the most important initiatives announced in the Speech
from the Throne were those that focused on the youth of our
nation. Our youth are the future of Canada, which is why the
government is committed to the national child benefit system
announced this past spring.
There are centres for excellence to advance our understanding of
the needs of children, the millennium scholarship endowment fund
to help students secure a post-secondary education, an extension
of the internship program to give youth needed work experience,
enhanced funding for student summer placement, and a Canada-wide
mentorship program.
Social programs have always been a priority of the government.
That is why in the area of health care the Minister of Health
reconfirmed in his speech of this morning that the government was
committed to health care.
In other efforts to protect our social programs the government
has introduced an amendment to the Canada pension plan and the
new seniors benefit to ensure the sustainability of Canada's
pension plan system. I applaud this initiative.
Some members may remember that in 1994 I introduced a private
member's bill that proposed numerous changes to the current
pension system. More needs to be done. I am pleased to see that
some of my recommendations have been incorporated in amendments
introduced by the Minister of Finance, in particular the
establishment of an agency that would operate at arm's length
from the government to manage the pension fund.
This initiative will give Canadians greater confidence in their
pension system. Based on the research I have conducted in
preparing my bill, it became apparent that CPP premiums would
have to be increased if the pension system were to survive. That
is one of the reasons the amendments before the House are calling
for an increase in premiums. This is being done to ensure that
our children will receive a pension under the CPP. I am
confident we will be successful.
The throne speech also outlined the government's commitment to
public safety. This area is a priority for me. I will continue
to press the government to adopt stricter measures for the
deportation of serious criminals who are not citizens of the
country. I will do so by reintroducing the immigration
enforcement improvement act, my private member's bill that died
at committee when the House was dissolved in the spring.
Before I conclude I will touch on the issue of national unity.
The government commitment to keeping the country united was quite
clear in the throne speech. We must work to strengthen and unite
the country by joining in the common purpose of keeping Canada
one of the best places in the world in which to live.
I travelled recently to Asia and through most of Europe, and I
can say this is absolutely the best country in the world. We
have an excellent standard of living, a beautiful nation, warm
and compassionate citizens, and a booming economy. We must do
all we can to preserve that in the future.
1310
Just recently ComDev, a company in my Cambridge riding,
announced that it would be participating in a joint venture with
an Ottawa company to establish a high tech research and
development centre in Hull, Quebec. This new company,
Spacebridge, will hire approximately 200 employees over the next
four years.
In a recent CBC interview ComDev CEO, Val O'Donovan, indicated
that he decided to venture into Hull when many others were
leaving because “people who have good, exciting jobs are less
likely to get involved with marching up and down whether it is
labour, political or whatever kind of cause”.
We must not be afraid to reach out to our Quebec neighbours, and
that is exactly what ComDev is doing. There is also another
company from my riding that opened a plant in Quebec, Arriscraft.
I recently returned from Bosnia-Hercegovina where tensions still
run deep. Its economy is in shambles. The one time beauty of
the country has been destroyed. Coming home to Canada I realized
yet again how truly lucky we are to live in such a wonderful
nation.
I urge all Canadians to join me in doing whatever we can to
preserve the best country and the best nation in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is always a pleasure to see you again.
I want to congratulate the member on his re-election. I am
aware of his commitment to international causes. I was very aware
of the congratulations he directed to the company in his riding,
when it decided to do business in Hull. It gives me an opportunity
to enlighten him from a slightly different perspective on his
understanding of the Quebec problem.
Is the member aware and would he acknowledge that for at least
40 years there has been a succession of governments in Quebec, each
more legitimate than the last, which has given rise to the process
of constitutional review. Should the member take the trouble—if
he ever has the time, the desire or the interest—he could no
doubt come up with a list of the demands made by the various
governments on language, fisheries or immigration. There are some
thirty of them.
Would the hon. member be prepared to admit that, since Quebec
is the only francophone province in this part of North America, for
his government to consider all provinces equal would be absolutely
suicidal, deadly and incompatible with the survival of Quebec?
Would he be prepared to rise in his place and say that,
because Quebeckers are French speakers in North America, his
government can no longer talk of homogeneity, because such talk
would essentially put an end to any future for Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his comments and questions.
I am aware there are Quebeckers and Ontarians. I am aware there
are anglophones and francophones in the province of Quebec. I
know there are francophones in Ontario as well as in New
Brunswick, and I treat them and respect them as Canadians.
I respect the French culture and language. I know that it is
different from other cultures, but many other cultures make this
country the best.
1315
My cultural background is different from my colleagues, by my
choice. I am contributing my culture to make this country better
and stronger. I believe we can work together. We have
challenges before us. We do not have problems, we have
challenges. If we work together we can overcome those
challenges.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think it
was probably wise to let the Bloc member go first because I was a
little animated. Now I am all cooled down and I can give a nice
calm response to the speech.
I am getting so sick and tired of hearing the Liberals talk
about their financial success. I thought of an analogy. I happen
to be a motorcyclist. I am driving along and there is a big
truck stopped in the middle of the lane in front of me. I am
going at 100 kilometres and hour and I am still accelerating.
Instead of going at 100 kilometres an hour as I approach this
truck, I begin to speed up at a slower rate. In other words, I
was going 50, 60, 70, 80 and now, instead of going 90 and 100 as
I come to the truck, I only go up to 85, and then 90 and 95. That
is what is happening with our debt.
These Liberals do not like to talk about the debt. They only
talk about the deficit because they are speeding up at a slower
rate. It is annoying that they will not come clean with
Canadians and say what they are really doing. I do not know how
we can get them to smarten up and tell the truth to Canadians.
I want to say one more thing and then I will let the member
respond.
They keep talking about spending, spending, spending. I wonder
if any of them know how much surplus they need. They are
bragging about bringing the deficit down from $40 billion to $20
billion, $17 billion, $15 billion, $10 billion or whatever it is.
We need a surplus of $51 billion a year for 25 years to pay off
the debt. That is how big the surplus has to be and these goons
are talking about—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Cambridge, a
brief response, please.
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I will use an analogy also.
The difference between the Liberal philosophy and the commitment
we made during the last election campaign and the Reform and
other parties is this. They want to cut, cut, cut so fast that
they would bleed the country to death.
The left side wants to spend, but we do not have it.
We made a commitment in the election campaign and we will keep
that commitment. It has been approved by Canadians.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
It is a great honour and privilege for me to be here speaking to
members today about the people of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia whom I
am here to represent.
As I am sure is the case with everyone present, there were
burning issues which compelled me to run for office and to take
my place here. I will try to spell out some of those issues.
Before becoming a member of Parliament I made my living as an
Atlantic playwright and film writer. I will become a cultural
worker again when the time comes for me to leave here. Until
that time I will use whatever communication skills I have to
fight for the interests of the people of Dartmouth as their
member of Parliament.
Dartmouth is a community of 70,000-plus souls on the Atlantic
coast, which is now part of a larger amalgamated region including
Halifax, Bedford, Sackville and surrounding regions. It is a
community proud of its maritime traditions, its military
contributions, its rich culture, its deep harbour and its 21
lakes.
The M'kmaq were the first people to come to its shores. My
riding is also home to some of the oldest African-Canadian
communities in Canada.
It is a community filled with hard working, straight ahead
people who are proud of their contributions to Canadian society.
1320
In the last four years the people of Dartmouth have been beaten
up by the heavy handed cuts to the civil service in this country.
Massive increases in unemployment, and they have been massive in
Atlantic Canada, have left thousands of families affected.
No less an authority than the former premier of Nova Scotia in
his speech to the Empire Club last winter said that 16 percent of
all federal spending cuts had fallen on Nova Scotia, a province
with about 3 percent of the country's population.
Marine biologists, scientists, librarians, teachers, health care
workers, radio and film producers, thousands and thousands of
important community strengthening jobs have disappeared in the
interests of balancing the budget.
Every home I visited during the federal campaign has somehow
been hurt by the cuts to the public sector. Is this progress?
The workers of Dartmouth, and they are hard workers, have been
rocked by another grim reality.
Thousands of civilians military workers have been affected by
the government's policies to shove anything that moves into the
private sector. Somehow the private sector is by definition
more effective and more efficient.
Through a process called ASD, alternate service delivery, every
function which now exists in the civilian military workforce is
earmarked for privatization. Thousands of good paying, important
community strengthening jobs again are being put on the chopping
block and then put out to tender to the lowest bidder.
Presto, the jobs are reincarnated only with lower wages, no
security and twice the workload. Since my election, dozens of
civilian workers have approached me and asked that I fight for
their rights for a decent salary, for job security in the face of
privatization.
I am not sure whether Canadians are aware that the military of
this country has made a decision to privatize all its functions.
I do not know whether they know the same thing is happening in
the national parks, their hospitals, their health care system.
Is this what Canadians want? Have we really thought about these
things carefully? I do not believe so. Everywhere I look in my
community I see people much poorer and more insecure than they
were five years ago.
I see struggling families dealing with unemployment or waiting
for the axe to fall. Is it not time that we started to talk
about the sad state of work in this country?
In the Speech from the Throne we talked about the surplus which
now exists in the treasury but we did not hear about how it was
brought about. It was brought about by cutting the legs out from
under the workers who were doing important jobs in their
communities.
It was brought about by decimating longstanding meaningful
community infrastructures which have given us pride and a sense
of ourselves and where we come from.
I was at an event in my riding not long ago, the Dartmouth North
community centre activity day. It was a beautiful sunny
afternoon. There were hundreds of children running around with
face paint and hotdogs screaming with glee as they knocked
someone off the chair into the dunk tank. It was a perfect
picture.
There are a lot of children in North Dartmouth and I think 99
percent of them were there that day, but the lives of many of the
Dartmouth children and families are far from perfect. In fact,
25 percent of child protection cases in Nova Scotia are in
Dartmouth.
Why is that? Why are so many of our young people at risk?
Instead of trusting wholly in the vision put forward by the
business section of the Globe and Mail I sometimes seek out
other sources such as the National Anti-Poverty Organization.
This is what it says about what is happening in this country.
From the latest statistics I learned that an estimated 4.941
million, almost one Canadian in six, were living below the
poverty line. About 40 percent of the people being served by
Canada's food banks are children under the age of 18.
More than 25 percent of Canada's homeless are children and,
despite cheerful words to the contrary in the Speech from the
Throne, it is not getting any better.
The impact of the Canada health and social transfer is just
starting to take effect like a slow release time bomb. The poor,
the disabled, the children, the aged and the ill are all bearing
the brunt of less money, less commitment to such things as public
health, public education and the whole concept of community.
1325
Where I come from there is an angry and demoralized group of
crossing guards working for $5.50 an hour because the amalgamated
city, which was supposed to be a money saver, has no money to pay
them a decent wage. Imagine, the crossing guards, the people who
are entrusted to protect our most precious loved ones, our
children, are not being paid a living wage. Is that progress?
There are fewer police on the streets, fewer teachers in the
classrooms and fewer nurses in the hospitals but there are a
whole lot more people being pensioned off who still want to be
working and contributing to their communities.
It is moribund and shameful to see the latest statistics on arts
funding and realize that the only area of growth this year was in
public broadcasting due to an increase in the area of severance
pay. Is this progress? I would say not.
We are having a crisis of work in this country. We now have
thousands of people in my community who are unemployed or
underemployed and undervalued. We now have thousands of Nova
Scotia university graduates carrying debtloads of up to $20,000
without any hope of getting work or if they do they are cobbling
together a living on a string of minimum wage jobs. We have a
crisis of work in this country.
There are desperate young people coming into my office who are
being hounded by collection agencies to pay off their student
loans. One young woman was fired from a good job and a job that
she loved because she was being harassed by a loan agency that
did not think she was coming up with the goods fast enough. Her
employer let her go because he did not want to have to field
phone calls from thugs any longer.
If I had the time and the genius of a playwright like Arthur
Miller I would write a play about this incredible scenario. The
theme of it would be right up there with “Death of a Salesman”
in terms of human tragedy. Yet we are being told that the good
times are back.
In the Speech from the Throne we hear that we have a surplus and
the next big debate for us to concern ourselves with is how to
spend it. Should we cut taxes here or there or should we drop a
little into our programs? There is no talk whatsoever about the
horrible human and social deficits which have been created in
communities like mine by the policies of the government.
Perhaps that is not surprising. In the Speech from the Throne,
as we all stood in the Senate Chamber listening to the governor
general present the flowery words of the government, I was struck
by the different realities within these walls and without.
There in the Senate Chamber there was no sense of need or
desperation, no sense that so many people out there are stretched
to the limit. This was a warm, rich and prosperous place, a
place of plenty. At meetings we are supplied with tables filled
with fruits and croissants, melons, grapes and strawberries.
Raise your hand in the House of Commons and a page immediately
brings you a glass of water.
My esteemed Metis colleague and seatmate from Saskatchewan said
something with regard to the incredible discord that we see in
the House of Commons on a daily basis. He suggested the whole
structure of the place is wrong, that maybe we should be moving
across to the Library of Parliament which is round. Perhaps we
should all sit in a circle and try to move this group of warring
factions into some unity. Perhaps we should use the methods of
the First Nations people to try to fix the disunity of this
country and this Parliament.
I would like to work with all members of the House of Commons to
fix the deep and widening gaps in our society. I make that
pledge. I offer this challenge to all of you. Thank you for the
opportunity to share my thoughts with you today.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on her maiden speech. It was very good.
Congratulations and welcome to this place.
There are a couple of quick things I would like to ask the
member. I toured her riding around the Dartmouth area and that
is one of the prettiest places in Canada. She is very fortunate
to be in such a place.
1330
During my tour there I had conversations with a lot of people.
I would like to know if the hon. member could disclose to me what
the people in her riding are saying regarding the merging of the
GST and the PST. Could she tell me what they are saying to her
in regard to crime and the justice system? I talked to a number
of people and I know what they told me. I would like to see how
our stories match up.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, the people of Dartmouth and
of Nova Scotia are very concerned with the blended sales tax
which is the son of the GST. We would like to see it removed. We
think it is a very unfair tax that hits consumers and low income
earners. It hits people when they are paying for diapers and
heating oil, although it does not hit people when they are paying
for $400 suits. We think it is an unfair tax and we will be
fighting to have it eliminated.
I am not exactly sure what the member's question is regarding
the justice system so I am afraid I will have to ask for
clarification, if the hon. member wants to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member wants to do so, but I
am not sure the Chair will allow him to. Questions and comments,
the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to congratulate the member for Dartmouth on her
inaugural speech in the House of Commons. She mentioned
something that is of concern to a lot of people right across the
country wherever there are Canadian Armed Forces bases. For
instance, I know there are people in Shiloh, Manitoba who have
made similar representations to me about the alternative service
delivery.
I am sure many other members have had similar representations
about the way in which we see being replicated now by the
national defence department an ideological drive over the last 10
or 15 years whereby people who had good paying jobs in the public
sector are losing those jobs by virtue of privatization,
contracting out or alternative service delivery, to use fancier
words.
The upshot is that these jobs are not disappearing. The work
still has to be done. These people either come back to do the
work themselves or other people are doing the work for a lot
less. We see a trend toward a lower and lower wage economy. It
is robbing from many Canadians the ability to have the kind of
standard of living that they legitimately expect. Could the
member elaborate on that?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by
exactly what my hon. colleague from Winnipeg has been talking
about. People who have been working for 20 or 25 years in the
civilian military are now being made redundant or are being put
on affected status. They are finding that they can no longer
depend on even their pensions being honoured. It is causing
incredible stress for their families. It is not a situation I
would ever want to find my family in and yet there are thousands
of families across the country that are being affected that way.
That is all part of the deficit cutting picture presented by the
government. I question its morality and effectiveness.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for this opportunity to respond to the Speech from the
Throne. This is my first speech in the House of Commons. I am
honoured to be here to share my views and to speak on behalf of
the people of Winnipeg Centre.
Winnipeg Centre has a great history and tradition of sending
social democrats to Ottawa. The seat I am taking in the House of
Commons has been held by two of the greatest champions for social
justice in our nation's history.
Seventy-six years ago the voters of Winnipeg Centre ignored the
fact that the Canadian government wanted to send J.S. Woodsworth
to prison for his role in the Winnipeg general strike. Instead
they sent him to Parliament. Here he became the leader of what
he called the labour group, and the voters of Winnipeg Centre
kept re-electing him year after year and that labour group kept
getting bigger.
On his death after 20 years in Parliament he was replaced by
Stanley Knowles who held this seat until he suffered his stroke
in 1981. Cyril Keeper then held this seat until 1988. This past
June was cause for national mourning when Stanley Knowles passed
away.
1335
J.S. Woodsworth and Stanley Knowles won the admiration of all
Canadians for their honesty, their dignity and for their courage.
I am pleased that the leaders of all political parties paid
tribute to brother Knowles in the House of Commons this past
Thursday. Both the prime minister and the leader of the
opposition were full of praise. However, there is a danger to
this sort of praise.
It is the sort of praise that is used when one wants to bury the
cause for which these men fought. We must not only remember these
men for their admirable personal qualities, we must remember the
ideals that sustained them. I ask the House to listen to these
words from J.S. Woodsworth's first speech to the House 75 years
ago. He said:
I claim that we have come to a period in the history of our
country when we decide once and for all which shall prevail,
profits or human welfare. I feel confident that there is a group
of men here, new Members of the House, if you will, who have
clearly made up their minds that insofar as they decide it, human
welfare is to be given the precedence.
There are new members here today, 76 years later, the men and
women who make up the NDP caucus who still see this as the key
question facing us. It is a question of justice, a question of
social justice and it means far more than just the social safety
net.
For the past two decades Canadian governments have been tearing
apart the social programs that men like Woodsworth, Knowles and
Cyril Keeper fought to put in place. Our caucus is going to be
fighting to protect what is left of that tattered social safety
net.
These words were taken from Stanley Knowles first speech to this
Chamber. He said:
Social justice involves a system in which those who toil, being
part of the community, own the productive machinery of the nation
and therefore receive every day and every month their full and
just share of the wealth that they produce.
I regret that last week's Speech from the Throne does not move
us any closer to that noble vision.
Like J.S. Woodsworth and Stanley Knowles, I believe that the day
will come when nations will be judged not by their military and
economic strength, nor by the splendour of their capital cities
and public buildings, but by the well-being of their people, by
their level of health, nutrition and education, by their
opportunities to earn a fair reward for their labour and by the
protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of
their children. That must and will be the yardstick by which we
measure progress and by which we are judged. Society does not
move forward unless we all move forward together.
The Speech from the Throne does not address the growing gap in
this country between the rich and the poor, between the haves and
the have nots. It does nothing to address the need for a more
equitable redistribution of wealth in the country. Instead, it
relies on an outdated, neo-conservative approach that the free
market will provide for all if it is simply left alone. History
has shown us otherwise. History has shown us that capital has no
conscience.
As a socialist and as a trade unionist I reject the prevailing
wisdom that we can no longer afford Canadian social programs. We
have endured endless years of cutbacks that have severely
affected the lives of the many poor and unemployed Canadians who
live in the inner city of Winnipeg.
I do not believe that our deficit problem is a result of
overspending on social programs. We spend less on social programs
than most developed nations. Our debt and deficit problems are
due to a deliberate economic policy of fighting inflation with
high interest rates. The predictable and unfortunate
consequences of this tight money economic policy have been
chronic levels of long term unemployment and spiralling
compounding interest on our national debt. I for one am tired of
the flat earth society version of our economic problems that we
keep hearing from the government and from the official
opposition. Their analysis is both false and ultimately
dangerous.
Manitoba just went through what has been called the flood of the
century. As hard as it was, it could have been very much worse
if successive governments had not spent millions of dollars on
the Red River floodway diversion system. They knew that money
spent on prevention was not money thrown away.
I want to present the government with another flood warning.
This time it is not the Red River that is rising, it is the
rising tide of desperation in our inner cities. It is the rising
tide of poverty and all the consequences of crime, violence,
substance abuse, the breakdown of the family.
1340
Just as the blizzard of the century led to the flood of the
century, a decade of budget cutting has led to a social crisis
and what could amount to a permanent underclass in our society.
Rather than investing in the future, the government has opened
the floodgates to social disaster.
Common sense dictates that it is time to start investing in
flood protection to stem the tide of despair that threatens to
sweep away our inner cities and social justice demands it.
I take my seat today, the latest in a long line of people who
have been sent to this House by the people of Winnipeg Centre to
fight for social justice. As I take my place I am conscious of
the honour that is mine. I wish to renew Stanley Knowles' pledge
of loyalty to the cause of social justice that J.S. Woodsworth
served so well.
I may never fill their shoes but likewise I promise the people
of Winnipeg Centre that I will never abandon their cause.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the member on his maiden speech.
While many of us on this side of the House respect the passion
with which he speaks, I would state that his thinking is really a
factor of the flat earth society of social democratic thinking
that we keep hearing over and over again. It is that business is
bad and anything that business does is bad and instead of
thinking of how we can increase the pie we have to think about
how we can divide up the pie.
Businesses in Canada are beginning to increasingly recognize
that they have multi-stakeholder responsibilities. Only recently
Mr. Courtney Pratt, president of Noranda, talked about the need
for corporations to take an inclusive approach, to invest in
people, to be conscious about the environment and to take
responsibilities with respect to the community.
We are seeing this kind of thinking coming back into the social
responsibilities of business. If we keep saying that business is
bad and everyone else is good—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: He did not say that. Open your ears and
listen to him.
Mr. Roy Cullen: That was the essence of what he said.
Then we are wrong footed. We have to increase the size of the
pie before we can decide how to divide it up.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I did talk about the
redistribution of wealth in my speech. I suppose we are arguing
that there is sufficient wealth in this nation to provide for the
basics of a family to survive.
I was once fortunate to hear the Rev. Jesse Jackson speak when
he tried to explain the difference between the social democratic
view of the world and the other side, the corporate community,
the neo-conservatives, the neo-liberals. The analogy he used is
“If you have five children and only three pork chops the
solution is not to kill two of the children. Neither is it a
solution to divide those three pork chops into five equal pieces.
Then none of the kids have enough to eat and they all go to bed
hungry”.
The social democratic position would be to challenge the whole
assumption that there are only three pork chops. The challenge
is to ask why, in the richest and most powerful civilization in
the history of the world, there is not enough wealth to provide
for the basic needs of a family to survive.
I do not think that is flat earth society and I resent the
implication.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech
by my colleague in the New Democratic Party, and I want to ask him a
question that I have had for a very long time and that I think is
relevant.
He is surely very aware that there is a very strong social
democratic tradition in Quebec. It has had very progressive legislation
for many years, such as the anti-scab legislation, and the new equity
legislation passed by the Quebec National Assembly, which will apply to
all private sector enterprises, a first in North America and perhaps in
the world.
We also have a tradition in terms of the anti-scab legislation I
was mentioning, as well as a number of other similar examples. I have
always wondered why the New Democratic Party has never managed to see
eye to eye with us on these social values, and, at the same time, why it
has not been possible to get the social democrats to recognize the
Quebec people.
1345
I would like to hear what he has to say about this, whether there
is not a way to get the New Democrats to change their position so that
they can lead the way in Canada for what could become a good partnership
between Quebec and Canada, between two sovereign states.
They could develop a model. Right now, the social and
environmental side of things is often neglected in international trade
agreements. There is much to be done in this regard, and perhaps an
interesting model could be developed.
If you were to speak for Canadians who want a reasonable approach, who
do not oppose Quebeckers' wish for full autonomy, that would perhaps be
a productive route for the next century, both for Quebec and for Canada.
I would like to hear what he thinks about this and about the
possibility of the New Democratic Party spearheading this original idea,
that could be of much-needed benefit to Canada.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, as a working carpenter and a
tradesman I have long envied the labour relations climate in the
province of Quebec, the recognition of workers rights and the
health and safety legislation. The hon. member is right that
many aspects of its labour relations climate are far ahead of the
rest of the country. As such, I have often looked at Quebec very
favourably.
As far as the NDP working closely on social democratic
positions, it is our policy to move forward the rights of workers
and the rights of the citizens of Canada.
There is a large community of interest between the members I
have spoken to in the Bloc Quebecois and our own caucus. We
would welcome the opportunity to work with members of the Bloc
Quebecois as we advance social issues.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Normally we would not conduct negotiations
among the parties on the floor of the House.
I am aware that the question would be put at 2.15 this
afternoon. I understand four members are still on the roster to
speak. There are two Liberals, one of whom is a new member, and
I believe the Progressive Conservative Party also has two new
members who would like to make their maiden speeches in the 36th
Parliament.
If each of those four members could have 10 minutes we would
waive the five minutes for questions and comments for each one of
them respectively, which would have the net effect of extending
the business of the House by approximately 10 to 15 minutes. We
then would ask the Chair to put the question at 2.30 p.m. rather
than at 2.15 p.m.
I wonder if that is agreeable to the House.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
seeing as we are negotiating on the floor of the House, I wonder
whether the government whip would agree to add the name of the
hon. member for Halifax West who was also anxious to speak but
was not going to have the opportunity for a 10 minute speech.
I wonder if we could extend the hour accordingly so that he
might have a chance to make his speech as well. Then there would
be agreement.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps you Speaker could intervene.
I am not trying to stop the discussion, but I can see that we
might get into protracted negotiation.
Perhaps we could start with the next speech, which will go ahead
in any event and in the 10 minutes during that speech, if a
resolution can be reached, we will decide whether to have
questions or comments at the conclusion of the speech after a
report from one of the whips.
Would that be agreeable to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague, the hon.
member for Perth—Middlesex. I begin by congratulating you on
your appointment to the Chair. I know you will execute your
duties fairly and in the best interest of the House. I assure
you that you have my confidence as you carry out your duties.
It is with great humility that I rise today to give my first
speech in the House of Commons. The people of Whitby—Ajax have
bestowed upon me an unequalled honour in selecting me to be their
voice in parliament as Canada moves from this millennium into the
next. They have elected me to be part of an honest, responsible
government and they demand that the future of the nation, the
greatest place in the world in which to live, is assured.
I thank the voters of Whitby—Ajax for the trust they have shown
in me and assure them that I will do my utmost to dignify their
choice with tireless work, constant communication and faithful
representation. I will not let them down.
1350
Whitby—Ajax is a new riding carved from the eastern end of the
proud former riding of Ontario. It is made up of all the town of
Whitby including the heritage village of Brookland and the
southern portion of the town of Ajax.
Ajax is a vibrant community located east of Pickering on the
north shore of Lake Ontario. Named for the World War II warship
HMS Ajax, the town is a living monument to the allied
efforts during that time.
Streets are named for crew members. The town fountain is formed
from part of the original ship's anchor. Each town council
meeting is called to order by the original ship's bell. Anyone
with an interest in modern history will find a rich and rewarding
experience in Ajax and the surrounding area.
Moving east from Ajax along the shore of Lake Ontario is Whitby,
Durham's business centre and the heart of the region. Like Ajax,
Whitby has a waterfront trail that is the envy of the GTA.
Geographically Whitby is able to supply a large and affluent
consumer market within a day's trucking of all of Ontario,
two-thirds of the Canadian market and half the American market
readily available.
Diversification has been a key ingredient in Whitby's strong
industrial base. Over 275 businesses are located in the
industrial zoned areas. Companies specializing in plastics,
packaging, pharmaceuticals, steel, telecommunications and
automotive components are part of the broad sector.
Family Kartways, North America's largest go-kart facility, and
the renowned Cullen Gardens are just two of the many tourist
draws. A growing dynamic community, I have been proud to make
Whitby my home for the past 25 years.
While the residents of Whitby—Ajax elected me on June 2, they
also gave a substantial vote of confidence to the government and
its unequalled record of sound fiscal management. They
acknowledge that there have been many challenges, but they
appreciate that for the first time in 30 years the Government of
Canada will not have to face a crushing deficit, a deficit that
was systematically and rapidly destroying our ability to care for
those who need help the most.
We understand that deficit reduction is not an end in itself. It
is a means to an end. The efforts of the Liberal government have
given us the ability to address the priorities of compassionate
and responsible Canadians while living within our means.
I take a great deal of pride in knowing that it was my party
that built the framework for this financial turnaround. I
recognize that without the support and co-operation of individual
Canadians we would not have been successful.
Having made these sacrifices, my constituents have told me that
they want the government to stay the course. They warn that we
must be mindful of the still excessive debt. They ask that we
make strategic investments in key areas while maintaining prudent
controls over spending to guarantee continued steady economic
growth.
Just two weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said
“Canada is in better shape now than it has been for many years
to face the economic challenges of the future”. He went on to
say “Canada's recovery has the potential for a long period of
sustained growth in output and employment with rising
productivity and improving living standards”.
The Minister of Finance in his last budget reminded us that a
government relieved of its deficit burden is not a government
relieved of its obligations. It is a government able to exercise
its obligations.
The throne speech speaks to those obligations. We have an
obligation to build a stronger Canada. To this end, the
government has committed to taking a very broad and consultative
approach to promoting and strengthening our national unity. It
is committed to forging a strong, progressive partnership for all
stakeholders.
We see the most common yet most successful types of partnerships
in our families. A family is made up of individuals with
different hopes, different dreams, diverging opinions and
conflicting ideas, but they remain united. They face challenges
together and they help one another in times of need. The
individuals grow from sharing the experiences of their brothers
and sisters and the family grows and becomes stronger as a
result. Never is the departure of a family member beneficial to
the family or to the individual. Everyone loses.
It is in that context that I appeal to my hon. members across
the way to stop their campaigns to destroy what has been and
continues to be the most beautiful and most successful
partnership in the world.
Canada may have had its rough spots and tough times, but I am
willing to give everything I have to addressing the concerns of
Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or British Columbia, and
to preserving the country I love.
1355
The next obligation of the government is the investment in our
youth. Our children are our most precious resource. Quite
literally they are the future of our country.
I am truly heartened by the government's announcement that it is
increasing its contribution to the Canada child tax benefit by
$850 million a year, with higher payments to families beginning
July 1, 1998.
The throne speech states:
A country that has decided to invest in its children is a country
confident of its future. A country that invests in children
successfully will have a better future—. We must equip our
children with the capacities they need to be ready to learn and
to participate fully in society.
The throne speech also speaks to the need to create
opportunities for youth. Youth unemployment continues to be a
serious problem. All Canadians have a stake in meeting this
challenge successfully.
The government continues to move forward on the issue. With the
recently announced millennium scholarship fund we have
demonstrated that the issue is a priority for the government. The
fund will reward academic excellence and provide thousands of
scholarships each year. It is my sincere hope students of
knowledge based technologies will be the primary benefactors.
Any successful business operator or economic adviser will say
that in order to succeed one should identify that which one does
best and then do it better than anyone else. We have the
opportunity to do this with our knowledge based industries.
Canada can no longer compete in the unskilled manufacturing
sector with the emerging economies around the world which offer
low wages, relaxed labour standards and fewer environmental
controls.
As Canadians we must focus our attention and resources on
nurturing and developing industries in which we can compete and
in fact do lead the world. I am specifically referring to the
information and communication technology sectors, but the same
holds true for any high tech areas that require a highly trained
and highly paid workforce.
Our health care system is often considered as one of the key
identifying characteristics of what it means to be Canadian. As
I campaigned this spring one pressing concern was the
preservation and acceptability of health care.
The federal Liberal government is firmly committed to a publicly
administered comprehensive health care system that provides
universal access to high quality care to Canadians everywhere.
Access as contemplated by the Canada Health Act is important to
all Canadians, especially women with children and seniors who are
the majority users of our health services.
I am pleased the government's objectives are in the national
pharmacare program, the maintenance of our HIV-AIDS strategy and
the commitment to deal with the unique needs of our aboriginal
communities.
I spent six years as a municipal councillor prior to my election
to the House. I had the opportunity to work in a collaborative
atmosphere with my council colleagues. Issues were addressed
quickly and effectively with meaningful consultation among
stakeholders. We faced obstacles together and we succeeded.
Working together in the spirit of co-operation was the key to
successfully finding solutions to the various challenges we
encountered on a daily basis.
One example of partnership is the federal government's
infrastructure program. As a result of the program the
municipalities in my riding were able to complete infrastructure
programs that would not have been possible without the assistance
of federal and provincial governments.
Only last week I attended the official opening of the Garden
Street grade separation in Whitby. This separation was required
not only to ensure the safety of residents but to provide the
arterial road upgrade needed to attract new industrial and
commercial investment to the area, investment that will lead to
the creation of long term meaningful jobs.
Working together in partnership with all levels of government is
the only effective way to ensure the delivery of services to
people within a sound economic framework. Partnerships work. The
throne speech is about partnerships, partnerships with Canadian
people.
I urge all members of the House to work together to fulfil their
obligations as parliamentarians. Our obligation is to ensure the
country we leave to our children is safe, prosperous, free and
united.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. We readily accepted your advice and had
some discussions during my colleague's speech.
I thank my colleagues opposite. We have all agreed that without
questions and comments to the member who just spoke, and the one
with whom she will be sharing her time slot, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, two members from
the Progressive Conservative Party and one from the New
Democratic Party will make their speeches without the questions
or comments period, and that the day will end at approximately
2.40 p.m.
1400
I do want to thank those representatives of the parties not
adding additional speakers, in particular the Reform Party and
the Bloc Quebecois in this instance. I do salute the
co-operation of the House in facilitating new members from the
other parties who are able to get on with this additional time
today. There will be no dilatory motions subsequently.
The Deputy Speaker: A point of clarification for the Chair.
Will they all be 10 minute speeches?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the chief government whip. Is it agreed?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the
agreement is valid, but that the motion must have an indication
that it carried on division. Since there will be no vote called for
on it, it must be recorded as passed on division.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement on all of the points
mentioned by each of the hon. members?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on
this important occasion to relate my thoughts on the Speech from
the Throne. However, before I do that I want to thank the people
of Perth—Middlesex who have given me the great honour to serve
in this place for another term.
I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your
appointment.
I would like to speak today about how the Liberal government has
set forth a bold plan to lead the country into the next
millennium, a plan that will benefit Canadians and the people of
Perth—Middlesex. The Speech from the Throne has demonstrated
our government's vision and leadership and the people from
Perth—Middlesex will be pleased about our initiatives in four
key areas that impact on them.
Our government's continued commitment to young Canadians, to
innovation, to trade and rural development are the cornerstones
to ensure a strong and prosperous future for the riding of
Perth—Middlesex.
This government's primary focus since taking office was to
restore the hope to those who lost it during the early part of
this decade, especially young Canadians. Our government will
continue to give young people the hope for the future through
programs targeted at youth.
Our plan for an improved student loans program will make it
easier for young Canadians to gain the skills and knowledge
essential to succeed. In 1994 we announced that we would put in
an additional $2.5 billion over five years into Canadian student
loans. More than $1 billion in Canada student loans helped about
300,000 Canadian students go to college or university this year.
That level of commitment is continuing. This is welcome news for
students in my riding.
Last week the prime minister announced the additional $1 billion
for a millennium scholarship fund to help young Canadians prepare
to take their place in continuing to shape the greatness of this
land. We also increased loan limits by more than 50 percent and
brought about more flexible repayment rules.
We have brought in new measures to ease access to higher
education. We have doubled the education credit and extended the
tuition credit. The federal-provincial tax assistance to a
typical student will rise from $900 a year to $1,200 a year in
1998. That is progress for young Canadians.
We have also doubled the annual limit of contributions to the
RESPs to $4,000 so that young families can put more money aside
for their children's future.
When fully implemented we will increase federal assistance to
post-secondary education by $275 million a year alone. This will
be welcomed by families in my riding. In the past three months
we saw gains of 52,000 jobs for young Canadians, but it is not
enough. Finding work these days remains a challenge for young
Canadians.
Our government introduced Youth Service Canada and the youth
internship program in 1994 to help, and it will continue with
these programs. Earlier this year we announced the new youth
employment strategy that builds on more than $2 billion in new
and existing funding for these programs. These programs provide
opportunities for youth and people who need to find work and
build careers in the new economy.
This month we went further by committing $90 million to create a
public service youth internship program to complement the other
internship programs in science, trade, First Nations, non-profit
and private sectors. We will remain committed to those needed
programs.
We have continued funding for summer jobs up to $120 million
this year which meant an additional 30,000 jobs for students.
1405
The student connections program brings together young people and
new technologies. Student connections is employing 2,000
students from places like Fanshawe College for over three years
to help small business get connected on the Internet.
In a similar way, hundreds of young people are getting
experience in working with the new technologies through
employment with community access programs and SchoolNet. These
two programs are working to connect 5,000 rural communities like
the ones in Perth—Middlesex plus all of Canada's schools and
libraries to the Internet by 1998. Affordable Internet access is
particularly important to a rural community where improved
communications links will open up new opportunities for job
creation, trade and economic growth.
In 1994 the Liberal government saw the SchoolNet's potential. We
raised SchoolNet's funding to $13 million a year as part of our
strategy for building an innovative economy. The SchoolNet is
turning out to be an ideal learning tool. Recently scientists and
engineers from around the world were brought together with
teachers and students through an on line discussion news group.
That is the 21st century in action.
We have also raised the funding for SchoolNet's companion
program. Community access was originally meant to connect 1,000
rural communities on the Internet. Our increased funding will
mean that 5,000 rural and remote communities across Canada can
benefit from the economic and learning potential of the
information highway. That is the 21st century infrastructure.
Our government's visionary science and technology strategy has
created partnerships with the private sector to develop and bring
advanced technology to the market. Technology partnerships
Canada has a $250 million investment fund where the federal
government and the private sector finance leading edge
technologies that fuel job creation and economic growth.
Another key science and technology initiative is the Canada
foundation for innovation. Announced in the 1997 budget with
funding of over $800 million for the next five years, the
foundation will invest $180 million a year in labs and equipment
in Canadian universities and research hospitals. Canada's young
scientists need this equipment to do innovative research, the
source of future job growth.
Investments in science and technology increase Canada's
productivity and competitiveness which fuel export growth and
promote job creation at home. The progressive strategy of
combining youth, government and the private sector is working.
In Perth—Middlesex we will see this partnership produce three
transmission towers that will lay the infrastructure for our
rural communities to gain access to the Internet, and our
students will be employed to help our farmers get on the net.
That is the 21st century partnership.
Canada and Perth—Middlesex rely on trade for their prosperity.
The value of Canadian exports accounts for nearly 40 percent of
our gross domestic product.
Canadian exports have soared under the Liberal government and in
1996 the value of Canadian exports exceeded the imports by $34
billion, a record high. As many as 11,000 jobs in Canada are
supported by every billion dollars in existing exports. Between
5,000 and 8,000 jobs are created by every additional billion
dollars that Canadians export in goods and services. That is why
the prime minister will lead Team Canada on trade missions,
including one to Latin America in January 1998. The four
missions to date have resulted in more than $20 billion for
Canadian businesses and thousands of new jobs for Canadians.
I am hard at work recruiting many of the local businesses in
Perth—Middlesex to participate because what is good for Canadian
trade is better for Perth—Middlesex trade because that is the
21st century commerce.
In a similar way, our government has led important initiatives
in agriculture. Canadians may not know that 9 percent of our
country's economic input and 50 percent of all employment is
involved in that sector, but the people of Perth—Middlesex do.
Canadians may not know that the domestic market is $95 billion
and exports over $20 billion, but the people of Perth—Middlesex
do. That is why we have not forgotten the farmers. That is why we
have set forth initiatives like the family farm loan program
introduced in the fall of 1994. This program makes it easier for
retiring farmers to hand the family farm down to the next
generation without jeopardizing their own security and
retirement.
1410
We have established a $140 million Canadian adaptation and rural
development strategy to assist farmers and farm organizations by
funding research to develop farming and crop technology. The
agriculture adaptation council has committed $3.96 million for
108 research components plus a trace cost sector commitment of
$660,000. For example, the Ontario soya bean growers marketing
board received $387,000 for 17 projects for the corn producers
too. It goes on and on.
Our opponents have not offered anything more than cuts to the
programs for farmers. It is clear that our government is heading
into the next century with vision and action, not words of
derision. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech often
quoted one of my political heroes, Wilfrid Laurier, but by doing
so was able to betray this great statesman by carefully selecting
words to bolster his weak arguments. The Leader of the Opposition
is fueling fear and hate through his espousing an extreme Canada
that is anti-bilingual, anti-multicultural, anti-rural,
anti-immigrant, disunited, weak and Americanized.
I remind him of the following words spoken by Sir Wilfrid
Laurier in 1903: “Canada has been the inspiration of my life.
I have had before me a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of
cloud by day, the policy of true Canadianism, of moderation and
conciliation. In all the difficulties, all the pains and all the
vicissitudes of our situation, let us remember that love is
better than hatred and faith better than doubt. Let hope in our
future destinies be the pillar of fire to guide us in our
future”.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I
rise in the House today I would like to acknowledge and thank the
constituents of Fundy—Royal. It is indeed an honour and a
privilege to represent them in the House of Commons. They have
placed a trust in me and it is one that I do not take lightly. I
assure them I will work hard for each and every one of them each
and every day that I represent them in this House.
The people of Fundy—Royal, like all Canadians across the
country, have made fiscal sacrifices in the name of deficit
elimination. When we are in sight of the goal of balancing the
budget, this government is willing to throw away all the
sacrifices Canadians have made. Why? The tax and cut government
of the Liberal's first term has been replaced by the tax and
spend government of the second.
Canadian taxpayers have been on the frontlines in the war
against the deficit. It has been a tough battle. I would argue
they deserve nothing less than a legal guarantee enshrined in law
against future deficits. We must make it law that politicians
balance the budget. In order to provide taxpayer protection we
must pass legislation to cut the pay of the prime minister and
cabinet ministers if they break this deficit band.
Now the government is very proud of the fact that it is headed
toward a fiscal surplus. This is very good news. The bad news
is that Canadians will not see a penny of it. In addition to
protecting Canadians with balanced budget legislation clear
priorities must be set for the fiscal dividends paid for by
Canadians. These priorities must come in the form of specific
annual targets to which we can hold the government accountable.
The legislation must contain specific goals for debt reduction
expressed as a fixed debt to GDP ratio and what portion of fiscal
dividend will be in cut taxes and what portion is to be
reinvested in national priorities such as health care and
education. Clearly all parties could have done better in
eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt. With this in mind
it is imperative that we no longer live in the past, that we move
forward into the future.
As I outlined, the best way to ensure we never repeat the
mistakes of the past is to provide Canadians with guarantees,
guarantees in the forms of balanced budget legislation and
targets and benchmarks for the fiscal dividend and debt
reduction.
During the election the Progressive Conservative Party put
forward a visionary and sound plan to bring Canada into the next
century. This government is not moving forward and is pushing
Canadians back to a period of tax and spend liberalism. We are
the only party that wants to give Canadians tax relief now. The
budget surplus we are approaching has been achieved through
sacrifices made by all Canadians and we believe Canadians deserve
to have a little more in their pockets.
1415
While the impending zero deficit or balanced budget is indeed
good news, I would strongly caution the government that its
struggle by no means is over. We have on our hands a very
expensive problem, a $600 billion debt. It is a problem which
mortgages the future, especially the future of younger
generations.
For the past 30 years this country has been fiscally abusing the
future of our children. It must come to an end. I believe it is
fiscally immoral to continue to ask the younger generation to pay
for a higher proportion of the debt which they were not
responsible for accumulating.
We need benchmarks to ensure debt reduction. A balanced budget
is not enough. That is why a Progressive Conservative government
would apply one-third of all surpluses after the year 2000 to
debt reduction.
Health care and education are top priorities for Canadians yet
the current government's plans to cut cash transfers for these
vital programs by 40 percent while barely touching its own
program spending is unacceptable. It did not have the courage to
restructure government. To make matters worse, the Speech from
the Throne contains no commitment to national health care
standards, no guarantees and no mechanisms to ensure co-operation
with the provinces.
The Progressive Conservative Party has put forward a
co-operative approach to fixing the health care system through a
Canadian covenant. Together the federal and provincial
governments would set priorities and standards for the management
and delivery of health care services.
Canadians must know that they can count on their health care
system. Not a two tier system. Our plan for a partnership with
the provinces would allow for stable funding and delivery and
would mean that the federal government could never unilaterally
cut health care spending again.
Just as our health care system has suffered under this
government, so has the future of young Canadians. One of the
challenges we face as a nation is youth unemployment. There are
currently 410,000 unemployed young Canadians in the country. The
youth unemployment rate in August was 16.7 percent, almost double
the national rate of 9 percent.
The prime minister's announcement of only 3,000 internships over
three years is a perfect example of the government's inability to
recognize the scope of the problem. We need a more concentrated
and focused youth strategy, one that will resonate with all
Canadians. We believe that this strategy would not require
dipping into taxpayers' pockets, but rather the funds could come
from the myriad of training programs already in existence at the
many levels of government.
The premiers' decision to present the federal government with a
proposal to combat youth unemployment was encouraging. However
it was disheartening to hear his outright refusal to consider
their proposals. I am however relieved to hear that he has
reconsidered as a result of the premiers' initiative at the
Calgary conference.
Bringing a renewed focus to youth unemployment crosses all party
lines and all levels of government. No one party has a monopoly
on ideas. We must put our collective energies together to
develop a national vision to solve this crisis. If we set
national goals and establish clear targets, we can indeed make a
difference.
We must develop better solutions in assisting students with the
critical transition from school to work. Education, information
age training and skill development are vital. Internships,
apprenticeships and co-op programs are components of any
solution.
If we are truly serious about helping our nation's youth move
beyond this crisis, we must all foster a co-operative approach
with the private sector. With private sector involvement,
education and training programs would be better directed and
would thus better equip young Canadians with the skill sets that
employers need.
We must find ways, perhaps through the tax system, to motivate
businesses to fulfil this role. Yet the government is content to
smother small business, which is the real engine of job creation,
with excessive tax rates. This impossible tax burden on small
businesses has an extremely detrimental effect on job creation.
High taxes kill jobs. I wish the hon. members across the floor
could understand this.
Within Canada our high payroll and corporate taxes form a
barrier to jobs and growth by taxing businesses for every job
which they create. The current government has steadfastly
refused to take action. We must eliminate the excessive surplus
in the EI fund. Why does this government refuse to reduce job
killing payroll taxes such as the surplus that we have in the EI
fund?
1420
I would like to take this moment to touch upon the environment.
It is important given its absence from the national agenda in the
past years. Canada has always been regarded as a world leader
and a driving force on the critical issues that threaten the
preservation of our environment.
This government was left with an excellent environmental legacy
in 1993. Yet this government has let the environment disappear
from the national agenda. It is not hard to see why when we look
at the regional interests of the opposition parties that
environment is no longer a national issue. Environment is a
national issue, one best addressed by national parties.
The Progressive Conservative Party plans to put environment back
on the political agenda so that Canada can assume its role as an
environmental world leader.
As I said earlier we can never afford to mortgage the future of
our country. As we move forward into the next millennium,
changes will continue to take place in our economy. We must be
prepared to move forward and meet the challenges we face as a
nation.
Unfortunately for Canadians I do not think the government is
prepared to move forward. The throne speech was evidence of
that. I believe the government has missed an opportunity to offer
Canadians real leadership. We should not fear the future but we
should look forward to it.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on behalf of the people of the constituency of South Shore in
Nova Scotia to speak in reply to the throne speech which opened
the 36th Parliament.
As is customary I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your
appointment to the Chair. I would also like to extend
congratulations to those who assist you in your job. They have an
important job.
I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his remarks. I
listened to his words carefully. I think everyone in this
Chamber should also listen to those words and take note of them.
I offer hearty congratulations to the mover of the throne speech
and to its seconder. They did their duty well. Personally I
would have been a little embarrassed to have moved such a piece
of literature. I suppose that is because I am a Progressive
Conservative and I am not much for the type of empty rhetoric
that this particular throne speech represents.
It is Parliament's responsibility to scrutinize, question,
explain, criticize and improve. In other words, Parliament
talks. I am here to talk plainly to you, Mr. Speaker, and
through you to the members present. I have a few things to say.
First the people of South Shore deserve better than what this
government is putting forward as its plan for the future. I am
honoured to be their representative. I am charged with a solemn
duty. My riding has been represented by good people in the past.
I want to learn from their example.
One of my most distinguished predecessors from South Shore came
to this Parliament in 1957. I hope to do the legacy of Mr. Lloyd
Crouse justice. He represented for many years the people of
South Shore and I owe him a debt of gratitude. South Shore is a
beautiful place and he was a very fine caretaker.
I have much to learn about Mr. Crouse's record of persistence
and fighting for his constituents. I have not had the
opportunity to do that yet, but I have started my education by
studying some of his replies to throne speeches over the years.
Almost 35 years ago in a reply to the throne speech Mr. Crouse
talked about trade and its importance. He is no doubt as
perplexed as I am with the Liberals' about-face on this matter.
1425
In any case, he talked about our riding's many exporting
activities. In the South Shore of Nova Scotia, we export fish,
Christmas trees, paper as well as other forest products, and
manufactured goods. However as Canada's closest land access
departure point to Europe, our potential is sadly underutilized.
Education. It is ironic that Mr. Crouse did not put much faith
in the Liberals' sincerity on this matter of making education
accessible, affordable and excellent. It is ironic because of
the recently announced plan of this government to endow
excellence. This after having gutted the federal funding
transfers to the provinces for education. Does anyone on that
side of the House remember the ill-conceived Canada health and
social transfer?
Mr. Crouse emphasized in his reply the close economic connection
the riding has with the New England states. In this era of free
trade, Canadians would be foolish to allow their government to
impose decisions upon them that would lessen the potential
benefits of trade with the U.S.
Nova Scotia has a great competitive advantage in this regard and
would be hurt by this government if it superimposes partisan
politics on Nova Scotia trade matters. It would be foolish to
deny the right to get us our innovations, our products, our
resources and our gas to the appropriate markets.
In his reply Mr. Crouse talked about the people back home in the
riding. He spoke of their independence, their indomitable will,
their belief in earning their own keep. South Shore families
have many farmers, lumbermen and fishers connected with them.
We of the South Shore make much of our living from primary
industries. We work hard and we work long hours. We do this to
provide for our families and for our future. Let no person in
this House cast aspersions on the work ethic of the people of the
South Shore.
Taxation. Mr. Crouse talked about taxation. He stated “In the
opinion of my constituents, taxation, especially direct taxation,
has the effect of choking off business recovery and stifling
expansion”. No truer words need to be spoken. It is a simple
proposition.
EI premiums. As well, the small business person needs a break
but by the looks of things we should not expect too much in the
way of growth and prosperity from this government.
I was completely exasperated by what I read in the debates of
that other place in this Parliament, the red chamber. The leader
of the government in the other place is a fellow Nova Scotian. I
was intrigued to see his reply to a question about getting the
government—I do not think I can say this—to rethink their
insistence on burdening small business owners with unreasonably
high EI premiums.
The leader in the other place, a fine but lonely federal Liberal
Nova Scotian, was informed that according to the estimates of the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the surplus in the EI fund will be
at $16 billion this year.
He was asked to explain to members why the Minister of Finance
is continuing to insist on burdening those who create jobs with
unreasonably high EI premiums. He replied that this Liberal
government was not reducing the surplus intake because they want
“to ensure that there will be enough revenue over a business
cycle to pay the amounts authorized to be charged to the
employment insurance account”. Pardon me, but does this
government expect a great influx of EI claimants? Is this
government expecting a recession?
Spending. This government is being careful perhaps. I am not
sure many would agree that this is totally out of character for
them.
For instance in the last Parliament they allowed the former
deputy prime minister to go on periodic spending sprees whenever
she got the desire to be patriotic. As well there was the matter
of cancelling the EH-101 helicopter contract and paying the
enormous penalties, not to mention the flagrant disregard for
human lives.
There was the cancellation of the Pearson airport privatization
and the cost of putting that political quagmire to bed or at
least partially tucking it in. And of course there was the prime
minister's insistence on looking like a Chevy kind of guy while
he still kept the Caddy.
1430
The government is definitely a wolf in sheep's clothing when it
comes to spending.
Natural resources. To be entirely honest, I did not think I
read the throne speech correctly. I thought I had made a mistake
because I did not see an iota of real substance about natural
resources. I did not see anything that speaks to Canadians
working hard to harvest, maintain and make a living by their wits
and by their sweat the bounty of Canada's natural resources.
I heard nothing about sustainability. All I read was, and I
quote “Canada's rich and diverse natural heritage is also a
source of national pride and international acclaim. Canadians
are both the beneficiary and the stewards of the land that holds
9 percent of the earth's fresh water, 10 percent of its forests
and 25 percent of its wetlands”. I thought it was a postcard.
I really did. I could not wrap my head around it.
Perhaps someone on the government side can pinpoint the
inconsistency. The government has not assured Nova Scotia that
the fishery in Nova Scotia will survive. What about the fishery
off my shore? What about the woodlands and our forests? What
did Nova Scotians get from their oil and gas? What assurance do
we have that it will be our oil and gas? Will it be used to
benefit our economy and our standard of living?
I will wrap up. I would like to finish on Indian affairs. I am
the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party on Indian
affairs and northern development and nature resources. I will
bring it down to one quote which I think is very important. It
was made by a famous Canadian and certainly a famous Nova
Scotian. The government and all the members in the House would do
well to remember the words of the Right Hon. Robert Stanfield, a
fellow Nova Scotian. He said this while visiting Calgary 30
years ago:
The leadership within the Indian community has, for the most
part, been responsible and moderate. Their methods have
generally been the peaceful demonstration and the reasoned brief.
But if we do not respond to the moderate spokesmen of Indian
Canada, there is a danger they will be displaced by the less
patient and more militant leaders.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
deeply honoured, as I rise today in humility, to present a few
remarks on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I dedicate my remarks to my parents, Katherine Earle and the
late Maurice Earle, both of whom taught me the importance of a
belief in God our creator, a belief in oneself and a belief in
and respect for one's fellow human beings.
I also pay homage to my wife and children for the immeasurable
love and support that they have given me over the years and
particularly during this venture into what for me is a new,
exciting and challenging world of politics.
As well, I extend my heartfelt thanks to the constituents of
Halifax West who expressed their faith and confidence in me that
I will work for and represent them in the House of Commons during
this 36th Parliament.
During my election campaign I made it very clear to the voters
that I would not make any promises that I could not keep and that
in fact the only promise I would make was that to the best of my
abilities I would work hard both with and on behalf of my
constituents to ensure that their voice is heard in Ottawa in
this great Chamber, the hallmark of our democratic system of
government.
I also campaigned on the personal commitment to bring a new face
to politics. As I went from door to door, from community to
community, from urban areas to rural areas I found, as I am sure
many other candidates did, an immense degree of apathy and
cynicism among both young and old alike, so much so that many had
moved to the point of deciding that they were not going to vote
at all.
1435
It disturbed me greatly then, as it does now, that so many of
our citizens have become so discouraged with our politicians and
our political system that they have chosen not to exercise the
basic rights for which our forefathers fought and died.
Why are so many moved to such a state of apathy and cynicism? If
one wishes to open one's eyes the answer is clear. We have a
high degree of unemployment in one of the most developed
countries in the world. We have a high cost of post-secondary
education in a country where wealth abounds. We have an ever
increasing number of homeless people that we can see as we walk
down the streets of Ottawa in a highly industrial and
technological society.
We have health care concerns and epidemics developing in a land
where we have access to the latest scientific and medical
knowledge. We have seniors concerned about their future
socioeconomic well-being, despite their many years of solid
contributions to our society. We have immigrant groups
struggling for fair and equitable treatment under the immigration
laws of our country. We have the disabled suffering
unconscionable bureaucratic delays as they attempt to obtain
disability pensions under the Canada pension plan.
We have women, minority groups, individuals of differing sexual
orientation all struggling to be accorded their basic human
rights. We have our francophone brothers and sisters fighting an
uphill battle to have their language, culture and heritage
recognized as a distinctive element of our Canadian society. And
we have the plight of our aboriginal brothers and sisters being
ignored as they attempt to heal and rebuild their communities
through self-determination and self-government.
I could go on and on citing the ills of our society as the
reasons why so many people have become apathetic and cynical.
However, the real question is where does the politician fit into
all of this? The plain truth of the matter is that citizens look
to their political leaders for a cure to these ills of our
society. We look to those whom we have elected to represent and
govern us to provide a measure of leadership to help us to meet
the challenges of the day.
But the sad reality is, and it came across loudly and clearly to
me during the election campaign, that many citizens have lost
faith in their politicians. Politicians were described to me as
not really caring, being in it only for themselves or for the
money, being dishonest or full of empty promises. Perhaps the
most hurtful statement of all was “you politicians are all the
same”.
You know and I know that politicians are not all the same.
There are good and there are bad politicians, the same as there
are good and bad in all professions, and history will attest to
this. However, the fact remains that for a good portion of the
public, the perception is that politicians are all the same:
dishonest, self-serving and without compassion.
I feel it is time to put a new face on politics. It is time to
show that politicians can bring truth, integrity, compassion and
indeed honour to the profession. It is time to show that we are
truly interested in providing jobs for the unemployed, feeding
the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring
for the sick, educating our youth, embracing our fellow human
beings and allowing for growth, development and
self-determination.
I personally believe that a good starting point in putting a new
face on politics and showing the world that we mean business is
by maintaining proper decorum and respect not just outside the
walls of the House of Commons but, more importantly, inside the
walls of this place where we conduct the nation's business.
As politicians we are always under the public scrutiny. It is
even more so today with the modern means of communications
available. We should ever be mindful of the fact that our actions
in this House are transmitted by television into the homes of the
nation where the impressionable young minds of children witness
our respect or our lack of respect for each other as we debate
the issues of the day.
It is all well and good to excuse rudeness and lack of common
courtesy as part of the political game or as part of
parliamentary tradition, but when young children watching
parliamentary debates ask their parents why those men and women
are so angry at each other, why they are being so rude to each
other, why they are fighting with each other, then I ask if this
is a tradition that is worth keeping?
1440
Is this the face we want to put on politics? Is this the
example we want to set for our young children?
In July this year I had the honour of attending the First
Nations convention in Vancouver, where the national chief of the
Assembly of First Nations was elected. What struck me as really
significant was the high degree of respect and decorum that was
present during that convention. Unlike non-aboriginal political
conventions where there is a lot of cheering and booing of
candidates, at that convention there was a certain solemnity and
respect shown to all candidates regardless of whom individuals
may have been personally supporting. I believe there is a lesson
to be learned here.
One must listen to hear. What I have often observed in watching
parliamentary debates is that often individuals are so wrapped up
in their own view and in shouting down and heckling others that
one does not hear what is being said. One loses the sense of true
dialogue and communication, respect and putting a new face on
politics.
As I stand here today I pledge that I will do my best to put a
new face on politics. While you may get the odd desk thump or
applause from me, I pray that I will never sink to the point of
being discourteous when others are speaking. If that should ever
happen I ask you remind me of this moment so that I may correct
myself and offer to others the kind of respect that I would
expect to receive from them.
I commend the government for the positive statements in the
throne speech, particularly the initiatives regarding aboriginal
people. The government's commitment to develop relationships
with aboriginal people based on principles of partnership,
transparency, predictability and accountability is very important
and very significant. I firmly believe Canada will never solve
its national unity problem until we have dealt fairly with our
aboriginal population.
I urge that the commitments made in the throne speech not become
empty words but that the government give real meaning to phrase
“moving forward into the 21st century” by tackling in a very
substantial way the problems which the people of Canada have
identified as being crucial to them, namely jobs, education,
health care, fairer taxation, opportunities for youth and so
forth.
In conclusion, I extend my congratulations and best wishes to
all who have been elected to the House. Although we are of
different political stripes and although we hold different
viewpoints on various issues, I believe that the one thing we all
hold in common is that we deeply believe in the principles for
which we are fighting. While our principles may vary somewhat, I
am optimistic enough to believe that deep down within most of us,
we have one common desire and that is to build a better society
for this generation and for the generations to come. May we live
up to that expectation, to the expectation of those who elected
us, so that together we may work to make Canada a truly great
nation.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps before I put the question I
may be permitted to say a few words of thanks to all the hon.
members who in the course of the last two weeks have made remarks
supporting me in my work in the chair and supporting the prime
minister's choice of me as Deputy Speaker. I consider it an
honour to have been appointed as your Deputy Speaker and I thank
you very much.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: The one drawback is that I do not get
to make speeches in the House so that is my maiden speech for
this Parliament. I thank hon. members for the opportunity.
It being 2.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
motion now before the House.
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General) moved:
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.45 p.m.)