EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 132
CONTENTS
Monday, October 5, 1998
1105
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Opposition Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-304. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1110
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1130
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1145
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1200
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1205
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Proposed Social Union
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1225
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1240
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1255
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1310
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1325
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1340
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TEACHERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1400
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOUR DE ROCK
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD TEACHERS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRELAND
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABRADOR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1405
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD HABITAT DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD TEACHERS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIGHT HONOURABLE ELLEN FAIRCLOUGH
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
1410
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABRADOR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN REGISTRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABRADOR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1415
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YUGOSLAVIA
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1425
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1430
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1445
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1450
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCRAPIE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL AID
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
1455
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1500
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1505
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Grandparents' Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1510
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Drinking and Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Iraq
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Property Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1515
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Firearms Act
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parental Rights and Responsibilities
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1520
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Social Union Project
|
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1525
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1530
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1545
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1550
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1625
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1640
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1655
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1710
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1725
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1740
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1745
1750
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1805
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1810
1815
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 132
![](/web/20061116200209im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 5, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1105
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
OPPOSITION MOTION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
seek the unanimous consent of the House that the opposition
motion tabled with the Journals Branch on Friday, October 2,
1998 by Mr. Brien, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, be debated
today under Business of Supply, Government Orders.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I understand that this motion is
necessary because the motion was not in on time.
I would like to know from the House leader for the Bloc whether
he understands by his request that the motion be debated that he
is also asking that it be votable. Is that implied in the
question? Because if it is, then there is not unanimous consent.
If he is only requesting that it be debated, then there is.
The Deputy Speaker: I was going to ask the same question.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the request as I heard it, we have no objection. We
think it is a small technical problem and we have no objection to
this motion being debated.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for Roberval can
clarify the situation. Is the request that the motion be
debated, or that it be debated and voted on?
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked it to be
votable, but my discussions, particularly those with the
parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party, implied that I
could not obtain unanimous consent—unless there was a
change—and I was told that unanimous consent by the House and
the NDP would be forthcoming only if the motion were not votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House that
the opposition motion tabled with the Journals Branch on Friday,
October 2, 1998 by Mr. Brien, the hon. member for Témiscamingue,
be debated today under Business of Supply, Government Orders?
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with the understanding
that it is not votable.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion that I proposed to the
House was only that it be debated, not that it be votable. Is
that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-304, an act to amend An Act for the Recognition and
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend
the Constitution Act, 1867, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again I am disappointed that my bill
has been given second class status in the House. For the second
time since I have become a member of parliament this important
issue has been denied enough time for a full debate and MPs have
been denied a vote for or against strengthening property rights
in federal law.
I think it is time to make all private members' business
votable. All the private members' business that comes before the
House should be made votable.
I want to use the little time I have to explain why a full
debate and a vote on Bill C-304 in the House is so important.
I have received impressive public support for my property rights
bill, considering that I have had so little time to promote this
legislative initiative. I have received 491 pages of petitions,
signed by 11,292 Canadians from all across Canada who support the
bill. I have also received the support of the Canadian Real
Estate Association which represents more than 200 real estate
boards in every province of this country.
That fact alone must surely cause the government to rethink its
stand on property rights. It is obvious that this is a very
important issue for many Canadians.
1110
As members of this House are no doubt aware, this is the 50th
anniversary of the signing of the United Nations declaration of
human rights. Article 17 of the UN declaration of human rights
reads: “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as
in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived
of his property”. Despite the fact that Canada ratified the UN
declaration of human rights 50 years ago, the fact is that
Canadians are still being arbitrarily deprived of their property.
There are and have been so many examples. The example I am so
familiar with is Bill C-68, the firearms act. Other examples are
the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Pearson Airport Agreements Act, the national energy program of a
few years ago, as well as many others.
My colleagues and I will use our time to expose just a few
examples of how the government has abused the property rights of
millions of Canadians. We will explain why all Canadians should
fear a government that is prepared to run roughshod over such a
fundamental and natural right.
Professor Peter Hogg in his book Constitutional Law of
Canada, third edition, wrote: “The omission of property
rights from section 7 of the charter greatly reduces its scope.
It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or
even a fair procedure for the taking of property by the
government. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of fair
treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with power over
purely economic interests of individuals or corporations”. That
was from citation 44.9 at page 1030.
Professor Hogg also wrote: “The product is a section 7 in
which liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as
not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as not
including economic liberty”. That was from citation 44.7(b) at
page 1028.
Those are powerful words. I ask the members of this House if
their constituents are even aware of this lack of protection in
the charter. Why are we here? It is our duty as
parliamentarians to be sure that the foundation, the
fundamentals, of our society are right. That is what Bill C-304
is all about.
Former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau argued long and
hard for better protection of property rights, first in his 1968
paper titled “A Canadian Charter of Human Rights”, which was
tabled when he was minister of justice; second in his 1969 paper
“The Constitution of the People of Canada”; and once again in
1978 when he introduced Bill C-60, the constitutional amendment
bill.
Mr. Trudeau tried to get property rights included in the charter
in July 1980 and again in January 1981. Finally in April 1983 he
said here in the House of Commons “I would say that if we can
have the agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce an
amendment on property rights and to pass it in 24 hours”.
Rather than try to amend the charter of rights and freedoms, my
private member's bill, Bill C-304, proposes to provide adequate
protection of property rights in federal law by strengthening the
property rights provisions of the Canadian bill of rights, not
the charter.
In the past the government has argued rather poorly that there
is no need to strengthen property rights in federal law. The
government has argued in the past that the Canadian bill of
rights provides adequate protection of property rights. But I
ask: If property rights are so adequately protected in federal
law, how can the government keep violating article 17 of the UN
declaration of human rights by arbitrarily taking the property of
Canadian citizens?
The bill of rights only provides rather feeble protection of
property rights. Even these can be overridden by just saying so
in any piece of legislation passed by this House. My bill
proposes to make it more difficult to override the property
rights of Canadian citizens by requiring a two-thirds majority
vote of this House.
1115
We are not tying the government's hands to legislate, but we are
saying that property rights are so important that an override
clause should pass a higher test in the House.
Even if the government agrees to abide by the so-called
guarantees in the Canadian bill of rights as it currently is
worded, it protects only three things; the right to the enjoyment
of property, the right not to be deprived of property except by
due process, and finally the right to a fair hearing.
Unfortunately the bill of rights does not, as I will explain
later, prevent the arbitrary taking of property, and that is a
very serious matter.
The bill of rights does not provide any protection of our right
to be paid any compensation let alone fair compensation. The
bill of rights does not provide any protection of our right to
have compensation fixed impartially. The bill of rights does not
provide any protection of our right to receive timely
compensation. Finally, the bill of rights does not provide any
protection of our right to apply to the courts to obtain justice.
Bill C-304 would amend the bill of rights to provide added
protection for Canadian citizens from the arbitrary decisions
made by the federal government to take their property.
Approval of my amendments to the bill of rights would allow
Canadians to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, knowing that we have
finally provided the protection of property rights in federal law
that the UN declaration called for so many decades ago. Would
that not be a wonderful way to celebrate the 50th anniversary?
I can see a few members on the government looking self-assured
and confident that I am wrong and that the government is right.
The Minister of Justice's little helpers will soon stand up and
proclaim as much. I anticipate that, but I am not wrong. That
is why we need a full debate in the House. Not just one hour.
That is why we need a vote in the House on this issue.
Voters in the country have to know that the government by its
own legislation, the legislation government members have
supported, and by the actions of its own Minister of Justice
condoned the arbitrary taking of property in direct contravention
of article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
The people of the country do not know that. They should hang
their heads in shame rather than parade around the world claiming
to be the defenders of fundamental human rights. Article 17(2) of
the UN Declaration of Human Rights states:
I have only time to cover one arbitrary taking of property by
the federal government. I will use the example I know best. As
members know I have been working on Bill C-68, the Firearms Act,
very actively, in opposition of course. Section 84(1) of Bill
C-68 passed by parliament in 1995 and now chapter 39 of the
Statutes of Canada arbitrarily prohibited an estimated 553,000
registered handguns: 339,000 handguns that have a barrel equal to
or less than 104 millimetres in length, about 4.14 inches, and
214,000 handguns that discharge 25 and 32 calibre bullets.
The government arbitrarily decided that these 553,000 handguns
currently safely stored in the homes of law-abiding government
registered owners were so dangerous that they had to be banned.
The government ignored the fact and the evidence from Statistics
Canada showing that unregistered handguns responsible for about
75% of all firearms crimes in the country were already illegal.
Why does the government ignore these facts?
In 1994 the government estimated that these 553,000 handguns
represented about half of all the firearms in the existing
firearms registry. What proof did the government provide that
these firearms were dangerous? None. The decision was
completely arbitrary. I appreciate the show of concern that a
few members are showing.
What was the extent of the government evidence to justify the
prohibition? In the government's opinion these legally acquired
properly registered firearms “are not considered to be suitable
for organized target shooting and such handguns are produced
primarily for use as weapons”.
No evidence was ever presented showing how many crimes these
553,000 legally owned handguns had been involved in or how
banning them would have prevented any crimes or prevent any
crimes in the future. In fact neither the RCMP nor the Minister
of Justice were able to produce any evidence in parliament that
the 64 year old handgun registration system had been used to help
solve even one crime.
1120
The government even proved my point about the arbitrariness of
its decision to ban hundreds of thousands of legally owned guns
by deciding to leave most of the registered handguns it always
refers to as Saturday night specials in the hands of registered
owners until they die. That demonstrates clearly how arbitrary
its decision is. It is then that most of these firearms will be
seized because many of their heirs will not be able to comply
with the onerous rules and regulations respecting ownership of
firearms.
If these handguns are safe in the hands of registered owners,
why did the government need to ban them? Not once have we had an
answer to that. We do not have property rights in this country.
The criminals are already breaking the law by using unregistered
guns for their crimes. How did it improve public safety by
banning guns in the hands of hundreds of thousands of good guys?
Surely, if this arbitrary ban were to do any good, the
government would have to remove these so-called Saturday night
specials from the hands of their registered owners. It did not,
thereby proving the arbitrariness of its decision and providing
all the proof anyone needs to demonstrate its breaking of article
17 of the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights.
With the announcement of this ban the government destroyed the
value of these 553,000 registered handguns. The government did
not have to physically take property to violate the fundamental
property rights of these hundreds of thousands of law-abiding
Canadians. The government's arbitrary ban destroyed the value of
these handguns and took money out of citizen's pockets just as
surely as a mugger takes money out of his victim's pockets on the
streets of downtown Toronto.
Government is force and this is how it uses it. It uses this
force to throw western farmers in jail just because they choose
not to sell their wheat to the government. The government uses
this force to stop Canadians from receiving television channels
the government does not want them to watch.
Are we really free when this violation of one of our most
fundamental rights goes on right before our eyes? Some people
will say “what the government is doing is not affecting me”,
but what will these people say when their government arbitrarily
decides to take their property or destroy the value of their
property?
Not only did the government arbitrarily ban this legally owned
property but it is refusing to pay compensation for the loss in
value suffered by this government enforced step. It is refusing
to pay compensation for the legally owned firearms that people
have and that it is going to confiscate.
At the time the government announced this arbitrary ban on
private property approximately 20,000 to 30,000 of these firearms
were held in the inventories of government licensed businesses.
Listen very carefully. On May 19, 1998 a firearm's dealer
received a letter from the Canadian Firearms Centre in the
Department of Justice which said:
Firearms in a dealer's inventory are not grandfathered and will
therefore be subject to confiscation as of October 1. There is
no compensation scheme planned at this time for dealers or
individuals whose handguns become prohibited October 1, 1998 and
are confiscated or turned in.
Those are words of our own bureaucrats, our own Department of
Justice. On September 1, 1998 the Minister of Justice wrote a
law-abiding gun owner in Ottawa. Her letter was commenting on a
1994 gun ban that paid them compensation if they surrendered
their arbitrarily prohibited firearms to the government. The
minister said:
The surrender initiative was unique. It should be considered an
amnesty, rather than an expropriation. Firearms not identified
under this initiative are not eligible for payment if surrendered
or seized.
There we have it in black and white, confiscation without
compensation. I am very familiar with this and I could continue
to go on to describe how arbitrary it is.
Let me conclude by saying that in June the Canadian Police
Association wrote to the Minister of Justice complaining about
her plans to confiscate 20,000 to 30,000 banned handguns from
government approved firearms dealers. Here is what the CPA
letter said:
We were nothing short of amazed to hear questions of
constitutionality concerning confiscation without compensation of
property previously lawfully acquired swept aside as
non-existent.
The CPA called the minister's actions “unwise in the extreme”.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member's time
has expired.
1125
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill seeks to elevate property rights protection in the
Canadian bill of rights above that of any rights in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, let alone the bill of rights.
The government believes that property rights are important and
deserving of protection, that they currently enjoy sufficient
protection, and that there is no need for this private member's
motion.
First I will address the protection already afforded to property
rights and then why the proposals to codify further protections
in the bill of rights and the Constitution are unnecessary and
inappropriate.
[Translation]
Numerous statutes regulate and protect property in Canada.
There are common law rules which govern the purchase and sale of
land, for instance, or the taking of interest in mortgages or
leases. Real and personal property laws govern the acquisition
and sale of all property of this nature. There are also laws
that protect the right to own various forms of property, from
vehicles to copyright.
One of the fundamental rules of law respected by the drafters of
bills in the Department of Justice is the principle that
property may not be expropriated without compensation.
This guiding principle is mentioned on the department's Internet
site.
This right must be weighed against society's other values. For
example, our thinking about property and the equitable
protection to which people are entitled so that they are not
deprived of their right to the enjoyment of property has
evolved.
The federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial family
laws ensure that women are not deprived of their right to a fair
share of matrimonial property, regardless of who has legal
title.
[English]
Another source of protection of property rights is the direct
declaration in the Canadian bill of rights. The Canadian bill of
rights has quasi-constitutional status. A number of its
provisions were repeated in specific provisions of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the charter contains no
specific clause on property rights, section 1 of the bill of
rights would continue to protect property rights. It states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have
existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by
reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the
following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the
person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be
deprived thereof except by due process of law.
Thus this clause protects property rights in that a person
cannot be deprived of his rights except by regular application of
the law.
The bill of rights requires the Minister of Justice to examine
every bill before the House to ensure that it is consistent with
the bill of rights and to report any inconsistency to the House.
It is then up to hon. members, in accordance with the democratic
process, to determine whether nevertheless to pass the bill.
[Translation]
One of our main concerns about Bill C-304 is that it would give
property rights precedence over all other rights protected in
the Bill of Rights, as well as in the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
As things now stand, Parliament cannot pass bills inconsistent
with the charter or the bill of rights without including a
notwithstanding clause. Clauses 3 and 5 of Bill C-304, which
propose the addition of new paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2, as well as
new section 6 to the bill of rights, would require the votes of
at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons for
these provisions to be amended or a notwithstanding clause to be
passed.
In principle, our government is opposed to any more protection
of property rights than is already provided for in the charter,
such as the protection of rights flowing from the act or
prohibiting discrimination against disabled persons. This is
particularly true when we examine the evolving concepts of
property and discrimination.
1130
[English]
In a complex society with many interests and competing rights,
we must recognize that rights are not absolute. We have and need
laws to govern the use of property in the public interest. There
is a network of laws not only at the federal level but also at
the provincial and municipal levels.
Earlier I mentioned the federal Divorce Act and provincial and
territorial laws which ensure that matrimonial property is
equitably divided upon the breakup of a marriage. In addition,
environmental legislation establishes a whole body of regulations
governing everything from the disposal of hazardous waste to
cutting down trees. There are also laws that govern ownership of
shares of limited companies, bankruptcy, ownership of land by
non-Canadians, land use and zoning in residential or farming
areas.
In each of these cases and laws there are limitations on
property, ownership and use. Everyone recognizes the need for
these restrictions. If the government were to consider amending
the bill of rights, sight should not be lost of the important
limitations on the enjoyment of property.
We should also bear in mind that many of the laws are in the
provincial realm, something the opposition often forgets. Under
section 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 each province has
exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the
province. A good example is the recent adaptation by the Ontario
Harris government of children under 12 years of age having the
right to firearms, something that the opposition has not
mentioned. Hunting is under provincial jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Since the new property rights protection program would be
enshrined in the bill of rights instead of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, it would apply only to Parliament, and
not to provincial legislatures.
This government feels that the ensuing imbalance would do a
disservice to federal-provincial relations. It would also be
unfair to Canadians to subject them to two property rights
protection programs, one at the provincial level and one at the
federal level.
Last but not least, Bill C-304 would amend the Constitution Act
of 1867 to allow for the adoption of the new section 6 of the
Canadian Bill of Rights which, as already mentioned, would have
the effect of increasing to two-thirds the percentage of votes
required in the future to adopt laws that could undermine the
new protection afforded property rights. The procedure for
amending the Constitution is, as we all know, quite complex and
time consuming, and the result is far from being guaranteed.
[English]
There are many existing protections for property rights in
Canada in the Canadian bill of rights and other statutes and
through common law. Canadians currently enjoy important
protection of property rights.
I would like to address the firearms legislation. The hon.
member took most of his time to state to the Canadian public some
falsities which have been repeated consistently in the House.
First of all the firearms legislation does not talk about
confiscation. It talks about registration. I remind hon.
members that the House adopted that piece of legislation and it
is in contempt of the House to constantly bring up the issue in
my opinion. An election was won on that piece of legislation and
a court challenge was won recently on that piece of legislation.
Parliament has the right and hon. members of Her Majesty's
Official Opposition consistently forget that fact and are in
contempt of this parliament to constantly bring up the same piece
of legislation. We fought the election. We won the election. It
is a law of the land at the moment.
[Translation]
The notion of property is much broader than real property. Given
how broad the concept of real property can be, we must be
careful if we succeed in altering the existing protection for
property rights in a quasi-constitutional document such as the
Bill of Rights.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to address Bill C-304, introduced by the Reform Party
member for Yorkton—Melville and entitled an Act to amend an Act
for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. In
short, it is an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.
1135
At first glance, the subject appears appealing. The first
clause proposes the following, and I quote:
Paragraph 1(a) of An Act for the Recognition and Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is replaced by the
following:
This amendment to the existing legislation removes from
subsection 1(a) the freedom of enjoyment of one's property.
Everyone agrees that the freedom to enjoy one's property is a
democratic freedom.
One question, however: Is this an unconditional, universal,
freedom?
We see what the member is after in clause 3. It proposes:
The Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:
2.1 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), every person has the
right to the enjoyment of that person's property.
This is a fundamental statement of this bill: the right to
private property. For most of us, private property refers
immediately to our home, but it includes many other things, such
as a house, car, land, bicycle, to name but a few.
I am no constitutional expert. However, I know that the
provinces have jurisdiction over property and civil rights. It
is therefore the responsibility of the provinces to legislate in
areas involving personal property.
The member's bill therefore aims at establishing recognition of
the right to property in federal legislation subject to the
Canadian Bill of Rights, since it applies only to federal acts
and institutions.
The right to enjoyment of property is found in subsection 1(a)
of the Canadian Bill of Rights. So, we may well ask what the
point of the bill is and what scope does the member intend for
it. I think he is attempting to initiate a general debate on
the right to private property based on the following assumption:
the right to private property is a natural right and one that is
outside of legislation.
But many ongoing situations show that personal rights,
especially in connection to property, often have to be
restricted for the common good. Take for example environmental
issues. Environmental and public health protection require that
legislation be passed that sometimes limits property rights by
imposing strict regulations on companies.
Another example everyone, at least everyone in this place, knows
about is the speed limit on roads and highways. Such rules limit
my enjoyment of my car's performance. Yet, careless behaviour
might see me lose the use of my car. Imagine how disastrous this
would be.
The Firearms Registration Act is yet another example. I had no
intention of ascribing motives to the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville.
And I will not do so. But after hearing his remarks, it seems
clear to me that, in his opinion, should the Canadian Bill of
Rights be amended as proposed in his bill, the firearm
registration legislation would be impossible to enforce and
would entail prohibitive costs as anyone could demand a hearing
before a court of law under clauses 2.1(1) and 2.1(4).
1140
Last century, the era of dyed-in-the-wool economic liberalism,
certain decisions prevented the various Parliaments in Canada
from interfering with private property either by confiscating it
or by destroying it without compensation. Times have changed.
In the 20th century, Parliament can establish laws, and the
public has the right to judge their legitimacy and morality.
This is easily illustrated. In the case of the surplus in the
employment insurance fund, the current government can try to
legalize its use for purposes other than those established.
Should it go so far, the public will decide on the legitimacy
and morality of such misappropriation.
As you can see, we have no intention of supporting this bill,
because we think that the freedom of some stops where the
freedom of others starts. This is the price of living in a
harmonious and responsible society.
Canadian and Quebec society will never opt for the law of the
jungle.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have just a few comments on the private member's motion by the
hon. member from the Reform Party.
I would like to address something that he brought up in his
remarks with respect to the conduct of Private Members' Business
in this House and the ongoing debate as to whether or not all
motions and bills that emanate from Private Members' Business
should be made votable.
Just on the history lesson side for a minute, some hon. members
but perhaps not all may know that it is only recently speaking in
the long term parliamentary history that we have been able to
vote on anything having to do with Private Members' Business.
Prior to 1985, Private Members' Business would come up for an
hour, it would be debated, talked out and then would disappear
forever to the bottom of the list.
As a result of the reforms that came out of what has come to be
known as the McGrath committee, it was decided that this was an
unsatisfactory way of doing things and that some bills and
motions of private members ought to be able to come to a vote
without unanimous consent. Prior to the McGrath committee
reforms, it was possible to have a vote on a private member's
motion or bill but there had to be unanimous consent and one can
imagine just how rarely that took place.
There was this feeling that in order to give Private Members'
Business the significance it was due that there should be some
process for making sure some private members' motions and bills
were made votable. The suggestion at that time was that we would
proceed as usual with the lottery to determine which members
would have their bills and motions deliberated upon to see
whether or not—
An hon. member: We are listening, Bill.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I am sorry if the Liberals feel I am
ignoring them but I am just not used to having anybody over there
to talk to. I have grown accustomed to not having Liberals over
there to talk to. I acknowledge that they are now making an
effort to finally have people in the House, which is nice. I
will try to direct some of my remarks their way as well so they
do not feel so touchy.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, there was an
attempt to make some Private Members' Business votable.
There was a standing committee set up on Private Members'
Business. This has now become a subcommittee of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
1145
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I thought it would be safe to talk to
you, Mr. Speaker. Could we have a little order?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona knows it is always safe to speak to the
Speaker, much safer than addressing anyone else in the House. I
know hon. members want to hear the remarks of the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona, so perhaps he could continue uninterrupted.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in any event I think the
debate continues as to whether or not this process is
satisfactory. I must say to the hon. member that I am not
convinced at this point that all private members' motions and all
private members' bills should automatically become votable.
We now have a system whereby we make some determination at the
end of the pipeline as to what will become votable. I would say
to the hon. member that if it were to be the case that private
members' motions and bills were automatically votable, I think he
would find for that to be the case that there would have to be
some kind of selection or some kind of weeding out or screening
at the beginning of the pipeline.
I cannot see a situation in which, no matter what the motion, no
matter what the bill, it would automatically be votable. I think
there would be problems there. That continues to be.
The member for Wild Rose says that it would still have to meet
the criteria. That is the point. Right now there are criteria.
I hear the hon. member saying that there should not be any
criteria; whatever people put forward as a bill or motion would
automatically become votable. If that is not what he is
advocating then there may be some room for discussion. I am
trying to point out what I think some of the problems would be
with the hon. member's suggestion with respect to Private
Members' Business.
With respect to this bill I would say that I have heard the
debate about property rights go on for some years in the House of
Commons. It is always cast in the light of people who somehow do
not have the same respect for property as those who do and
therefore want it enhanced either by way of an amendment to the
bill of rights or by enshrining it in the Canadian Constitution.
I remind the hon. member that is not the way the debate has
played out when it has been on the floor of the House of Commons.
When we debated whether or not we were to have property rights in
the Canadian charter at the time of the patriation debate, the
main opponents to having property rights in the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms were the provinces. It was the provincial
governments, which he was no doubt supportive of at the time or
may have been. Conservative governments, NDP governments, the
provincial governments themselves were against having property
rights put in the charter because they regarded that as a matter
of provincial jurisdiction.
Coming from a party that generally is very supportive of
provincial jurisdiction and any intrusion by the federal
government into provincial jurisdiction, I find it something that
perhaps the member should deal with at some point.
The bill we have before us applies only to federal legislation
because it only deals with the bill of rights. When I listened
to the member speak it was clear that his first preference would
be to have property rights enshrined in the Constitution, if he
could have it that way. This is really his second preference
because he thinks this would be easier and could be done without
constitutional amendment.
In terms of the member's own ideal case, the people that are
lined up against him are not necessarily colleagues in the House
of Commons but provincial governments he normally supports when
they expound the rhetoric of protecting provincial jurisdictions.
That is something to keep in mind when they get up on their high
horse on property rights.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise following the remarks of
the learned House leader for the New Democratic Party to take
part in the debate concerning Bill C-304, an act to amend an act
for recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms with respect to property rights.
This legislation would afford greater protection in the Canadian
bill of rights for the property rights of both individuals and
corporations.
1150
I congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville on bringing
the issue of property rights to the floor of the House of Commons
again. He has been a strong and consistent advocate of his
position.
Ensuring the right of every Canadian to enjoy property ownership
has been a long and sacred principle of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada. The Canadian bill of rights
enacted in 1960 by Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker
extended protection in the following areas: the right to enjoy
property, the right not to be deprived of property except by due
process and the right to a fair hearing.
The Conservative Party of Canada has repeatedly supported and
recognized the importance of property rights. In 1995 our party
from across Canada improved a new party constitution which lists
as its principles a belief that the best guarantees of prosperity
and well-being for the people of Canada are as follows: the
freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and
legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy, the
freedom of the individual Canadian to enjoy the fruits of his or
her labour to the greatest possible extent, and the right to own
property.
The protection of property rights has long been a recognized and
fundamental aspect of social and economic justice. In 1690 John
Locke wrote:
The great and chief end of men—putting themselves under
government, is the preservation of property.
A century later, Edmund Burke, one of the great conservative
philosophers of the British tradition, wrote:
The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of
the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it,
and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society
itself. It makes our weakness subservient to our virtue; it
grafts benevolence even upon avarice.
In 1948 the Government of Canada signed the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which included the
protection of property rights. Appropriately John Humphrey, a
Canadian law professor who was working as a director of human
rights for the UN Secretariat, was a key drafter of the document.
Not only was the bill of rights passed in 1960 but the House of
Commons, through a motion passed in 1988 with the support of all
parties at that time, indicated its support for property rights.
Sadly the Liberal government saw fit in the last parliament to
trample over the spirit of that UN declaration, Mr. Diefenbaker's
legacy and his expressed will of the House through the Pearson
airport fiasco.
In 1993 the Liberals cancelled the much needed agreement to
privatize Pearson International Airport and nobody would dispute
a new government's ability or right to reverse the decision of
its predecessor. However, a new government has a mandate to take
different policy directions. The Liberals decided in this
instance that their decision would go one step further, that they
would remove the rights of Canadian companies from seeking fair
and just compensation from the government for cancelling the
Pearson agreement.
Bill C-68 which has been referenced by the member for
Yorkton-Melville is another example of where Canadian individual
property rights have been trampled. The Liberals have even
introduced legislation to do that. It is interesting to know,
however, that the Reform and Bloc caucuses in the last parliament
did very little to highlight what the Liberals were doing at that
time with respect to the Pearson airport debacle.
Thankfully members in the upper chamber, Progressive
Conservatives for the most part but with a few Liberals on side,
rose to defeat Bill C-22. For all the abuse that the Reform
Party inflicts upon the Senate it is paramount for Canadians to
realize that those individuals concerned about property rights in
the Senate did their job. They recognized that this was an
opportunity for them to protect the property rights of Canadians
where the Reform Party dropped the ball.
Perhaps the Reform Party in this instance should spend more time
working on property rights and less time having its taxpayer
funded staff engage in libelling and misrepresenting senators in
political campaigns.
I am nonetheless pleased to discuss Bill C-304 and protecting
property rights in this context. This is an appropriate forum
for us to do so. To cite the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker:
Bill C-304 would accord stronger protection for the freedom of
Canadians to enjoy their property. As mentioned by the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville, it would amend the Canadian bill of
rights to include protection for the following property rights:
the right to be paid for fair compensation, the right to have
that compensation fixed impartially, the right to have timely
compensation, and the right to apply to courts to attain justice
if they feel in any aspect that their property rights have been
denied or infringed upon.
Members will forgive me for highlighting the inconsistency in
the Reform member proposing that the courts already have the
authority or may be given more authority, given the fact that we
have seen in the House repeatedly Reform members stand to
criticize the judiciary.
Many Reformers have attacked our judges and our courts, have
referred to them as greedy little parasitic fraternities and have
proposed a U.S. style of justice as a remedy to Canadians' legal
problems. It is therefore refreshing to see the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville break from the rhetoric of his caucus
colleagues and propose that additional authority be granted to
our courts in this important area of protecting property rights.
1155
I express the support of the Progressive Conservative caucus for
this piece of legislation. We need to protect the freedom of
Canadians to enjoy their property to its full extent. We need to
ensure the government respects the property rights of Canadians.
We need to ensure there exists a due process through which
property is not seized without fair and just compensation and
that there is due process to make that determination.
Bill -304 meets those requirements. In light of that and in
light of the recent firearms legislation protest on the Hill and
other protests, we feel there is an existing trend with the
Liberal government abusing its authority. For those reasons we
feel there is a need for legislation such as that proposed by the
hon. member for Yorkton—Melville and we will be supporting the
bill.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. I may be found in
contempt if the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister
has her way in the idea that I intend to raise some bills that
have been passed previously. Bill C-4, the wheat board bill,
comes to mind and whatnot.
The legislative rules on property rights do not necessarily
protect the individual, which should surely be the intent of a
bill of rights. The intent should be to protect individuals from
legislative abuse by governments of the day. That is what
property rights and a bill of rights are all about. Governments
change from time to time and the protection of the individual is
paramount.
We can see this with regard to Canadian farmers who are still
being thrown in jail for selling their own grain. That is
probably a breach of their property rights. It is certainly
agreed upon out west where this is being done. The current rules
in the legislation certainly did not protect the province's
constitutional authority over property two weeks ago in Edmonton
when four provinces and two territories argued that the Firearms
Act infringed on their property rights and the rights of
individuals. The bill of rights and the charter certainly do not
protect the provinces. Here again it seems to be the government
of the day.
I will point out specifically so that everyone is very clear
what Bill C-304 is about. The member for Yorkton—Melville said
it clearly before but I will reiterate. Property rights are
natural, fundamental, and based on hundreds of years of common
law.
The government intentionally left property rights out of the
charter in 1982. This was to the detriment of each person's
democratic rights and economic freedoms. The bill would put
forward amendments that would specifically guarantee all people
have the right to the enjoyment of their property; the right not
to be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair
hearing; the right to be paid fair, timely and impartial
compensation; and the right to appeal to the courts if their
property rights have been infringed upon or denied. Every
person's property rights would be guaranteed in law in Canada
unless it is expressly declared that the act shall operate
notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights. That should clarify
precisely what Bill C-304 is about. Those are the words of the
member who proposed the bill.
I am concerned about the inconsistency between the government's
position on human rights outside Canada and its position at home.
We recently saw an active demonstration of this at the APEC
summit in Vancouver.
1200
Also in Canada we continue to have a lack of accountability
concerning basic human rights in our First Nations. This is
related in part to the lack of a fully democratic institution
that provides checks and balances between constituents and
elected chiefs and councils. For example, there is no effective
access to information legislation and labour legislation to
protect a reserve employee from arbitrary dismissal from a
position. These are basic democratic rights. They involve
property rights. These are things that all Canadians should be
entitled to in this country.
I speak in support of Bill C-304. This bill would begin to
correct the inconsistencies between international human rights
and practices at home.
Before we can ask for protection of property rights we must
define property ownership rights. Quite simply, I would define
property ownership as the right to transfer property, the right
to control how a property is used, the responsibility for the
benefits and the costs associated with the property, and the
right to compensation when property is taken by governments.
This is not a long definition. The vast majority of people
likely assume that when they own something they have these three
simple rights. Sadly, this is not the case. I only have to
look at grain farmers in western Canada, which is probably the
biggest example at the current time, to see that all Canadians do
not have these rights. Farmers produce wheat and barley, but
they do not have the right to transfer their property. They are
obligated by law to sell their produce to the Canadian Wheat
Board. It gets down to the very basics of human existence when
someone produces food and wants to trade with another person or
another country and they are not allowed to do so.
Similarly, producers of wheat and barley in western Canada do
not have control over their property. They must deliver their
produce to the Canadian Wheat Board when the Canadian Wheat Board
tells them to deliver. Most Canadians believe that they have the
right to accept higher risk in exchange for the possibility of
higher returns. This basic principle of a free democratic
economy is practised every day on the nation's stock exchanges in
commodities.
This bill is a move in the right direction toward protecting the
property rights of individuals in this country, as well as
supporting the very Constitution that protects the rights of
provinces to the property which is under their control.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to thank all of those who have
participated in this debate.
I have a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary for
justice. If what she was saying is true, why does the Canadian
Real Estate Association support my property rights bill? Second,
why did the Department of Justice say that there would be no
compensation for confiscation?
The minister's argument that “we won the election so we have
the right to run roughshod over the property rights of a certain
group” smacks of a dictatorial attitude. It is most
undemocratic and I object to the words that she used in this
House.
The parliamentary secretary should read Bill C-68 where it says
that, in the opinion of the governor in council, they can
prohibit any firearm. The Canadian Police Association called the
actions of this government unwise in the extreme. We ought to
listen to what the police say about Bill C-68.
Finally, while a remote possibility exists for judicial review
of a prohibition order, it would be virtually impossible for any
court to substitute its opinion for the opinion of their governor
in council, a few cabinet ministers. In fact, lawyers from the
Library of Parliament confirmed this when they wrote “The courts
would be loath to find that the governor in council acted in bad
faith”.
Even the standing committee on justice proposed an amendment to
section 117.15(2) of Bill C-68 to remove the words “in the
opinion of” and to keep the wording the same as it has been for
years, requiring an objective test of what constitutes firearms
that are commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes.
1205
I would like to emphasize this next statement. The justice
minister ignored her own committee, dominated by government
members, and rejected that amendment. Consequently, we have a
completely arbitrary prohibition power for the cabinet entrenched
in the Criminal Code of Canada; a power, I might add, that
completely bypasses parliament and cannot be appealed or
overturned by the courts.
I have a few more quotations. In 1903 Pope Pius X wrote to his
bishops, saying “The right of private property, the fruit of
labour or industry, or of concession or donation by others, is an
incontrovertible natural right; and everybody can dispose
reasonably of such property as he thinks fit”. That does not
exist in this country and that is a pity.
This quotation is from a recent ruling of the Alberta Court of
Appeal. Madam Justice Conrad said with regard to Bill C-68 “It
establishes an administrative process, with broad discretion
conferred on the administrative authority affecting property
rights. The discretion and broad right to regulate enables the
federal government to limit and control the property rights of
law-abiding citizens. It does not prohibit existing potentially
dangerous conduct, or conduct related to a serious risk of
harm”. That the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister
should claim this as a victory for the government rings very
hollow when we read that decision.
I would like to cite one final quotation from Ayn Rand, who
wrote in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: “The
concept of a right pertains only to action—specifically to
freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion,
coercion or interference by others. The right to life is the
source of all rights—and the right to property is their only
implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are
possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort,
the man who has not right to the product of his effort has no
means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others
dispose of his product, is a slave”. Let us listen to those
words.
This is a very serious matter. I fear we are taking it much too
lightly. My bill strengthens property rights in federal law. It
does not tie the hands of government.
Because Bill C-304 on property rights meets all the criteria for
making private members' bills votable, I would like to
respectfully request the unanimous consent of the House to make
this bill votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give unanimous consent
to make this bill votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not consent.
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the
government has denied that this be made votable, I would like to
make a second request for the unanimous consent of the House that
Bill C-304 be referred to the subcommittee on human rights for
further study.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent for the proposal that he has put forward?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not consent.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—PROPOSED SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): moved
That this House recognize the very harmful
effect of federal cuts to the Canada Social Transfer (CST),
particularly on health services in Canada, and that it support
the consensus achieved by the provincial Premiers in Saskatoon on
a project for social union, with the following main components:
—re-establishment of federal government contributions to health
care services by means of the CST for social programs;
—support from a majority of provinces before new federal
initiatives are introduced in areas of provincial jurisdiction;
—the right for a province to opt out, with full compensation, of
a new or modified Canada-wide federal government social program
in areas of provincial jurisdiction when the province offers a
program or introduces an initiative in the same field;
—new co-operation mechanisms in order to avoid conflicts or
settle them equitably.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, I want to let you know that our first 20
minutes will be split into two 10-minute sections. The remaining
interventions will be 20 minutes long.
1210
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, this
afternoon, we are debating a Bloc Quebecois motion about two
related issues. The motion first calls on the House to condemn
the massive cuts made by the federal government in the health
care sector, specifically since it took office three years ago.
Second, it calls on the House to recognize and support the
consensus achieved by the provinces in Saskatoon this summer on
the social union. I will have an opportunity later on to define
what is meant by social union, and what this summer's consensus
was about.
So, there are two goals. Why do we want to address what is
going on in the health sector today? Let us be very objective.
The figures speak volumes.
Let us go back to when the Liberal Party came to power in
1993-94—and my figures come from the review published by the
Department of Finance—and look at cash transfers to the
provinces, that is the money transferred by the federal
government to the provinces and on which the health,
post-secondary education and welfare systems essentially rely for
their funding. Total spending under these three programs, now
known as the Canada social transfer, was over $17 billion, $17.9
billion to be specific, when the government came to power. The
following year, provincial transfer payments dropped to $16.9
billion.
What are they this year? This year, cash transfers will be
$12.5 billion.
This is a drop of close to $6 billion. The provinces are
receiving a total of $6 billion less than they did four or five
years ago when this government took office. That is a big chunk
of money, and the effects are serious.
Canada's entire health care system is experiencing great
difficulty. It has been weakened, and provincial governments
have had to push ahead much more quickly with necessary reforms,
with the result that they are now facing problems in the
management of the health system.
But there is an underlying cause. The present government made
the decision to slash provincial transfer payments, knowing full
well that a very large portion of these payments was used to
fund health care.
For Quebec alone, this means an annual shortage of several
hundreds of millions of dollars that were meant to be
distributed to each of the province's regions to fund our health
care system.
There used to be someone here who would put it very well. I am
referring to the former leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party. During the last federal election campaign, he kept
reminding people wherever he went that the federal government
was primarily responsible for the cuts in the health care
sector. That gentleman changed his tune when he moved from the
federal to the provincial scene. People will pass judgment on
him when the time comes, but the fact remains that he did make
those comments at the time.
As far as I know, these views are shared by all the political
parties, which are condemning the devastating impact of these
cuts on our health care system. The provinces have decided to
form a united front against the federal government.
Now that this government has achieved its goal of a zero deficit
and is enjoying a surplus, it is very tempted to put money back
into certain areas deemed to be priorities by the public.
Unfortunately, it wants to do it alone, by implementing its own
initiatives, merely to increase its political visibility.
1215
It must be realized that the Canada social transfer, through
which transfer payments are made, was somewhat annoying to the
federal government, because there was no visibility associated
with the money being transferred.
What matters to the public is not visibility, but the program's
effectiveness which, simply put, means receiving the services
for which they are paying. The people who pay taxes to Ottawa
want that money to be returned to them. Of course, one may
wonder about the need to send money to Ottawa, only to get it
back afterwards. It would be better to send it directly to the
Quebec government and to get it directly.
We fully realize that the Canadian federal system likes a big,
huge bureaucracy.
There is a very sizeable health department in Ottawa, in an area
of jurisdiction that normally belongs to the provinces. This is
why the provinces decided on an agreement in Saskatoon.
What is there is this agreement on social union? Essentially,
there are four components The first one, which is in our
motion, is as follows: now that the federal government has
achieved its zero deficit objective, let it set as its primary
priority the re-injection of funds into the health system via the
Canada social transfer, which is already in place, using the
transfer payment mechanism that is already in place.
There is no need to launch initiatives, new programs, left and
right. What we are saying is that the priority is to service
what is already in place, a system with which everyone is
familiar, and that the provinces could promptly inject this
money into the system in order to enhance the reforms they have
put in place, and solidify the health system.
All the provinces are calling for this. There is unanimous
consent.
The second point is telling the federal government: before
launching any new initiatives left and right, before launching
any new initiatives relating to areas of provincial
jurisdiction, make sure there is support from a majority of
provinces. The provinces are very polite; they could have told
you to stay within your areas of jurisdiction. But they are
telling you, if you want to get involved in initiatives that
fall under provincial jurisdiction, to ensure a minimum of
co-ordination and to have the support of a majority of provinces.
The third point, linked to the second, is that if the provinces
want to opt out—that is, to administer these programs themselves,
because they already have all the infrastructures in place,
because a similar program already exists, because it already
addresses these priorities, and all they need to do is inject a
bit more money into it—they are saying: give us the right to opt
out with full financial compensation, provided we put the money
into the same already defined areas.
The last point: the provinces had the great wisdom to add a new
component, which is rather a thorn in the side of the federal
government, calling for new co-operation mechanisms in order to
avoid conflicts, and particularly to settle disputes, so that
Ottawa will not be the sole judge of whether or not priority is
being given to spending the money in the defined areas.
Obviously, Ottawa will always have its own interpretation of all
this.
Ottawa will say that the provinces fail to meet the criteria for
exercising their right to opt out. A mechanism should therefore
be put in place to settle such disputes, and to do so quickly
and more objectively than on the sole basis of the federal
government's assessment.
There seems to be a great deal of wisdom in this approach that
is supported by all the provinces. They are asking the federal
government to show some good faith. However, this request was
initially given a very cold welcome in Ottawa, starting with the
Prime Minister, who kindly advised his provincial colleagues
that, if they wanted to become the Prime Minister of Canada and
run the country, all they had to do was to get themselves
elected Prime Minister of Canada.
In his mind, he is in charge and makes decisions, and if they
are not happy, they should run against him in an election. One
was actually considering doing just that, so he got rid of him
by sending him to Quebec City.
Now, he is calling on the rest of them to do the exact opposite
he urged the leader of the Conservative Party. That is quite
odd. Eventually, his old Liberal guard in this place could even
stop supporting him. We shall see.
Second, the Prime minister took a strong stand in denying this
request, making people wonder how real his support is for
flexible federalism, for a system capable of adapting to the new
realities.
What the provinces are asking is that the health system in
Canada, in Quebec and all the Canadian provinces, be managed
more efficiently, that more money be poured into the system and
that each province be allowed to further its reforms.
Can anyone here object to that? One has to wonder about the real
intentions of the people across the way.
I am convinced however that, today, all parties—at least on
this side of the House—will support the key principles.
1220
There may be a few questions here and there on certain points,
and the provinces will have the opportunity to explain their
position in the process. But you will see that this approach,
reinvesting money in our health system and respecting the
provinces in what they do—and they do it pretty well with the
resources available to them—will find some level of support.
Hopefully a number of people on the government side will wake up
and put pressure on the Prime Minister. Hopefully some of them
will be a little more modern in their approach to the Canadian
system and will adapt to this reality.
This motion is not a votable item, but I hope many members rise
in this House today to express their support for the premiers'
initiatives and to say that it is high time the federal
government reinvested money in the health system, which needs it
badly, and recognized the damage it has caused over the last few
years. The drastic cuts that were made in the health system were
a mistake and they adversely affected the lives of many people
both in Quebec and in Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his remarks which I
listened to with great attention.
The issue we are debating is very important to us all. If we
believe that all Canadians from sea to sea, and Quebeckers,
deserve the same minimum standards of health care, do we not need
to have the federal government set some kind of standards or
parameters and enforce them in the provinces when it gives money
under the health and social transfers? How can we do it without
the federal government demanding something of the provinces?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it must be pointed
out that the Canada Health Act exists with its fundamental
principles. Nowhere in the agreement do the provinces question
that. We could ask ourselves whether the Canada Health Act is
properly worded, but this is not the purpose of the debate we
are having today.
Nobody has indicated a willingness to go against these
fundamental objectives. The premiers, in the first sentence of
the press release issued following their meeting in Saskatoon on
August 7, confirmed their resolve to maintain and improve the
universal health care system for all Canadians. That was the
first sentence of the premiers' press release. It seems to me
that there should be something in there to satisfy the member.
This being said, it is one thing for the Liberals to rise in
this House and say they want to protect the fundamental
principles of the Canada Health Act.
However, this borders on hypocrisy if the provinces are not
provided with the means to meet the criteria.
What good does it do if, in theory, you have some strong
legislation, but, in practice, you do not provide the means to
enforce it. I have absolutely no doubt that all of the
opposition parties will agree on this issue and that several
government members will share that vision or, at least, will
hopefully realize that, while they talk about setting standards,
they do not provide the money needed to meet those standards.
The best people to watch over the quality of our health care
system are not the hon. members of the Liberal Party, but the
citizens who, along with the various provinces, will put
pressure on the government and their local representatives who
are involved in the health care system.
The best watchdogs for our health care system will always be the
people and not some opportunistic politicians who do not put
their money where their mouth is.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take this opportunity to recognize the good work my hon.
colleague is doing on these issues.
On the subject of the framework agreement on social issues and
its enforcement, I wonder if he could tell me whether or not, in
his opinion, social realities in health, education and other
areas are closely linked to economic development, especially
since harmonious and efficient economic development makes social
support possible.
Would he not consider an economic and social framework agreement
an interesting proposal on the part of the government?
This might—and I am sure this will please his colleague, the
champion of social issues—result in liberalizing
interprovincial trade once and for all and in dramatically
improving this country's economic performance, because it all
starts with us.
As strange as it may sound, free trade agreements are being
signed just about everywhere except between Canadian provinces.
So, I think this could not only improve our social performance
but also address a major issue.
1225
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
pointing out in his preamble that what happened affected not
only health care but also education.
I could have made similar remarks about the education system,
where the government had the nerve to put forward an initiative
like the millennium scholarships, meddling in a provincial
jurisdiction, when Quebec's priorities might have been slightly
different from the federal government's, had the same amount
been available. But that is another debate.
I thank him anyway for pointing out that what is true for health
is also true for education and, I might add, for social
assistance.
As for an eventual framework agreement on economic development,
no one can be against that. I come from a border riding. Across
the lake from us is Ontario. For many of our businesses in
Quebec, it is easier to trade with the United States than with a
Canadian province. Standards and regulations governing
transportation for instance are often extremely complex. This
creates somewhat artificial trade barriers, which nevertheless
make some aspects of our system archaic.
The objective is good, but it is very difficult to reach an
agreement on an issue identified by all Canadians as a priority,
namely health care. This government is not very responsive.
Imagine what it would be like with interprovincial trade. In
this respect, I have greater confidence in the provinces and
their ability to come to an agreement among themselves than in
the federal government.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
address the motion introduced by the hon. member for
Témiscamingue.
My comments will deal primarily with the first part of the
motion, which reads:
That this House recognize the very harmful effect of federal
cuts to the Canada Social Transfer (CST), particularly on health
services in Canada—
Everyone knows the strategy applied by the Liberals to eliminate
the deficit. Year after year, the Minister of Finance
deliberately underestimated his revenues and overestimated the
costs of servicing the debt. This allowed him to slash social
programs, while underestimating the deficit by several billions
of dollars.
After that underhanded ploy, the federal government started a
war of flags with the provinces, to promote its visibility while
ignoring things such as the loss of efficiency, overlap, waste,
not to mention its own constitution and the primary interests of
the public.
Social transfers are at their lowest in 20 years. By the year
2003, cuts to cash transfers will total $42 billion. These cuts
have a major impact on our current health care system, in terms
of access to quality care.
Everyone now agrees that the massive cuts made by Ottawa to the
health care system are the primary cause of the very difficult
times that our system has been going through in recent years.
We are not the only ones saying that. I will quote some comments
made by a few groups, including members of the former National
Forum on Health, who are considered to be reasonable people by
politicians.
Let me begin with the Canadian Medical Association. It says that
the “cuts to federal transfers to the provinces for health and
social programs have been the main obstacle to access to quality
care for Canadians, and the reason for the most serious crisis
of confidence regarding our health care system since the
implementation of medicare, in the sixties”.
That comment by the Canadian Medical Association can be found in
a release published in La Presse, on September 22, 1998. The
association is asking that the amounts cut by the federal be
restored and indexed to take into account the cost increase for
new technologies and the fact that the population is aging.
1230
The Canadian Healthcare Association issued a press release on
August 5, 1998 that included the following statement:
[The federal government must] provide an immediate injection
of cash and an appropriate growth mechanism for the Canada
Health and Social Transfer to help meet the health needs of a
growing and ageing population [—]
Even the members of the former National Health Forum felt the
need to clarify their recommendations, and I quote:
We recommended that $12.5 billion be the floor, not the
ceiling. [—] The increase in transfer payments to the provinces
should strengthen the health care system and this money should
be invested where it has the greatest chance of producing
positive results.
In an article in the May 7, 1997 Journal de Québec, Jean Charest
blamed the Prime Minister for the cuts that have affected the
health care sector, and exonerated the Premier of Quebec. This
is what he said:
Mr. Bouchard, just like Messrs Harris, Filmon and Klein, has
been forced to contend with Ottawa's unilateral cuts.
He pointed out that, during the last three years, the Liberals
cut health and education transfers to the provinces and
territories by 35%.
He said this represented at least $6 billion.
So Mr. Charest was right: all the provinces are feeling the
effects of the federal government's cuts. Here are some of the
headlines from the rest of Canada.
On April 13, 1998, the CBC reported the following: “Manitobans
are travelling to Dakota to seek treatment in mobile hospitals
working out of tractor trailers along the American border. To
avoid the four-month wait in the public health care system,
Manitobans are paying $1,300 US ($2,000 CAN) out of their own
pockets for two MRIs, an amount that will not be reimbursed.”
On June 6, 1998, La Presse reported: “Military medical officers
are lending a hand in Newfoundland's overburdened emergency
departments. Thirty medical teams, made up of one physician and
one assistant, will be providing services in rural and urban
areas of the province starting in July. An agreement has
apparently been signed between the province and the federal
Department of Defence in order to compensate for the physician
shortage. Doctors are complaining they are insufficiently
paid”.
To quote a French CBC report from April 6, 1998: “The government
of Prince Edward Island will be calling on the private sector
for construction of a new hospital. According to the Minister
of Health, the project will not be possible unless there is
partial private-sector funding. She refused, however, to
disclose the amounts required”.
Another French CBC report, from February 25, 1998: “Anaesthetist
shortage in New Brunswick. The northeastern New Brunswick
hospital corporation is seeking a second anaesthetist for the
Acadian peninsula.
Hiring this specialist will enable the Tracadie-Sheila hospital
to provide day surgery, which the committee working to save the
hospital has been demanding for two years”.
According to another French CBC report on February 27, 1998:
“Edmonton hospitals have cancelled all non-emergency surgery.
Emergency rooms and intensive care units are at full capacity in
Edmonton, in large part because of the high number of cases of
flu. Some patients from the northern part of the province have
had to be taken to Calgary or to Saskatchewan”.
The present government is telling us the provinces do not know
how to administer their health care. I want to tell it that the
problem is not bad management by the provinces, but the huge
cuts in the Canada social transfer. All provinces have had to
review their health systems. Their reform was necessary.
1235
What is more, they had to do so under difficult conditions,
because the government cut the funds that would otherwise have
supported these health care reforms.
This is going on all over Canada, and not only in Quebec as some
would like to think. The health care system has been hit with
massive cuts by this government. Attributing all these problems
to bad decisions and poor management by the provinces is an act
of bad faith.
In Quebec, the health care reform was needed because the
preceding Liberal government had refused to do it for nine
years. The reform should have taken place before the PQ
government came to power, but the issue was a political hot
potato.
Mr. Bouchard had to implement measures to stabilize the system
and he did so under unacceptable conditions, as I mentioned a
few minutes ago.
I would like to go on and really describe the adverse effects on
the provinces, and Quebec especially, of the cuts to the health
system, but unfortunately I am short of time. I would like to
say to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Health that they should make amends and return to
the provinces the money they so massively cut.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to an earlier question the member for
Timiskaming—Cochrane said that health care should be in the
hands of citizens.
This is part of the problem as health care in the provinces is
not in the hands of citizens. It is administered mainly by
hospitals which are either charities or incorporated non-profit
organizations. As such, there is a very low level of
transparency among hospital organizations and in the
implementation of medical care across the country.
An hon. member: What is happening in Quebec?
Mr. John Bryden: I would like to put a question to the
member. We are taking this debate very seriously. I realize the
Conservatives cannot take a debate in the House seriously but I
think Bloc Quebecois members will listen to me.
There is a problem. It is not the provinces that are
mismanaging health. The problem is there are no good, on the
ground rules and standards of transparencies at the hospital
level. In my riding we know there are problems in the hospital
where there are real inefficiencies and money being misspent and
not enough money spent on services instead of administration.
Would the member for Drummond agree that some standard from the
federal government would be useful before the money is spent to
ensure that all the provinces manage health care through their
hospitals equally across the country?
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon.
colleague that every hospital has a board of directors. Regional
Health and Social Service Boards have one too. Citizens can tell
those boards and their administrators what their needs are.
Citizens are very well represented.
The federal government is using every excuse in the book not to
pay the provinces what is owed them. It is ironic that it
managed to find millions of dollars to improve its visibility,
fund its flag war, buy second-hand submarines and ram its
millennium scholarship fund down our throats, while lacking
political will. It has the arrogance to tell the provinces what
to do and force them to come begging on bended knee. In the long
run it is Canadians who are paying the price.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
earlier the member for Drummond mentioned the Canadian Medical
Association. I would like to know whether she agrees with the
CMA's proposal to earmark part of the CST for health care since,
as we know, it currently includes health care as well as
education and social assistance.
1240
Our friends in the Bloc Quebecois forgot to mention education,
but I am sure it is an area close to their hearts.
Would the member agree to an initial transfer payment formula
that would guarantee a certain amount for health services in
order to avoid the kind of situation she mentioned? And if so,
what percentage of the transfer would she like to see guaranteed
for health care?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I think it is very difficult to determine what portion
of the transfer payment should be earmarked for each province.
The federal government cut the cash portion of the Canada social
transfer to Quebec. It is extremely difficult to calculate which
portion goes to education, social assistance or health care. In
my speech today, I wanted to urge the federal government to
restore the $2 billion it savagely cut from the Canada social
transfer to Quebec. That is what I wanted to ask the federal
government.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for
recognizing me. I am very happy to rise today in the House to
tell you why I do not agree with the assumptions made in the Bloc
Quebecois' motion concerning the Canadian social union.
In fact, I am glad to have this opportunity today to explain to
our fellow citizens throughout Canada how the motion before us
is linked to previous federal-provincial-territorial discussions
where there are winners and losers and where everyone tries to
see where everybody else fits in.
With social union in Canada, there should only be winners, no
losers, and these winners should not be one level of government
or the other, but the people of Canada themselves.
In this respect, social union in Canada has made huge progress
which I would like to address.
But first, I want to talk a little bit about our public
finances, since the hon. member for Témiscamingue stated earlier
that Quebeckers would rather pay their taxes directly to the
province of Quebec which could, in turn, use this tax revenue to
support health services and education.
I want to point out to the hon. member for Témiscamingue that
the taxes Ottawa sends back to the province of Quebec are much
higher than the taxes collected in Quebec. For instance, with
only 25% of the population in Canada, the province of Quebec
gets 31% of the Canada social transfer.
As far as equalization goes, Quebeckers, who account for 25% of
Canada's population, receive 47% of the equalization budget,
which means $4 billion each year for the Quebec government to
spend as it pleases to make sure that Quebeckers have access to
quality services.
If Mr. Bouchard's government, whom the members opposite are
trying to defend, has chosen to make more cuts in health care
than in other areas, that is its problem, its responsibility,
and it will be accountable for that to the voters of Quebec. But
I do not like it when the members opposite use the House of
Commons to support Mr. Bouchard's campaign, saying that the
health care situation has absolutely nothing to do with
mismanagement by Quebec's health minister and by Mr. Bouchard's
government and with the bad choices they made.
In the area of manpower and active employment measures,
Quebeckers pay 23% of the employment insurance envelope but
receive 31% of the budget under the manpower agreement that we
have signed. It is another area where Quebeckers receive a lot
more than the federal taxes they pay.
1245
I will say a few words about the ice storm, which gave the
Canadian social union concept a very tangible meaning in our
cities and villages in Quebec. The government of Canada will pay
90% of the costs.
I know the funding we owe to the municipalities is being
withheld by the Quebec government. This subject comes up
constantly at Treasury Board. But I would like to say how useful
the Canadian social union is for Quebeckers, who receive a
substantial share of federal funds.
As the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, I benefit from the social
solidarity that we enjoy in Canada and I am very proud of that.
I want to tell members about five improvements that were
negotiated with the provinces in recent years, including the
national child benefit. The two levels of government in this
country wanted to do something about child poverty. This is why,
in the current three-year period, we will be allocating an
additional $1.7 billion to fight child poverty, through the
national child benefit system that was negotiated with the
provinces, which are partners of the federal government
regarding this initiative. This shows the flexibility displayed
by our government to renew Canadian federalism, while helping
solve the problem of child poverty.
The Quebec government will benefit from a budget increase of
$150 million to implement its family policy and day care
program, thanks to the increased flexibility provided by the
federal government's national child benefit.
The labour market agreements helped us settle an old dispute,
while the new Employment Insurance Act enabled us to better help
the unemployed get back to work. In the next five years, will
give to the Quebec government an annual amount of over $500
million to help its unemployed get back to work.
The Canadian social union is working very well, and I should
repeat that while Quebeckers make 23% of the total contributions
to the employment insurance fund, they get 31% of the budget
spent through active employment measures and training funds.
This means a net gain for our fellow Quebeckers.
We are pleased about this because this is what Canadian
solidarity and the Canadian social union are all about.
We also re-established the employment ministers forum so as to
work on, among other things, the matter of unemployment among
young people, which is dividing the country and hurting us. We
are determined to beat the problem of high unemployment among
the young. This is a priority of the labour ministers forum.
We meet regularly. This priority around our Youth Employment
Strategy and the provincial programs where we co-ordinate our
benefits much more effectively also represents significant
progress in the Canadian social union to the advantage of our
friends in Quebec, once again.
We also have a new employability assistance program for persons
with disabilities.
This employability assistance program replaces the former
occupational rehabilitation program for persons with
disabilities, a program that expanded from $168 million to $193
million.
And what about this assistance to help people with disabilities
readapt? It is a framework agreement, a broad and multilateral
one, that covers all of Canada, but within this agreement, we
have signed individual agreements with each of the provinces so
that the framework agreement applies differently within each of
the provinces, according to the priorities each has set.
This then is the state of the Canadian social union at the
moment. It represents real solidarity among Canadians. It is
totally flexible and attuned to the needs of each of the
provinces in Canada.
1250
Last year, we also considerably improved the student loans
system in Canada. The level of debt is very high in Canada, as
you know, and we took major steps in the latest budget to
improve the student loans system in Canada, a system that is
receiving greater funding. To improve our system of student
loans in Canada, we consulted with the provinces, the banks and
student associations. I think we came up with a student loan
system that will help to considerably reduce student debt.
We are modernizing the country and we are building real social
partnerships.
I would like today to thank all the provincial ministers I have
had the opportunity of working with in recent years. Together,
we have shown that, for children, for persons with disabilities
and for students across the country, the two levels of
government can rise above petty partisan squabbles and narrow
debates over jurisdictional issues. What all governments really
want in this country is to serve our fellow citizens so they may
have a bright future.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
began his speech with the old refrain. I have the feeling I
have been listening to the same tape for a number of years now.
It all sounds the same. He is even using the same figures, when
in fact things have changed.
One of the things the minister mentioned was fluctuations in the
EI fund. I would have liked him to tell us that, in Quebec's
case, the fluctuations are all on the positive side of the
ledger, with that province contributing $475 billion more than
it receives in EI. Quebec contributes to the EI surplus but the
government leaves it out of those programs where we receive more
than we pay. This is simply not right, and he knows it.
Quebec does indeed make a contribution, leaving us behind and
the federal government ahead, with our money to throw around as
it sees fit.
He cleverly avoided saying anything about the Saskatoon
consensus. Nowhere in his speech was there any reference to it.
Will he tell me which of the four principles in the motion
about the Saskatoon consensus is not worthy of implementation?
Which of the four components in the motion—which he probably has
in front of him—is he unable to approve and support? I would
dearly love to hear what he has to say about this.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Témiscamingue. I would invite him to carefully reread what
I said from my notes just now. What I said—and he says my
figures were wrong—is that Quebeckers contributed 23% of the
employment insurance fund and were the recipients of 31% of the
envelope in active measures.
What is extremely important is that these people, who are
constantly complaining of not having their fair share, receive
more than their share in several areas. The hon. member for
Témiscamingue did not mention the $4 billion Quebec receives in
equalization payments, close to $4 billion, which represents 47%
of the equalization payment budget. That is a sum Mr. Bouchard
could have invested in health or education, had he wanted to,
for those $4 billion are given by the Canadian government with
no conditions attached.
Last week, I followed the work on social union very closely,
because my colleague, the Minister of Justice, was there
representing the Government of Canada. I was very pleased that,
at the end of the day, this federal-provincial discussion ended
on an optimistic note.
1255
I am confident that we will manage to modernize the Canadian
social union for the benefit of Canadians. There has been
concrete progress at the sector tables to which I have referred,
namely improvement in measures against child poverty. The
national child benefit that was negotiated with the provinces in
a superb partnership.
We have a new employability program for the disabled, a
framework agreement but one that is renegotiated individually
with each province. I have already mentioned some of the
others.
The progress already made in each of these sectors encourages me
to believe that, where social union in general is concerned, we
definitely have an agreement that will serve our fellow
citizens, not to try to play one level of government against
another.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister
of Human Resources Development.
The first one is he mentioned that the federal government's
program is flexible and adaptable to the provinces. If that is
the case, why have both British Columbia and Alberta been fined
for being flexible in their programs?
My second question is he referred to his government as
modernizing the federation, a true partnership. My understanding
is that the Liberal government since taking office has cut
transfers to the provinces by 23%. True partnerships are 50:50.
He has reneged on his commitment of that partnership. When is he
going—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Minister of Human
Resources Development, a very short answer.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Madam Speaker, if the official
opposition had voted for the legislation, it would have helped
the House a great deal in proceeding the way that she wants to
go. But that is typical of Reform.
The flexibility I have described is absolutely remarkable. It is
absolutely the way we have applied it to every program that I
talked about. Whether we are talking about the national child
benefit or employment for disabled Canadians, these are national
frameworks which are adapted to the realities of each province.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it has been interesting listening to
the debate on the motion this morning. The motion is basically
in support of the provincial premiers and the provincial
governments that met in Saskatoon in drafting up the social union
and then coming to an agreement.
The debate seems to have narrowed down to wanting more money for
health care. I do not deny that is an important issue, however I
feel this is far greater than just a debate on whether or not we
get more money for health care. This is a debate on the future
of our country and the relationship between the federal and
provincial governments.
I suggest that the relationship we have had over the past 30
years has not worked very well. What we are looking for is a
relationship between the federal government and the provincial
governments that will be progressive, that will be futuristic and
that will work in the 21st century.
It was interesting to listen to my colleague across the floor,
the Minister for Human Resources Development talk about this
government modernizing and being progressive. I suggest that
just is not so. This government is dragging its feet. It is
looking at the old way of doing things, the old way of
domination. It is not looking at a new progressive partnership
with the provinces. It is incumbent upon the government to
listen to the debate today on how we are looking for a new
progressive partnership with the provinces.
The Liberals are not showing leadership. They are not showing
Canadians that they know what leadership is all about when they
refuse to accept the premiers' outreach in changing the
relationship between the federal and provincial governments so
that it will work better in the future.
1300
The Liberal government really should reconsider its opposition
to what is being proposed by the premiers. I find it amusing that
even the separatist party in the House of Commons, the Bloc,
seems to be doing more for national unity than the Liberal
government of the day.
I would like to introduce to the House some comments out of the
new Canada act which the Reform Party presented to the House in
the spring. This is an attempt by the Reform Party to deal with
some issues to modernize our government so it will be ready for
the 21st century. We suggested a few things and in Saskatoon the
premiers seemed to agree with our intent.
We suggested that there should be limits on federal government
spending power. The federal government should not just walk in
and take over provincial jurisdiction because it has money to
spend. We felt that the federal government should not be
financing new programs unless there is support from the
provinces. We used a figure of seven provinces having over 50%
of the population. The premiers have agreed to a lesser mark
than that. The premiers are being very generous in saying it just
needs the majority of the provinces.
We feel that any province that chooses not to participate should
receive a grant equal to the population of the province
multiplied by the per capita spending of the federal government
for that new program. The provinces have agreed to something even
more controlling and more definitive than that. The provinces are
being very generous in agreeing to this partnership with the
federal government.
We go on to mention other things in this resolution. We mention
a dispute resolution mechanism. We feel it is necessary to
establish the parameters of how a disagreement is going to be
handled up front before getting into that situation. Again we
are far more stringent in our presentation than the premiers. The
premiers have agreed to something that is more generous with the
federal government.
I find it very interesting that the premiers seem to be reaching
out. They seem to be willing to accommodate. The premiers are
willing to be flexible, to use the minister's word. I find no
flexibility in the federal government's approach. I find no
flexibility in this old way of doing business with the provinces,
this old concept that someone has to be in charge.
The government talks about partnerships. A partnership is when
people work together on an equal basis, respect each other's
authority under the constitution and respect each other's
position at the bargaining table. That is missing from the
federal government. It does not seem to be willing to be a true
partner.
My colleagues have talked about the cuts to transfer payments
and that is a fact. That is something the other side cannot
argue. It is a fact that in the last four years this government
cut 23% of transfers to the provinces.
I do not consider that to be a fair partnership. When the
federal government originally got into the Canada Health Act, a
fair partnership was an agreement of 50% funding. The federal
government said to the provinces “We want you to do this; we
agree to do this and we will fund you 50%”. Now the federal
government is only funding 23%.
Where is the commitment to that partnership, to that
relationship? I would suggest it does not exist. Because it
does not exist, because the federal government is fronting less
than a quarter, it has lost the moral right to place demands on
the provinces. The federal government has lost the moral right
to have the controls it insists on. The government has no moral
authority to be taking the leadership position when it is only a
minor shareholder in that partnership.
It is time for this government to take some leadership, to
recognize the fact that 10 provincial premiers met and discussed
this social union and lo and behold all 10 of them agreed. That
must have been a very momentous occasion, something we do not see
very often in this country. Ten premiers, 10 provinces agreeing
to look at the fundamentals of an agreement.
1305
Ten provinces have recognized the need to work together not for
power or control, but because that is the best way they see of
providing services to their people. Like all of us, they have to
seek election, seek the support of their electorate. They are
accountable to the electorate for their actions.
Ten premiers have reached a consensus and what do we have? A
federal government holding out and saying it does not care what
the 10 have agreed on. It is unbelievable what our Prime
Minister has said. To quote the Prime Minister, he said “If
they”—the premiers—“do not want to take what I am offering,
they take nothing”. For somebody who is negotiating and trying
to get a partnership working, that kind of an attitude does
nothing for co-operation.
The government has to change its attitude. It has to be more
willing to change the way it does business with the provinces. If
the federal government wants to show leadership to keep this
country together, in developing new meaningful partnerships with
the provinces not only on the social union but in other things as
well, it will have to have the attitude to make it work. If it
will not let it work and if it is going to turn its back on
something that 10 provinces have agreed to, I do not consider
that to be a partnership at all.
I would like to caution the Bloc members. I think that they are
using this as an attempt to show that Canadians will not support
them when the government, hopefully does not, but it looks like
it is not going to be co-operative. I caution the Bloc because
what I see here with the 10 premiers coming up with a consensus
is that the process does work within confederation.
The process of negotiating for the best for our citizens does
work. The problem is the players. The problem is people like
the Prime Minister and his cabinet and the people on that side of
the House who refuse to modernize their thinking and change the
way of doing things, of governing the country.
I would suggest to the Bloc that there is a process. Canadians
can work these things out within confederation. We can be equal
partners. We can respect each other's positions and it can
happen within Canada. We need to make sure that we have a
government on the other side that respects that position and is
willing to work within it.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member spoke repeatedly about partnership and
leadership. As I understand it what the 10 premiers agreed upon
was that they would take no leadership from the federal
government in the matter of how they would spend the social and
health transfers.
I would suggest to the member that surely as we do live in a
country that is an assemblage of provinces and territories we
should expect leadership from the national government and the
national government should demand to have representation in how
the national government's money is spent. Otherwise how will we
ever have high standards of health care that are universal across
the country?
Would the member at least consider allowing that the Government
of Canada should have a say in establishing standards of health
care all across the country?
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I think the member has
it all wrong. That is not at all what the provinces are saying.
The provinces are saying that in a partnership there has to be a
consensus as to where the money is going and that the federal
government has no business buying its way into provincial
jurisdictions. It has no business going into another social
program, another health program, without the approval and the
support of the majority of the provinces. That is a realistic
thing to ask of the federal government.
The provinces are not saying they do not want the federal
government involved and they will not let it determine where it
is going to spend, but talk to the provinces and get some
consensus at the provincial level so that they are on board. It
is this dictatorial way of coming in, spending the money and
telling the provinces where in their jurisdiction the money will
be spent that is the problem.
I will say that from my own experience, the provinces often have
a better idea of where that money should be spent than somebody
sitting here in Ottawa 3,000 miles away.
1310
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I suspect what we are really discussing here is a matter of
economics, that at some point, the federal government look—
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I sought to be recognized
by the Chair. The tradition in the House with respect to
questions and comments is that if a person from a party other
than the member who has spoken—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
not a point of order. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will
realize that you win some and you lose some.
It seems to me that this is a case of sheer economics. At some
point the federal government looked at its piggy bank and decided
it did not have enough money to pass on to the provinces. Its
own fiscal house was not in order. It was in serious trouble, in
debt and its budgets were not balanced.
There was no other recourse for the provinces. They knew they
had to get the money from some place. What the provinces then
have to do is tax the people even more with all kinds of
ingenious taxes, ones we have never heard of.
If this is a problem of economics and it is the federal
government that has caused this problem with its own fiscal
mismanagement, could my colleague make any suggestions how the
federal government could have taken care of this problem without
putting the burden on the provinces? Could the government here
in Ottawa have done something to change that?
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, this is more than an
economics problem. I appreciate what people are saying. Yes, the
government could have found the money by more carefully spending
it in other areas which took priority.
This is much more than an economics issue. This is a question
of respecting the jurisdictions that were given to the provinces
and the federal government under the British North America Act,
our original constitution. It is about respecting the foresight
of our Fathers of Confederation when they were trying to bring
all these entities together as a country.
If we go back to respecting that issue, it is about money but it
is about far more than money.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that it is timely that
we have the opportunity to debate the social union. A lot is
happening. There is the Saskatoon consensus of the premiers.
There are ongoing discussions between parties in this House with
respect to how we might come together, particularly the
opposition parties if it is possible to arrive at a working
position that we can advance together.
We are all reacting to a reality that has been imposed on the
Canadian public by the Liberal government. That is the massive
cuts to federal transfer payments to health and post-secondary
education which came in the form of the creation of the Canada
health and social transfer, the cover under which the federal
Liberals moved to do what they said they would never do and that
is to massively undermine medicare.
This is a great irony in the sense that the Liberals often want
to take credit for the creation of medicare. They do not tell us
that they first promised it in their platform of 1919 and did not
deliver it until 1966 when they were in a minority parliament
under pressure from the NDP. It took them that long to bring
medicare into being. It has only taken them a couple of years in
government, five years, since 1993, to almost completely destroy
medicare and create conditions in which the provinces now come
together to advocate a radically different way of dealing with
health care in this country with respect to the establishment of
national standards.
1315
Even though one is disinclined both individually and as a party
toward this kind of so-called decentralization, one almost has to
agree with them. As another member said, there is no moral high
ground left on that side of the House when it comes to the
federal authority to regulate health care. They have completely
abandoned their share of financing our health care system. Yet
they parade around like they are the great saviours of medicare
and like they have the moral high ground when it comes to health
care. They have no moral high ground at all. They are in the
gutter when it comes to this.
They are the ones, contrary to everything they ever promised,
contrary to everything they ever said, who have become the
architects of medicare's demise if the country, other political
parties, the provinces and all of us together cannot act in some
way to wake up these people as to what is happening in our
hospitals.
Across the country people are not getting the kinds of services
they need. People are having to wait longer for surgery and for
diagnostic services. There are all kinds of horror stories,
anecdotal but nevertheless persuasive and convincing, because the
federal government is not exactly funding a study to see how its
cuts have affected health care and post-secondary education.
We certainly agree with that element of the motion which
condemns the government for its cutbacks in transfer payments to
the provinces. We condemn the Prime Minister for rejecting out
of hand the work the premiers have done. He does not have to
agree completely with the premiers, but he does not have to be so
cryptic and so dismissive.
He could say yes, very interesting; some good ideas there; let
us have a look at them. Instead we get the same kind of
arrogance from across the way that we see with respect to APEC
and numerous other examples that the Prime Minister has provided
for us in recent years.
The motion also talks about support from a majority of provinces
before new federal initiatives are introduced in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. This is very general language. I have
to say I am not completely comfortable with it in the sense that
we would not have had medicare if we had to wait for a majority
of provinces to agree because a majority of provinces did not
agree.
I am very leery about this kind of language. I would like to
know more about what it means before I would certainly agree
either personally or on behalf of my party and caucus as the
intergovernmental affairs critic. I will read from the motion:
the right for a province to opt out, with full compensation, of a
new or modified Canada-wide federal government social program in
areas of provincial jurisdiction when the province offers a
program or introduces an initiative in the same field.
My concern is that this actually goes beyond Meech and beyond
Charlottetown because it says “new or modified”. In Meech and
Charlottetown it talked about new programs. My concern is about
the introduction of the word “modified” Canada wide program.
It seems to me that some people might want to argue that if any
changes were made to the Canada Health Act or to medicare this
would be a modified program and that this might create the
conditions under which some provinces could argue that they would
be able to opt out of medicare. I would certainly be against
that. I am sure all my colleagues share my concerns about that.
There is some tricky language here. I am not sure exactly what
it means, but it certainly goes beyond other proposals which have
created a lot of concern in the country in the past. I think
this language, new or modified programs, would certainly create
those concerns again and perhaps in an even more significant way.
I am not surprised that my colleague from the Reform Party does
not seem to be as worried about the language as I am. Frankly I
think they would like to see medicare broken up into 10 different
systems with very little, if any, national participation
whatsoever. The motion continues:
We would have been much happier with this aspect of the motion
if it had intimated or, even better, said that we are talking
about new ways to set and to enforce national standards.
1320
Given the total lack of moral high ground on the other side and
given the diminishing participation of the federal government, I
would agree that there may be a case now for the provinces having
more say, in conjunction with the federal government, in mutually
defining what national standards would be when it came to health
care, when it came to medicare, and how those are to be enforced.
However that is not what this says. It may be that the hon.
member for Témiscamingue was being deliberately general in this
in order to have a more broadly based discussion. If that is the
case then that was an admirable goal, but if it was a deliberate
attempt not to talk about national standards then this would be a
matter of concern for us.
As someone who has argued in the past for the ability of the
federal government to set standards, to enforce the five
principles of medicare and to punish provinces for not adhering
to them, I find it very difficult in this context, not in theory,
to continue to defend that position when the Liberals have cut so
much from federal contributions to health care. It becomes a
weaker and weaker argument every time they do that, and I regret
that very much. I wish they regretted it and I wish they would
put more money back into health care, recover the high ground and
be able to say with some confidence and some authority that they
want to have a strong voice in the setting of national standards.
Another concern that needs to be expressed in any debate about
the social union is the ongoing concerns of the aboriginal
community with respect to how the development of any social union
might impinge upon its relationship with the federal government
which it sees as having, and rightly so, a fiduciary
responsibility or relationship that it feels would be undermined
by a social union which did not take account of that in some
particular way. I see nothing in the motion that reflects that
particular concern either.
For all these reasons I think the debate should continue about
the social union. I think there is opportunity here for
Canadians to work together. The premiers have already
demonstrated this. The opposition parties are working together
on this to some degree. I think it is time for the federal
government to realistically engage in this debate instead of just
posturing as the great defenders of medicare and acting as if the
rest of us are all just beyond the pale.
It is not so. These people are culpable in many respects for
the current situation. They need to face up to that reality and
to deal with all Canadians in answering the question of how we
can improve our health care system and how we can maintain it in
such a way that Canadians have access to the same quality of
service no matter where they live in the country.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona is an experienced
member of the House. He will remember, particularly during the
Mulroney years, that the federal government transferred a large
proportion of tax points to the provinces for social spending.
I would suggest to the hon. member that this has seriously
eroded the ability of the federal government to intervene in the
delivery of health care and social spending by the provinces. At
the rate we are going with the transfer of actual tax points, the
that federal government would have little to say in this entire
debate would be quite academic.
Would the hon. member support a return of those tax points? If
after due debate the House decided that we wanted to reverse the
process of giving provinces absolute control over federal money,
how they would spend it in social spending, and turn the calendar
back so that the federal government had more power and could
intervene in setting standards and play a more active role than
appears to be the case now, would the member support that?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
The fact is that tax points were part of the federal-provincial
fiscal relationship long before the Mulroney government. It
would be quite wrong to suggest that somehow this was a new
development, something that developed after the Conservative
government in 1984.
If the member wants to go back, maybe he should go back to the
first unilateral cutback in federal transfer payments to the
provinces which was done by a Liberal government under Allan
MacEachen in 1982.
That was the beginning of the problem we have now.
1325
In 1977 we had an agreement that set up block funding which was
different from the 50:50 arrangement that existed from the time
of the creation of medicare. There were people who warned then,
notably the NDP, that the creation of this block funding would
eventually lead to the erosion of medicare and the erosion of the
ability of federal government to maintain and enforce national
standards.
The creation of the block funding led to a crisis in the late
1970s and early 1980s which led to the Canada Health Act. Tax
points are part of the equation. Our position would be that
there needs to be a strong and much more significant than we have
now cash portion of the federal transfer payment, so much so that
it would give the federal government the ability to speak with
some moral authority when it came to the maintenance of national
standards.
I am sorry but they just do not have it any more. They gave it
away as a result of successive cutbacks to the CHST.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for sharing his concerns about the social union.
I am sure we will have an opportunity in the coming weeks to
address some of his concerns, particularly those regarding
aboriginal peoples.
On the subject of compliance with the Canada Health Act, we will
let the provinces speak for themselves. However, the provinces
have been saying all along that they want to maintain a
universal health care system, which should alleviate the
member's concerns as to how the health system would be managed
if they were to become more actively involved than they are now
in its management.
I am sure we agree on the need to put new money into health
care. I would like to know if the member thinks the priority to
put new money into the health system is best met through the
current Canada Health and Social Transfer or if he supports the
federal government's plan to initiate new programs on its own.
For instance, if $2 billion were to be invested in health care
next year, should it go into the existing Canada Health and
Social Transfer or into some new initiative unilaterally put in
place by the federal government? I would like to hear him on how
new money should be invested in health care.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to any
decision by the federal government to inject new money into the
health care, it should be done by restoring cuts. That by
definition would be money that would go to the provinces.
Unless the government is to put billions and billions of dollars
back into the system, I would not regard anything as new money.
I would regard it as money that never should have been taken away
that is being given back.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today on an issue that members of the
Progressive Conservative Party know well. We are talking about
the social union, but we used to call it the Canadian pact.
This, of course, was part of our 1997 election platform. If I
have enough time, I will be pleased to indicate to the House the
similarities that exist between the two.
Some members pointed out earlier the advantage for the provinces
to have worked together and reached an agreement. That is the
positive side. It was the same for the Calgary declaration. It
was a small starting point. The provinces and territories are
doing the work. Why? Because Liberals are not doing their job.
The success achieved by the provinces in the social union is
linked to a lack of leadership from the government. It is a
causality link. Liberals are not doing their job, so the
provinces are doing it for them.
The Liberal government should show much more inclination and
willingness to greet positively what is happening in the
provinces.
The message that we want to send, both to Quebec and to the rest
of the country, is that, if there are problems in
federal-provincial relations, it is not necessarily because of
the provinces. Perhaps we should look at the other side of the
House, where the Liberals are sitting. But there is hope if the
provinces are able to talk to each other. That is the
interesting thing.
The other point I would like to make—and I did so earlier
in a question I asked this morning—is that the social
union is not only a health issue, but also an education and a
social assistance issue. It is not only a money issue.
1330
The idea behind social union is not only to say that we want
six, seven or eight billion dollars more. It is a way of putting
in place a new and effective system of federal-provincial
relations. We must see beyond money and health issues, even
though they are also very important. The health issue was raised
this morning by my colleagues from the Bloc. I share their view.
Education also is important.
So, what we are saying is that social union must go a little
further, but, as I indicated, I will talk about that later.
I would like to talk to the motion put today by my colleague
from Témiscamingue. Of course, it talks about money.
The provincial ministers of finance proposed many solutions
involving cash and tax points over three, four or five years.
These are all very interesting solutions provided that the
so-called team captain, in this case the Prime Minister, agrees
to co-operate. But that co-operation is not there at the moment.
The deadline for the social union is December 31. Madam Speaker,
I do not know the state of your personal finances, but if you
have money, do not bet on that, unless the federal government
decides to be more open. The social union project appears to be
in jeopardy. Can we already talk about failure? No, because the
very fact that the provinces and territories reached an
agreement is a great success. But since the federal government
is not there, that achievement seems likely to be turned into a
failure, unfortunately.
Now, I would like to come back to the social issue, more
specifically to the circumstances leading to the need for more
money.
But there is the principle of clarifying federal-provincial
relations.
I would like to talk about the points made in the motion
presented by my colleague from the Bloc. Restoring the level of
contributions is a question of money, of course, and it is
important. I agree with 98% of the Bloc's arguments, which says
it is Ottawa's fault. In effect, Ottawa is the one behind it
all. But I disagree—and I rate this at 2%—with its arguments
because the Quebec government is doing to municipalities what
the federal government is doing to the provinces. I know, I was
a mayor long enough. So, it is sometimes neither black nor
white, but grey.
What is interesting, though, is the support of a majority of
provinces before initiating new federal incursions into sectors
under provincial jurisdiction. It is fantastic. But what could
first be clarified is what is neither under federal nor
provincial jurisdiction. It is said that health care falls under
provincial jurisdiction.
That is all fine and good, but how many hundreds of millions of
dollars in health research are funded by the federal government?
The tens and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the
federal government in research seem to be accepted by Quebec and
the other provinces. And what about the granting councils? Do
they come under federal or provincial jurisdiction?
We must sit down and look at all areas of jurisdiction, and not
necessarily make constitutional changes—we have not reached
that point yet—but maybe establish correctly the different
areas of jurisdiction and, after that, look at how we can manage
them for the benefit of Quebeckers and Canadians.
So, it is important to clarify the areas of jurisdiction,
because some people always consider our country as being upside
down or the other way around.
Maybe we should liken this country to a tree, with the roots
meaning we are all working toward a common goal, and the leaves
representing the whole population. Maybe that is how we should
look at it. The federal government and the provinces alike want
to be at the top of the pyramid, to have jurisdiction over it.
But ultimately, the most important in all this is the population
we are here to serve.
As I said earlier, there is also the provincial right to opt out
with full compensation. I am not sure we really understand what
it actually means. Opting out means you take your money and
leave. But it seems now that it is not quite that simple. You
take the money, but you somehow have to spend it in the same
jurisdiction and to work toward the same goals.
This is not really opting out, except administratively. If we
really want what the Progressive Conservative Party calls a
Canadian pact and the provinces call social union, there cannot
be any opting-out, because we have to agree on certain rules or
standards.
1335
My NDP colleague raised concerns about the national standards to
be set by the federal government. That is not our position. We
are suggesting instead a Canadian pact office with federal and
provincial representatives who are going to first set and then
implement the national standards.
When we have standards, if for some reason a province should
decide to opt out, it should still abide by the standards of the
Canadian pact or social union.
Some real progress has been made and I congratulate the people
and premier of Quebec on this. This is not the same concept of
opting out we had back in the 1970s or the 1980s.
It is a right to opt out because some things, some programs have
been put forward. This will be done in the same spirit, except
that we might like to manage things. And why not, since the
provinces have often shown they can manage things better than
the federal government. I do not have a problem with that.
It must be well understood that we are saying that, if we agree
on the rules, the standards, the basics relating to the Canadian
pact or social union, we cannot have a right to opt out, pure
and simple. Should it be an administrative opting out? Sure, why
not, as long as we abide by the rules. It is nonetheless
important.
It is so important that if we do not have that, we cannot have a
dispute settlement mechanism. How can we have a dispute
settlement mechanism without agreeing on the main points?
What we are proposing is a Canadian pact office which, once it
has decided how it should work, and decided of course on the
funding, will set the rules so we can settle any potential
problems. Of course we do not like conflicts. That is why we
need well established rules.
If a province chooses to opt out, or if a province that opted in
mismanages a program, there will be enforcement mechanisms with
teeth—not only a slap on the wrist.
Some people seem to have a problem with that. I apologize for
talking about Quebec in particular, but I feel it is important.
Even though any analogy is lame, may I remind the House that,
when the free trade agreements were negotiated, a dispute
settlement mechanism was put in place. Everybody agrees on this.
If we have an agreement on social union, what we call a Canadian
pact, it is normal to have a dispute settlement process inasmuch
as we agree on the terms of this social union.
In conclusion, I would like to stress the fact that the
provinces must persevere. If I am not mistaken, the next meeting
will be held in Winnipeg two weeks from now. I hope the Minister
of Justice will be more voluble. Of course, she had to
understand what was going on at the provincial level. Perhaps
this proves once again that there is a dichotomy between what
goes on here in Ottawa and the reality.
I say to the provinces that they should persevere and resist
temptation, and I ask the federal government to start showing
more leadership.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
debate on the social union initiated this morning by the Bloc
Quebecois is taking place against the backdrop of an economic
downturn, which makes it all the more urgent to adopt a series
of measures to reinvest in the economy the money accumulated at
the expense of everyone but the Minister of Finance to stimulate
economic growth.
We have suggested, and we are doing it again in this debate,
that an increase in the social transfer could, in part, serve
that purpose, particularly to finance social security,
post-secondary education and, of course, health.
Since mid-August, the Bloc Quebecois has been warning the federal
government that a major economic downturn and even a recession
could be expected in the next few months.
In August, we could already see some signs of this, since the
growth in the GDP had been slowing down for three consecutive
months, that is in April, May and June.
1340
Last Thursday, Statistics Canada announced a decrease in the
growth of the GDP for the fourth month in a row, which means
that, according to the figures registered or estimated by
Statistics Canada, the Canadian economy lost over $5 billion in
the last four months, which means about $200 per person in
Canada. In four months, due to negative growth, $200 from our
pockets were completely squandered.
Two more months of economic downturn will usher in a full
recession. Six months in a row of reduced growth of the GDP is
the very definition of a recession.
Two major factors explain the downturn in the economy we have
been seeing in the past four months. First, there is the Asian
crisis which is exacerbated by the crisis in the former
countries of the Soviet Union, mainly Russia. Those two crisis
combined have resulted in an increase in uncertainty all over
the world, in a decrease in the value of our exports of raw
materials, especially to Southeast Asia, which in turn resulted
in a decrease in the demand for the Canadian dollar and
therefore a fall in the value of our currency.
In the face of this world uncertainty, speculators have turned
to what are called safe havens, in particular the U.S. dollar
which they have bought in large quantities. They shied away from
the Canadian dollar, thus accentuating the downward pressure on
our currency.
Everywhere, the consequences of this crisis have been enormous.
The fall of the Canadian dollar may be profitable in the short
term for the tourism industry, for example, but it is not
profitable in the long run in the high tech sector, in
particular in those sectors where inputs have to be bought in
the United States, in those sectors where high tech electronic
equipment must be bought at higher prices. Since Canadian
business must pay more for this equipment, we become less
competitive at a time where we are already facing an economic
downturn not only nationally, not only in Quebec and in Canada,
but also internationally.
The second factor responsible for the decrease in Canada's GDP
is the federal government.
For several years we have been telling the government that it
cannot make deep cuts in social programs, such as health care,
post-secondary education and welfare, and in transfers to the
provinces in general, help itself to the employment insurance
fund surplus and maintain artificially high taxes without
causing an economic slowdown.
In four years of Liberal government, taxes going into the
federal treasury increased by $37 billion. Individual taxpayers
had to pay $20 billion more in federal taxes, and businesses had
to pay $17 billion more.
These $37 billion taken out of the economy inevitably
contributed to the economic downturn.
The artificially high employment insurance premium rates are
just another tax in disguise, adding to the tax burden of
businesses. In a situation where the economy is slowing down and
where the cost of buying foreign goods has increased because of
our falling Canadian dollar, now is not the time to maintain
premium rates at the current high level.
The government is responsible for the economic downturn because
it has failed to substantially reduce EI premiums and because it
has chosen to maintain high taxes.
It is also responsible because of the billions of dollars it
took away from the unemployed two years ago with its employment
insurance reform.
The government cannot continue taking more money from taxpayers.
It cannot maintain all kinds of taxes in disguise, such as EI
premiums for employers, and think the economy will keep on
going.
Moreover, the debt reduction policy is also partly responsible
for the low Canadian dollar and for the harmful effects of its
fall.
1345
Taking a lot of money, billions and billions of dollars, to pay
back part of the debt, can look good. That is what the Prime
Minister bragged about last summer. In 15 months, the federal
government used $20 billion, which amounts to the surplus found
in the employment insurance fund, because the premium rates are
too high, or to one and a half times the health budget. They
used $20 billion to pay back part of the debt.
What impact did this $20 billion payment have on the Canadian
and world markets?
It flooded the money market with new Canadian dollars, which
reduced the value of the loonie. That is what this federal
policy did.
To understand the situation, one has to know who the Canadian
debtholders are. In Canada, 25% of debt securities, bonds, etc.
issued by the federal government are held by foreigners, almost
half of whom are American. What did these people do when we
bought back our securities, as the Minister of Finance did? What
did they do? They exchanged their new Canadian dollars for US
dollars, because they are Americans, and by doing so they
flooded the Canadian money market with new Canadian dollars,
which, in turn, decreased the value of the loonie.
The other debtholders are chartered banks, pension funds,
insurance funds. These people were looking, especially last
summer, for the best return possible and for less uncertainty.
What did they do when the federal government bought back their
securities in Canadian dollars? They took the money and either
exchanged it for US dollars, which is a sure bet in these times
of uncertainty and crisis in Asia, or bought shares in American
companies or US bonds, which is a better investment in these
turbulent times throughout the world.
The Minister of Finance, who asked the Bank of Canada to step
in, especially in August, to support the Canadian dollar, was
himself responsible for the precipitous drop of the Canadian
dollar and for all its impacts on the competitiveness and on
consumer confidence.
The monetary policy and the interest rate policy of the Bank of
Canada are the third reason that makes the federal government
responsible in part for the economic downturn and, indeed, for
the recession that could happen next year if the data continue
to show the same sluggishness observed during the first four
months.
While we learned, last August, that the GDP had fallen for three
months in a row and that other indicators hinted to a major
economic slowdown, the Bank of Canada decided to raise its
interest rates by 100 basis points or 1%.
This 1% raise may seem insignificant, but when there is already
an economic downturn, one can deal a death blow to the economy
simply with a 1% shock on the monetary market, through an
increase in the interest rates.
When the Bank of Canada did that, which was very stupid, the
Minister of Finance said that he still trusted the governor of
the Bank of Canada, even though the latter is stopping—and I
would even say throttling—economic growth in Canada. Gordon
Thiessen, the governor of the Bank of Canada, not only made a
mistake when he raised the interest rates by 1%, but recently he
also sent contradictory signals.
Last Thursday, when the US Federal Reserve Bank lowered its
interest rates by 20 base points—it could do so because large
economies like those of Germany and the United States must lower
their interest rates—the Bank of Canada followed suit in exactly
the same proportions. That was nonsense. The Bank of Canada
should have done nothing.
That is precisely what is being asked of the governor of the
Bank of Canada: to stay put and do nothing. He should lock
himself in his office, and think up more intelligent measures
than the ones he is taking to stimulate Canadian economic
growth.
Why be stubborn, like the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister who, all summer long, made light of the fall of the
Canadian dollar, and even of the economic downturn?
1350
On the contrary, he should admit there is a downturn, that all
the experts now agree with the Bloc Quebecois who raised the
alarm the very first week of the financial crisis. All the
experts are now saying there is no sign that next month or the
following one—I am still talking about economic statistics—things
will pick up. As I mentioned before, we are talking about the
first four months of the current fiscal year, or April, May,
June, and July. In August and September, unless one is as
short-sighted as the Minister of Finance, the economy did not do
better.
In August, the Canadian dollar dived to an all-time low.
Businesses were beginning to complain about the increasing costs
of American equipment and high technology as a result of the
decline in the value of the Canadian dollar. If there was an
economic slowdown in April, May, June and July, we should expect
the same in August and September. We will then have, according
to the technical definition, a recession.
For the last month and a half, we have been asking the finance
minister to use if not all, at least most of the actual surplus
to promote economic growth instead of using the entire amount to
repay part of the debt—we are not against repayment of the debt
but it makes no sense in the current climate of economic
uncertainty.
We are not asking him to spend money recklessly as the Liberal
government used to do in the old days.
I remind you that the current Prime Minister was once the
Minister of Finance and that he was responsible for one of the
largest deficits in Canada, back in the days when the federal
government used to run deficits. We are not asking him to fall
back into the same bad habits. Neither are we asking the
Minister of Finance to repeat his Prime Minister's old mistakes.
Since the budget surplus will reach between $12 billion and $15
billion by March 1999, we are simply asking him to take these
funds and announce imminent tax reductions and measures that
will boost the economy and restore the confidence of consumers,
which is now badly eroded.
What is the greatest threat? It is that in a few months
consumers, whose savings are unusually low right now, facing
uncertainty, a falling dollar, and the do-nothing attitude of the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, will decide not to
spend, to postpone all their purchases. As I said, with their
unusually low savings, they are quite likely to postpone their
purchases, and that will be the end. As early as 1999, we will
be in a recession, and it will be because of the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Finance, who did not take seriously the
early signs of a major slowdown in the economy in the last four
months. They did not listen to the Bloc Quebecois which, for a
month and a half, has been mapping a plan for government action.
What could the government do to stimulate the economy?
We are asking for three things. First, implement a series of
fiscal measures within a special budget. These measures would
include, among other things, a substantial tax break for middle
income earners.
We are also advocating a reduction of EI premiums to help
employers go through the economic slowdown and help middle
income earners who are likely to spend the extra money made
available through income tax cuts and premium reductions,
thereby stimulating the economy.
And on the heels of the debate on the Canadian social union, we
also ask for an immediate increase in social transfers to the
provinces. Spending on social programs can also result in
economic growth.
Then we are asking the government—this is our second demand—to
ask the Bank of Canada to stop making erratic decisions and
creating shock waves in the economy. Nobody knows where the Bank
of Canada is going anymore. Gordon Thiessen told us “We are
independent from the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank”. This does not
hold true anymore. Last Thursday, when the Federal Reserve Bank
lowered its basic rate by 25 basis points, Gordon Thiessen
blindly followed suit, something he should not have done.
1355
A better way to manage the monetary policy would have been to
wait and see. His 1% rate increase at the end of August has hurt
the economy, but what is hurting the economy even more is that
we do not know where he is heading. He has put us in an
uncertain situation. He is putting the financial markets in a
situation where we expect the worst. Things may not be at their
worst, but they could certainly be better. We in Canada are just
keeping our heads above water.
Gordon Thiessen should keep quiet and lock himself up as I was
saying earlier. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could reconsider
Mr. Thiessen's future, for he is the one responsible for our
greatly reduced options in terms of monetary policy and interest
rate management policy.
Our third request to the government in this economic slowdown
scenario is to hold a full public debate on the best way to
spend the budget surpluses derived from employer and employee
contributions to the employment insurance fund, from the
substantial tax increases imposed on middle income Canadians in
the last four years, and from cutbacks in transfers to the
provinces.
There should be a public debate on these issues as well as on
debt management. Why is it important to talk about debt
management? Because the government is lying through its teeth.
In the latest budget, at page 58, in table 1.13, we read:
This is a reserve to provide for the unforeseen. It amounts to
$3 billion a year. What the Minister of Finance said in his
budget is that if this reserve were not used in the three years,
it would simply go to repay the debt.
If we calculate—and we are able to do calculations—$3 billion
this year, $3 billion next year and $3 billion in two years add
up to $9 billion in three years that the Minister of Finance had
promised to apply to the debt.
He applied $20 billion in 15 months totally contrary to the
promises in his budget and the electoral promises made, whereby
50% of the surplus would go to repay the debt and 50% to
reducing taxes and increasing social transfers, especially to
support health.
The government has yet again reneged on its promises, as it did
with its shamefaced lies over the GST. This is why we have to
have a public debate. There is nothing but a wad of lies
between what they write, what they do and what they say.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TEACHERS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is world teachers day. Around the globe we are paying
tribute to those who educate our children and who at one point
educated us. I take this opportunity on behalf of all Canadians
and especially my constituents of Waterloo—Wellington to thank
the teachers of Canada and the world for their hard work and
dedication. As a former high school teacher, I realize the
profession is being constantly scrutinized by many people. I
also realize it is becoming more and more difficult to do the job
efficiently.
It is for these reasons that I would like to thank the teachers
for sticking by today's youth and I would like to commend them on
their strength and courage in this area. Our youth is the future
and it is with teachers' help that our young men and women will
be able to continue in our footsteps and proceed beyond our
accomplishments. Once again, I thank teachers everywhere in
Canada.
* * *
1400
TOUR DE ROCK
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday, October 2, the Tour de Rock was in Saanich—Gulf
Islands as their long ride neared an end.
Tour de Rock was the 1998 Cops for Cancer Campaign. Fifteen
Vancouver Island law enforcement officers undertook a 1,000
kilometre bike ride from Port Hardy to Victoria, raising
awareness for childhood cancer research. Along the way more
than $260,000 was raised in support of this worthy cause.
I applaud these individuals, who endured a gruelling physical
test over the past two weeks, braving poor weather in the coastal
mountains in pursuit of their goal.
Every day police officers put their lives on the line in the
service of their communities. Often these efforts go unnoticed.
Congratulations to the Tour de Rock as an example to us all.
Their hard work is an inspiration in the fight against cancer.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TEACHERS DAY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, UNESCO has designated October 5 World Teachers Day, in
order to make people aware of the vital role played by teachers,
who dedicate their lives to educating our children.
Throughout Canada, many organizations representing teachers,
local associations and schools have planned specific activities
to mark this special day.
[English]
Teachers today are confronted with some of the greatest
challenges they have ever faced. In a world of rapid social and
economic change brought about by new information technology and
globalization, in a world of wealth for some and excruciating
poverty for millions of others, education is our hope for the
future.
[Translation]
As the vanguard of the education sector, teachers play a
remarkable role in preparing and training future generations.
[English]
Education is an investment in the future of individuals and
societies.
[Translation]
I wish to commend teachers for their valuable work.
* * *
[English]
CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the years millions of Canadians have used Canada Savings Bonds to
build a more secure future for themselves and their families.
Today marks the first day of sales for the new Canada Savings
Bonds.
[Translation]
Many Canadians are currently filling out application forms to
buy the new Canada Savings Bonds. In so doing, they are joining
the more than 7 million Canadians who already own such bonds.
[English]
This year's Canada premium bond offers a higher interest rate
compared to the original Canada Savings Bond.
[Translation]
For the first time in over 50 years, Canadians will be allowed
to buy Canada Savings Bonds and Canada premium bonds over a
six-month period, from October 5, 1998 to April 1, 1999.
I invite all members of this House to follow my example and take
this opportunity to invest not only in their future, but also in
the future of our great country.
* * *
[English]
IRELAND
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
president of the Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Friendship
Group, it is my pleasure to welcome the President of Ireland,
Mary McAleese, and Dr. Martin McAleese to Ottawa as they begin the
first official state visit of an Irish president to Canada.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Gaelic]
[English]
During this 12 day tour President McAleese will visit all four
Atlantic provinces, as well as Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and
Grosse Ile. In her meetings with MPs, senators and members of
the Irish community she will discuss the many cultural and
economic ties between our two countries.
President McAleese has expressed the deep gratitude of the Irish
people for Canada's support of Ireland during the peace process.
We hope that the peace we enjoy here will now be a reality in the
ancestral land of so many Canadians.
* * *
LABRADOR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is difficult for words to describe the shock and horror Canadians
felt upon hearing that six armed forces personnel died when the
Labrador helicopter they were flying in crashed Friday in
Quebec's Gaspé region.
The memory of that terrible incident tears at our hearts. It
makes us ask why over and over again and finally leaves us with a
deep feeling of sadness. It also gives us a great urge to reach
out to the families and friends of the fallen in the hope that
somehow, in some small way, we can share in their inconsolable
grief and irreplaceable loss.
We cannot say that we understand the pain that is theirs, but in
our own way we do grieve with them.
1405
To the spouses, parents, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters,
friends, the armed forces personnel at CFB Greenwood and all
those who supported these brave fallen crewmen who gave of their
time, energy and their very selves in serving our country, our
thoughts, our prayers and our deepest sympathies are with you
all.
* * *
WORLD HABITAT DAY
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has designated the
first Monday in October as World Habitat Day, a day to reflect on
our communities and their importance in our lives.
This year's theme is safer cities, a theme that offers an
opportunity for people living in cities to consider the current
state of their cities and to explore how existing problems can be
overcome to make them more equitable and sustainable.
[Translation]
The conditions in which people live determine, to a large
extent, their health, productivity and well-being. Our enviable
position is largely due to the co-operation of organizations such
as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and its various
partners.
[English]
This morning a Habitat for Humanity Canada “blitz build” was
started in Moncton. They will be building a duplex for two
families to enjoy. I am a strong believer in the Maslow
hierarchy of needs and I believe that housing is one of our basic
needs.
Congratulations to everyone.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TEACHERS DAY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, October 5 is
World Teachers Day. The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to join with
all Canadians and Quebeckers in paying tribute to the vital role
teachers play in our children's lives.
Teaching means awakening a taste for knowledge, guiding
learning, encouraging reflection, independence and freedom. It
also means helping our young people acquire the tools to become
responsible and competent citizens in a constantly and rapidly
changing world.
Today the profession of teaching, of which I was once a member,
is undergoing upheaval as a result of changing technologies and
dwindling budgets.
The federal government must restore transfers to the provinces,
so that they may reinvest in education and thus contribute to
building the foundations for a better world.
* * *
[English]
RIGHT HONOURABLE ELLEN FAIRCLOUGH
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Women's History Month gives us the opportunity to recognize the
contribution of great women who played a vital role in our
national heritage.
I have the distinct privilege to take this opportunity to pay
tribute to a great Canadian, my predecessor as the MP for
Hamilton West, a personal friend and constituent, the Right
Honourable Ellen Fairclough.
First elected in 1950, Mrs. Fairclough was only the sixth woman
to sit in this Chamber. On June 21, 1957 she became Canada's
first woman cabinet minister. First as secretary of state, then
as citizenship and immigration minister and finally as Postmaster
General, she came to be one of the Diefenbaker cabinet's most
resilient ministers.
Mrs. Fairclough is credited for such initiatives as introducing
legislation to give status Indians the right to vote and
reforming immigration policy to eliminate racial discrimination.
Having no role models for guidance, Ellen Fairclough always made
her own rules and chartered her own course. She was a pioneer in
virtually everything she did and today she is a model for
parliamentarians and all Canadians.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 25 native commercial fishermen from
Campbell River, B.C. were refused a meeting with the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
A statement from the native fishermen says in part: “Pilot
sales of salmon under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy must
stop. Pilot sales are unenforceable and unmanageable. Harvests
of salmon on the Fraser River from which pilot sales occur are
completely out of control”.
Native fishermen claim that pilot sales are an extremely serious
threat to all the salmon resources in B.C. and do not provide
effective control over fishing. They noted that aboriginal and
non-aboriginal people alike are suffering.
Native fishermen demanded that the minister put a stop to the
pilot sales program. They stated that not only does the pilot
sales program threaten the management of the salmon resource, but
it is also crippling the businesses and families who cannot
access available harvests.
Native fishermen are angry and incensed that the ministry keeps
telling them that this misguided program will continue.
* * *
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the 5,000
Vancouver area residents who participated in Sunday's run in
support of a cure for breast cancer.
They raised more than $200,000 for the Canadian Breast Cancer
Society's largest special event.
1410
I want to extend personal congratulations to residents in my
riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for producing the
largest team, 223 friends neighbours and colleagues who ran in
support of breast cancer sufferer Dulce Huscroft. Dulce could
not participate. She is far too weak.
Mrs. Huscroft is a wife, a mother, a school trustee, a community
leader in Port Moody and a very brave person.
The run for the cure took place in 23 communities across Canada.
Breast cancer is the largest cause of death among women in Canada
between the ages of 34 and 54.
More people join the run each year because cancer knows no
boundaries.
* * *
LABRADOR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once
again Nova Scotia has been visited by an air tragedy.
A month ago it was Swissair Flight 111. This time a search and
rescue Labrador helicopter returning to its home base at
Greenwood, Nova Scotia crashed in Quebec, killing all six of the
crew.
Some of the victims of the crash had been part of the Swissair
rescue mission. They were angels of mercy. It is very sad. I
wish to extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of
the victims.
The CH133 helicopters are old. They have had a long history of
engine related problems and a string of accidents over the last
six years. Experts say that these copters are now too risky to
fly.
As defence spokesperson for the NDP, I deeply regret the delay
that has been shown by the government in replacing these
helicopters. A number of replacement helicopters could have been
purchased off the shelf for emergency use. Instead we must wait
another two years before delivery of a new fleet.
I call upon the government to ensure that no more lives of our
search and rescue squadron are risked in the meantime.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
the Globe and Mail, Quebec ranks first in Canada for the vigour
of its economy.
Quebec's rapid recovery from the ice storm is a good
illustration of the ability, flexibility and determination of
the province, and of its people.
We were quickly able to transform a disaster into a catalyst for
economic growth.
As Minister Landry said at the time, “This ice storm ranks as a
catastrophe, of course, but we are trying to make the best of it
by ensuring that Hydro-Québec's reinvestments in equipment
generate as many economic benefits as possible”. And that is
just what the people of Quebec have done.
Let us hope that the federal government will not undo all the
efforts made by the Government of Quebec by maintaining its
dangerous do-nothing attitude, which is liable to plunge the
Canadian economy into a recession.
* * *
[English]
GUN REGISTRATION
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently in the House, Reform and Conservative members
vigorously spoke against gun registration, arguing that licensing
firearms was a massive intrusion on individual rights. Some MPs
even raised the spectre of a police state, suggesting that
registering guns was a prelude to their seizure by a government
fearful of citizens with arms.
Later the same Reform and Conservative MPs spoke equally
vigorously in favour of DNA sampling of individuals on arrest by
police. In the interests of efficient law enforcement, these
same MPs argued that police should be enabled to force
individuals to surrender the most intimate physical data possible
without their consent, without their being charged with any crime
and without them having been convicted by any court.
This is big brother big time. The opposition wants to take away
the most fundamental liberties of Canadians: the right to
privacy and the right not to have to submit to arbitrary arrest.
No wonder Reformers and Conservatives like their guns. In their
world they need them.
* * *
LABRADOR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
all members of the Progressive Conservative caucus I would like
to express my most sincere sympathy to the families of the six
brave military search and rescue officers who were killed on the
weekend while on their way back to their home base at CFB
Greenwood.
Captains Darren Vandencilche and Peter Musselman, Master
Corporals Glen Sinclair, David Gaetz, Darrell Cronin and Sergeant
Jean Roy were members of our elite Nova Scotia based search and
rescue squadron.
These brave individuals often ignored their own personal safety
by rushing to the scene of an emergency, often in very adverse
weather conditions, in the hope of being able to save a life.
Their selfless devotion for the safety of others deserves the
respect and appreciation of all Canadians.
The tragic loss of these six individuals is obviously
devastating for their families and friends, as well as for the
people of Greenwood and surrounding areas.
I join with all members of the House in remembering these six
brave men.
* * *
1415
YUGOSLAVIA
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is elementary to state that Canada as a country
respects the rule of law and guarantees human rights and
fundamental freedoms to all who live here. In the republic of
Yugoslavia both of these basic principles are being violated
daily. The situation has deteriorated beyond a level that can be
tolerated by Canadians.
While the UN security council deliberates and waits for the
Annan report, the New York based human rights watch yesterday
blamed the international community for failing to take any
serious actions to stop the killing of Albanian civilians.
The chances of finding a political solution to this rapidly
deteriorating situation are fast disappearing. Pressure is
mounting for military intervention with its all attended risks.
The free world has no appetite for a repeat of Bosnia yet we
continue to remain transfixed and inert.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were deeply saddened to learn of the deaths of the
Canadian Forces airmen killed in the line of duty.
Our members in the Canadian Forces deserve safe, reliable and up
to date equipment to do their jobs effectively. Now that the
Labradors have grounded and the new Cormorant search and rescue
helicopters will not be in service for another two years, what
safe rescue alternative will the forces use to pick up the slack
should another emergency arise?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know all members of the House join with
me in expressing our sincere sympathy and condolences to the
families and friends of the six crew members who lost their lives
and to the 413 squadron which has been part of the provision of
this service out of Greenwood and has done so with great
distinction for a great many years.
We want to let the investigators get on with determining the
cause of the crash so that the appropriate action can be taken.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
asked the minister what alternative plans he has if another
emergency arises.
The Labradors are grounded, the main thrust of our search and
rescue efforts. There are other helicopters, other aircraft
available, but they are all flawed. They all have problems
either mechanical, communication or whatever.
With all these problems plaguing the present search and rescue
aircraft we have, will the minister consider an urgent lease of
helicopters even if it means going beyond our borders to find
them?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will not fly flawed aircraft. We will
fly only aircraft that is certified as being safe to be used.
We have a very extensive inspection program, maintenance program
and overhaul program to ensure we are putting aircraft in the air
that are safe.
We have grounded the 12 Labradors but they can be used in the
case of life threatening conditions. There are Hercules,
Griffons and other aircraft used in search and rescue missions.
We will continue to provide Canadians with that service.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister talks about life threatening conditions. Obviously
these helicopters do pose a life threatening situation for the
crew. There are search and rescue needs in this country which
have to be met.
The Labradors are grounded. The Griffon helicopters with some
search and rescue capability have some communication problems
that are very serious. The Hercules have a limited capacity.
Again I ask the minister what alternative plan does he have for
search and rescue equipment should an emergency arise.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we have a number of
assets to be able to provide search and rescue missions. We will
continue to do so.
There are many reasons aircraft crash. Sometimes they are new
aircraft as well as ones that have been in service for a number
of years. The one thing we make absolutely sure of is that we do
our utmost to make sure that all aircraft in the air are safe.
We will continue to provide a search and rescue service with our
personnel across this country and with the various aircraft we
have.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the chairman of the public complaints commission
said they will follow the APEC fingerprints wherever they lead.
1420
So far those fingerprints seem to lead directly to the doorstep
of the Prime Minister's office.
Why wait for the subpoena? Why does the Prime Minister not just
volunteer to appear before that commission immediately?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the commission has not asked the Prime Minister to
appear. The member's question, as usual, is totally hypothetical
and besides, the commission is just beginning its hearings today.
Let the commission do its work. This is what the protesters
want. Let the hearings take place in an active and thorough
atmosphere. Why does the hon. member not want to support that
sensible approach?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the sensible approach is that this commission seems to be going a
little further than just checking into RCMP activities. I think
the Canadian public is looking forward to that. If our Prime
Minister refuses to appear before this commission if he is
subpoenaed, Canadians will never know what the truth of this
story is.
I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to answer my question
for a change. Why will the Prime Minister evade this? Will he
voluntarily appear before the commission or will he let Jean
Carle be the fall guy for him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the weakness of the assertion in the hon. member's
question is shown by her admission that a former senior staff
member and a current senior staff member in the Prime Minister's
office are going to appear before the commission.
Let us allow the commission do its work. Why does the hon.
member want to hamper the commission before it even begins its
work? Let the work continue. Let us see what happens as a
result.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Minister of Finance, the United States and
Japan are the key players in the economic crisis we are
currently experiencing. Nothing new there. What matters is that
everyone here knows that all economic levers necessary to
effectively counter the threat of a recession are available to
the government.
Does the Acting Prime Minister not realize that, when all
indicators point to a downturn in the economy, the government
has a duty to take action to boost the Canadian economy and
avert a recession?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the figures are pretty good. Two hundred thousand new jobs
have been created since the beginning of the year. Our interest
rates are low. There is no inflation. We have a balanced budget.
We are in a good position to ward off the effects of the
international crisis. Our prudent policy must be recognized as a
good policy for the future of our country.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): We are doing very
well indeed, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian dollar is worth 65 cents
US; the GDP has dropped for four consecutive months. But all is
well.
An hon. member: We are doing very well.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The king is happy.
As I said, we must act and act now. Does the Acting Prime
Minister not understand that action is urgently required because
taking immediate action, as we suggested, will produce positive
results in the long term? Does he not agree action must be taken
now to ensure the results are not postponed indefinitely?
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain. The
Bloc's proposals would certainly plunge us back into a deficit
which would be the worst possible signal that we could send to
the financial markets.
Here are the straight goods. Immediate tax cuts would have no
short term effect on the economy. Heavy spending on social
programs is what got Canada into our fiscal troubles in the first
place, and a return to that practice would leave us even more
vulnerable. It is nothing but bunk coming from the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government says it would like to use several billions of dollars
from the EI fund to make general tax cuts and stimulate the
economy.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Does he not
realize that using the EI fund to lower the taxes paid by the
rich, a cut which would be funded primarily by workers earning
$39,000 and less annually, is the most unfair, most illegal and
most immoral course he could choose?
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that when
we turned the corner with respect to the deficit reduction, what
did we do? We started to reduce taxes for those most in need at
the bottom end.
All the Bloc is talking about is trying to bring us back to
where we were left by the Tories who tried to bury this country.
1425
This government through its policies ensured that Canada has a
bright future and we will stick with our policies.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the Prime Minister wants to protect the economy of Quebec and of
Canada against the risks of recession, why does he not
immediately lower EI premiums, which would be an effective,
fair, morally acceptable and, above all, legal way of creating
jobs?
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take that as
representation from the hon. member. We are in the middle of a
debate among Canadians. We have repeatedly talked about our
priorities, our health care, tax reduction, debt elimination and
continued cuts to EI premiums. The premier of Saskatchewan seems
to agree that Canadians require a debate. We have the best
interests of Canadians at heart and we will continue to do what
we have done in the past, ensure this country has a bright
future.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general. For weeks now the
government has been giving assurances that the RCMP commission
will get to the bottom of the Spray-PEC inquiry.
Why then did the solicitor general say that the Prime Minister
will not be attending the inquiry because he would only become
the focus of it but instead the solicitor general will act as
cover for the Prime Minister? Why did the solicitor general say
“I'm the cover” for the Prime Minister on this issue?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his
information but I never said such a thing.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general has been saying do not prejudge the outcome but
wait for the inquiry. Why did he then ignore his own advice?
Is the solicitor general denying that he said last Thursday:
“This inquiry will reveal that four or five Mounties used
excessive force and overreacted”? Does the minister deny saying
I wanted to go to the World Series, to New York, but I can't
because “I'm the cover” for the Prime Minister?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have no idea where the hon. member is getting his
information but none of it is true.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, as members
know, the crash of a search and rescue helicopter cost six
Canadian Armed Forces members their lives last Friday. This is
a tragedy.
Knowing that an investigation is under way, I offer the Minister
of National Defence an opportunity to tell us when the House
will be informed of the investigation results and of the
contents of Master Corporal David Gaetz's journal. What sort of
assistance is being given to the families and what will be done
to prevent future such catastrophes?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the investigation is
underway and I cannot say how long that investigation will take.
As soon as we can get the results, the better.
As for the diary kept by the engineer, Mr. Gaetz, apparently the
family is in possession of it. If the family members can make
that available, that could be quite helpful. If they can make it
public that would add to the body of information that could be
useful in this.
Meanwhile, there is assistance being provided to the families.
There are people in touch with them on a daily basis. We want to
support them in their time of grieving.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Conservative Party has learned that Boeing has made an offer
to loan the government search and rescue helicopters until the
time the new ones arrive. Will this government be accepting this
generous offer?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we have other assets
involved in search and rescue and if we need something more, such
as taking up this offer, we are happy to have a look at that.
I will certainly be discussing with the chief of air staff our
operational requirements with respect to continuing search and
rescue in Canada, which we are committed to doing.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP in British Columbia is facing a financial
crisis.
According to an internal document written by Assistant
Commissioner Johnston, all coastal patrol vessels are to remain
tied up at the docks, all aircraft are to be grounded and only
those transfers absolutely essential for the delivery of minimum
police services will be approved.
Is this the Liberals' idea of fighting crime in B.C.?
What are the people of B.C. supposed to do? Hope that all the
crimes occur outside police stations?
1430
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP has assured me that the actions being taken in
British Columbia are ones that will not affect essential
services. We are looking at ways particularly in the area of
contract policing of making it more efficient. That is
essentially what is happening in British Columbia.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about essential services. The memo further
states that all policing overtime and standby is now suspended
but it is critical for smaller communities where understaffed
detachments have been providing 24-hour coverage by being on
standby. What about undercover drug investigations and stakeouts?
Criminals do not operate on a 37.5 hour work week. How can the
solicitor general guarantee safe homes in B.C. when instead of
criminals, his government is taking the police off the streets?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said we are right now in an exercise of making sure
the contract policing in British Columbia is as effective and
efficient as possible. I have every confidence in the RCMP that
it is operationally responsible and is doing its job.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, a draft of a report prepared by Statistics
Canada and commissioned by the Minister of Human Resources
Development confirms that the unemployed who are not getting
benefits are primarily young people, women and independent
workers.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development sit idly by
and let down those he is supposed to protect, while everyone is
discussing how to spend the EI surplus?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will soon receive the report
from Statistics Canada. The hon. member referred to a draft of
that report. We will have to check the accuracy of that draft.
I personally requested that report, precisely to find out why
the number of employment insurance claimants has dropped.
We are monitoring the situation very closely. We had to
introduce a very important reform, and I am confident this
reform serves the interests of Canadians well.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I repeatedly asked the minister to do
something about the excessive number of people who do not
qualify for his employment insurance plan. I raised that issue
on March 10 and October 2, 1997, and on February 26, April 27
and September 28 of this year. Each time, the minister replied
that he did not understand the problem and that he was waiting
for an explanation from Statistics Canada.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development not failing to
fulfil his most pressing duty by refusing to act to protect
young people, women and independent workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. The hon.
member does not even know how the employment insurance system
works.
That system was never intended for independent workers. In its
present form, the system is not supposed to include independent
workers, and the hon. member is fully aware of that.
It is true that, if those not currently covered by the
employment insurance system were not meant to be covered in the
first place, such as the chronically unemployed, these people
are no longer covered after a while. But that was understood
from the start. This is what we have to look at.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government should get its story straight on the economy. A month
ago we had the finance minister saying do not worry, it is okay,
he has a steady hand on the tiller. Now it is every man for
himself and we have the sorry spectacle of the finance minister
pushing women and children out of the way as he runs to the EI
lifeboat.
Instead of threatening Canadians, why does he not just obey the
law and return the EI funds to workers and employers?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government obeys the law. As
we said earlier, we are in the middle of a debate. Part of that
debate is hearing from Canadians and talking about Canadian
priorities.
Certainly Canadians want to see reinvestment in health care.
They want to see personal income tax reduction. Canadians may
want to see continued cuts to EI. We have cut $7 billion from EI
over the years. No one is saying we will not continue to cut EI.
We are engaged in a debate and I welcome the hon. member's
intervention in that debate.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
only debate going on is in the member's head. This is absolutely
incredible. The finance minister is supposed to be a sound money
manager, Mr. Fiscal Prudence, but now in order to balance the
budget, he has to rely on raiding the EI fund.
1435
How did the minister manage to bungle the economy so badly that
he has to rely on workers and employers to bail him out? How did
that happen?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about
bungling the economy. Getting rid of a $42 billion deficit;
leading the G-7 in job creation over the next couple of years;
continuing to keep inflation in check; interest rates at the
lowest level in 20 years. If that is what he calls bungling the
economy, let's go Canada into the next century.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development recognizes the problem of the drop
in participation in the employment insurance plan, but he
continues to refuse to acknowledge that his government is
responsible for excluding most of the unemployed youth from it.
When is the minister going to re-establish eligibility criteria
that will enable young people to once again receive benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always saddened when I see
a young member of the Bloc Quebecois rise to ask about
unemployment for young people, when this government is trying to
give them work and a better entry into the labour market.
As regards participation in our employment insurance system, we
have to realize, and Statistics Canada's preliminary data
indicate this, that those not covered by employment insurance
are perhaps those who—
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Rosemont.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am always
surprised to see a baby boomer of his age trying to get the
young people in Quebec to pay. And they will get their own
back.
How does he explain the fact that, since his government's
reform, barely one young unemployed person in four is entitled
to benefits? If this is not exclusion, what is it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of one thing
and that is that young people from Quebec like those from the
rest of the country are benefiting from the Youth Employment
Strategy, which is vital to helping them into the labour market,
to fight this barrier—transition from school to the labour
market.
We have adopted general policies as well to enable young people
to remain in school longer. The best guarantee of a job in the
future is to remain in school as long as possible.
This government wants a future for young people, not
unemployment and passive assistance, which is what the members
of the Bloc Quebecois wants for them.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government talks about a debate. Let us talk about
using insurance premiums for other government programs and the
overcharging of workers and employers.
Is part of the debate going to be whether the government is
going to change the name from insurance to just another tax?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EI debate is more than just
about premiums, as the hon. member wants to keep talking about.
It is about making choices.
I will use the hon. member's terms. In terms of payroll taxes,
our country's are one of the lowest of the OECD nations. We will
continue to ensure that this country has the right fundamentals
in place to continue to grow. Canadians want to see sound,
stable investments and continued success. We are prepared to
deliver that on behalf of Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the member talked about choices because in the
province of Ontario, workers and employers are paying $4.5
billion more in premiums for unemployment insurance than they are
getting back in unemployment benefits. This is a province that
is represented by Liberal members of parliament.
What choice do the citizens of Ontario have in getting back
their $4.5 billion overpayment in UI premiums?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should also point out the hundreds of
thousands of jobs created in the province of Ontario because of
Liberal policies.
1440
If the member wants to focus on something, let her focus on the
word employment in the EI program. Let her focus on our
priorities for job creation in Ontario and all over Canada. Then
she will understand what we are trying to do and what we have
been doing.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the acting Prime Minister.
The documents on the Peppergate affair handed over to the
commission by the offices of the Prime Minister and the Minister
of Foreign Affairs are apparently incomplete and censured. In
the opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister, does not providing the
documents requested do anything to improve the image of the
Prime Minister's transparency?
Is the government pulling another Somalia on us here?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite the contrary. There has been a lot of
compliance with these requests for information. Large volumes of
information have been made available. More information continues
to come forward. There has been no allegation from anybody at
the public complaints commission that they are not getting
exactly what they are asking for.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of public works.
Franchise operators of Canada Post have complained that revised
compensation packages have been implemented without their input
and at a considerable economic hardship to them. Will the
minister tell this House how he intends to deal with this matter?
It has wide ranging effects on postal services in both rural and
urban centres of our country.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
announce to the House and to all Canadians that Canada Post has
decided to postpone the date of implementation to December 1. I
thank all members on both sides of the House for their
co-operation. In the meantime from now until December 1, Canada
Post will meet with every franchise in order to explain how the
new system will work.
Canada Post is providing a fixed commission amount from $6,000
to $25,000. The new system will continue to give the same good
service it presently gives to Canadians. Canada Post wants—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Souris—Moose
Mountain.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
The Canadian Transportation Agency released a decision a few
days ago on a complaint from the Canadian Wheat Board about grain
transportation. The CN has admitted to some of the blame. The
CPR is partly to blame. By now most prairie branch lines are
abandoned or in the process of being abandoned. It is up to the
farmers now to drive hundreds of kilometres on torn-up roads to
get to the mainline terminals.
When will this government spend our federal fuel tax revenue
where it should be spent, on improving roads so farmers can get
their grain to market?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that it would be
inappropriate for me to comment on the Canadian Transportation
Agency issue and the wheat board complaint. It is subject to
appeal. The hon. member should also know that Judge Estey is
studying this entire issue. So let us not come to some
prejudgment here in the House.
On the issue of railway line abandonment, I have assured the
hon. member and the people in his home province that the railways
have the right to abandon these lines but that they are going
about their business in a very careful way so as not to prejudge
Judge—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prairie highway system was designed to supplement
the railroads, not to replace rail hauling. It is being
destroyed especially in Saskatchewan where it is already a
shambles. Each year $635 million is being sucked out of the
prairies in fuel taxes while $13 million is being put back. Does
the minister want us to go back to moving our grain with horse
drawn wagons, or will this government put some of its fuel loot
back where it belongs, into highways in the provinces—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is sincerely concerned about
transportation in general, in particular in transportation for
the grain industry in his home province. We will be having this
debate in the coming months. I do not believe we can actively
engage in that debate at this point, not until we have Judge
Estey's report. We will see what he recommends in dealing with
some of these serious issues.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the
solicitor general prejudices the outcome of the Spray-PEC
inquiry, as my colleague clearly heard him do on an Ottawa to
Fredericton flight on Thursday evening, confidence in the inquiry
is severely undermined.
1445
To remove any doubt about whether the solicitor general or
anyone else is covering for the Prime Minister, will the Prime
Minister commit today to appear before the public complaints
inquiry?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many times in the last two or three weeks I have stood
in the House and very much protected the process to get to the
truth of this matter for everyone to hear, and here it is: we
will not interfere with that process. We will get to the truth
in exactly the manner the House set up the public complaints
commission to do.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, too bad
the solicitor general has totally compromised this process now.
Our justice system depends upon the scrupulous impartiality of
the solicitor general. He is one of the senior law officers of
the land.
Is it a proper role for the solicitor general to cover for the
Prime Minister? Is it a proper role for the solicitor general to
be a party to four to five RCMP officers taking the rap?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only say that I have stood in the House many times
and said exactly what I have said just now.
We will get to the truth. The public complaints commission is
doing its investigation. I wish hon. members would let it do its
job.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, week after week Canadians have witnessed the dodging
and weaving of the Prime Minister in an effort to avoid
accountability for his actions at APEC. Yet Prime Minister
staffers like Jennifer Lang are allowed to comment at random on
the APEC allegations, dismissing Chief Gail Sparrows as not
credible.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is it that
Liberal spin doctors are allowed to comment on APEC outside the
public complaints commission while the Prime Minister continues
to hide? Why the double standard?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I want to do is check the accuracy of
the hon. member's assertion. Certainly, as the solicitor general
has said, we want the hearings to begin. We want them to be
carried out thoroughly and effectively.
I do not see why the hon. member raises this kind of question if
he really wants these commission hearings to succeed. Let them
continue and let us see what the result will be.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, William Kaplan's recent book Presumed Guilty
outlines many disturbing details about the Liberal government's
politicized relationship with the RCMP. One such detail is a
briefing note in August 1995 on the Airbus investigation for the
then solicitor general.
In light of documented intervention of the Prime Minister's
Office into RCMP security at APEC, I ask a question of our
current solicitor general. Did he receive a similar briefing
note from the Prime Minister's Office instructing him on the role
of the RCMP during the APEC summit?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the security arrangements around APEC were completely
and entirely the responsibility of the RCMP. I have been assured
by the RCMP since the conference on many occasions that it is
entirely security decisions. The RCMP will be speaking to these
questions during the hearings that have started today.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has
an obligation to protect its endangered species and to meet our
international commitments.
How is the Minister of the Environment ensuring that we protect
endangered species in Canada today?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important
question because certainly the issue of endangered species is of
great concern to Canadians at large.
My department for many years has put in place policies,
legislation and regulations to protect endangered species. Part
of my staff in the Canadian Wildlife Service has also worked hard
to develop science and encourage stewardship on the part of
Canadians, but a lot more has to be done.
I am working with the stakeholders, the provinces and the
territories to develop a national accord which will put in place
an effective and meaningful safety net for all endangered
species, and I will introduce legislation—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
* * *
SOCIAL UNION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Liberals continue
to get away with misusing question period.
Canadians are watching a unique debate in the House of Commons
where four opposition parties are joining with all 10 premiers in
the country to promote the social union.
Only the Prime Minister and his federal Liberals oppose this
initiative.
1450
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the government is doing
less.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it certainly takes a lot of nerve for a Reform member to
complain about the misuse of question period. When it comes to
misuse of question period they have set a standard which I do not
think has been matched by any party in the past for low level or
degree.
I further want to say that the government wants to work with the
provinces on a sound social union concept which protects the
national interest.
Why does not the Reform want to support—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
* * *
[Translation]
SCRAPIE
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture has announced that there would be no
retroactive compensation for sheep farmers whose flocks are
affected by scrapie.
Does the minister consider it acceptable that the people first
affected by this problem, those who respected the law and
reported the problem to the department, thus preventing spread
of the disease, are those ones now getting the least
compensation and being penalized by this government?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in the
House, we are treating sheep farmers who had their flocks
destroyed to some extent, and some of them completely I will
admit, because of the reportable disease in Canada in exactly the
same way in which we treat reportable diseases in livestock and
flocks across the country.
We had an excellent meeting with the industry on Friday morning.
I continue to look forward to a very good resolution of this
issue.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
This minister who said on Thursday that he would cover for the
Prime Minister at the APEC inquiry is the same minister who
denied legal funds to students at the inquiry trying to get at
the truth about the role of his friend, the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the minister's cover has now been blown
and his critical independence as solicitor general is gone, will
he do the honourable thing and resign as solicitor general?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the hon. member understands there is a process
in place to get to the truth. It is a process that I have
defended in the House quite consistently for the last couple of
weeks.
That process has to be allowed to get to the truth. I am sure
they will speak to whomever they need to, to get to the truth.
* * *
[Translation]
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
While the government is reaping the benefits of free trade, of
the GST which was never scrapped, of the surplus contributions
to employment insurance, I would like to ask the minister
whether he intends to reinstate a program of industrial
development.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are several industrial expansion programs throughout
Canada. This is a rather odd question.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL AID
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Canadians our sympathies always go to people caught
in desperate situations as a result of national and natural
disasters.
Recently thousands of people have been left homeless and without
food in southern Mexico as a result of extensive flooding. Could
the Minister for International Cooperation tell us if and what
our government is doing to help the flood victims in Mexico?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, CIDA has been working with NGOs for many years in Mexico
to address poverty alleviation and human rights.
As a result of the recent floods, CIDA has offered additional
humanitarian help in the form of about $150,000 where we will
work with the Pan American Health Organization to help alleviate
some of the problems faced there.
* * *
1455
THE SENATE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in two
weeks hundreds of thousands of Albertans are going to
democratically vote for the next senator. However the Prime
Minister and the justice minister from Alberta have scoffed at
this democratic initiative calling Alberta's dream a joke.
I want to know, other than just mindlessly insulting any idea
that comes from Premier Klein, what exactly would the minister
from Alberta suggest to make the Senate more democratic?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of abusing question period, what is the hon.
member doing by creating the impression that a minister can
answer because she comes from a region? That is contrary to our
rules.
As far as making the process more democratic, the hon. member
might explain why Premier Klein's party is not running a
candidate and why the federal Conservative Party is not running a
candidate. He might explain why this election has no provision
for re-election. It makes things democratic when one has to
stand for re-election.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the summer, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he was
exasperated by the international community's slow response to
the inhuman situation in the Kosovo region. In a motion adopted
last week, the House of Commons reiterated its consternation
with regard to the atrocities inflicted upon the people of that
region.
Can the minister tell the House now if Canada is ready to
disregard Russia's objection and to take part in NATO's military
strikes in the Kosovo region?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in New York on Friday to meet
with the Secretary General of the United Nations to talk about
the Kosovo situation, as well as a number of members of the
security council.
At that time it was indicated very clearly that the secretary
general would be tabling a report today from the security
council. It is certainly our opinion that the security council
ought to live up to its responsibilities to deal adequately with
the humanitarian tragedy that is taking place. We will wait to
see what the security council does this week before we decide.
* * *
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
For 35 years the Volvo assembly plant has been in Halifax. It
has now built a vehicle that has been proclaimed the number one
car built in North America for two years in a row.
Because of Bill C-11, the auto tariff reduction bill, this money
making plant is moving to Mexico, throwing 223 hard working Nova
Scotians out of work.
Why are the Prime Minister and the Liberal government destroying
auto industry jobs in this country? What are they going to do to
help the 223 workers they have now put on the unemployment line?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all the plant is not moving to Mexico.
Second, it has nothing to do with Bill C-11.
Third, let me say that it is true the government does want to do
whatever is possible to work with local organizations in the
Halifax region, work with Volvo and work with the workers to try
to find solutions to the situation there.
However, it is not helpful to hear empty and false rhetoric from
the NDP that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
* * *
[Translation]
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I persist in
putting my question to the President of the Treasury Board
knowing how familiar he is with program review.
Since there are many projects in Quebec waiting for federal
support and since we can no longer count strictly on the good
faith and goodwill of the minister responsible for economic
development, does the minister intend to co-operate with his
colleagues in restoring an industrial development program?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think my
colleague is talking about an infrastructure program. I believe
we have already indicated that infrastructure projects that meet
the needs of the three levels of government have been chosen in
conjunction with the provinces, including Quebec.
There may be another infrastructure program in a future budget,
but that has yet to be determined.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since my riding of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale encompasses Pearson
International Airport as well as many major roads and railway
lines, I am concerned about the computer systems associated with
transportation.
Could the Minister of Transport say what he is doing to promote
industry awareness of the potential transportation problems
associated with the year 2000 computer problem?
1500
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and the opposition would do
well to listen to the answer.
The government is very concerned about the millennium computer
bug and, as members know, the government is looking at its own
computers as well as working with industry across the country.
A couple of weeks ago I convened a conference with
transportation stakeholders from surface, marine and air and was
certainly assured and comforted by a lot of the work they have
been doing in order to be well prepared to deal with this issue.
They do have some concerns in areas such as the electrical power
supply to certain industry components that they use.
This is a matter of utmost priority for our government.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention
of members the presence in the gallery of Dr. Nikolaus Michalek,
Federal Minister of Justice of the Republic of Austria and
President of the European Union Council for Justice and Home
Affairs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: I also wish to draw to the attention
of members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Nguyen
Manh Cam, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of
order resulting from a question asked by the hon. member for Wild
Rose in question period.
He asked the Minister of Justice, in her capacity as a minister
from Alberta, to answer a question based on that premise. In
other words, it was in reference to the portion of the country
that she represents in the House.
I want to remind the Chair that citation 412 of Beauchesne's
sixth edition at page 122 states:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity,
such as being responsible for a province, or a part of a
province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, you will also know that it is improper
to ask the Minister of Justice for a constitutional opinion on
the floor of the House.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, surely
the member from the other side of the House recognizes that what
I used was a quote from the Minister of Justice from Alberta who
called the Senate election a joke. I thought maybe she had a
better idea.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are times when the government House leader should get his
nose out of Beauchesne's and look at the facts.
The facts are that the member from the Reform Party was looking
at statements, as he said, that the minister had made. There is
absolutely nothing in the standing orders or Beauchesne's which
prevents that. If he would like this to be a point of privilege,
the Reform Party would be happy to do so. Perhaps he should look
at what really happens in the House of Commons rather than
getting his nose into the technicalities of the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is mindful of the comments
and thanks hon. members on every side for their very useful
contributions on this point. I may say that the citation from
Beauchesne's that the hon. government House leader referred to is
perfectly correct, sound and based, I am sure, on long practice
in this House.
However, I think the question that the hon. member for Wild Rose
asked had to do with the constitutional niceties of Senate
elections. While it may have been directed to the Minister of
Justice incorrectly in her capacity as a regional minister—and I
agree with the citation that questions ought not be directed in
that way—it did concern something of her duties as Minister of
Justice in some vague way.
The Deputy Prime Minister chose to answer the question and I
think everyone was satisfied with the answer, as they were with
the question.
1505
Everybody is happy. Beauchesne's has been complied with, the
rules have been complied with, and we will continue with another
question period on another day.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
the sixth report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Industry: “The year 2000 problem: where is Canada now?”
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
pursuant to Standing Order 109, copies of the government's
response to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights regarding forensic DNA warrants.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have the honour to table the government's
response to the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts having to do with the custody of inmates.
* * *
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in
Council appointments which were made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it gives me pleasure to present a
petition signed by approximately 100 signatories from the area of
Canmore, Alberta and the Calgary area.
The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to enact
Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees)
and the Interpretations Act in order to define in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to introduce a petition signed by many constituents of
the National Capital Region and elsewhere which deals with the
rights of grandparents to see their grandchildren.
The petitioners are supporting Bill C-340 which will make it
easier for grandparents to see their grandchildren.
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by
1,600 people in my riding and several other ridings in eastern
Quebec in response to a visit by Mr. Joey Haché, who told the
Prime Minister that he was his conscience.
Mr. Haché has hepatitis C, and this petition seeks adequate
compensation for all victims of hepatitis C.
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
hundreds of British Columbia citizens who draw to the attention
of the House the fact that the multilateral agreement on
investment will disproportionately expand and entrench
unprecedented rights to transnational corporations and foreign
investors at the expense of the Canadian government's ability to
direct investment policy.
The petitioners raise serious concerns about the implications of
the MAI and they, therefore, call on parliament to consider the
enormous implications to Canada with the signing of the MAI. They
want it to be openly debate in the House and they call for a
national referendum so the people of Canada can decide.
1510
BILL C-68
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, on behalf of the constituents of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which contains hundreds of
names.
The petitioners call upon this government to not enact Bill C-68
and waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars, but instead to put
that money toward frontline policing and more effective means of
reducing crime in this country.
DRINKING AND DRIVING
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the petition I wish to introduce was initiated by Ken Roffel of
Langley, British Columbia. It has been signed by more than
25,000 people across Canada and more will follow.
These people want the House of Commons to change legislation to
ensure that people do not drink and drive. It is called zero
tolerance. Surely the justice committee looking into this matter
will listen to so many people.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from residents of Peterborough riding, particularly
from village of Bridgenorth.
The petitioners are concerned about the conditions in which the
Iraqi people find themselves, particularly the children of Iraq.
They call upon parliament to reject any military action against
Iraq and to call for an end to the embargo against necessities of
life for the Iraqi people.
BILL C-68
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a second petition from the people of Peterborough riding,
particularly from the village of Havelock. These people are
concerned about violent crime in urban and, in particular, rural
areas. They call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present today, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, a petition on behalf of constituents of mine from the
communities of Strasbourg, Silton, Regina, Duval and Lumsden.
The constituents are concerned that the MAI is a very bad
document. They are very worried about Don Johnston, who is
trying to stick it to all Canadians and other international
governments. They are concerned that the MAI will expand the
powers of multinational corporations at the expense of the powers
of government to intervene in the marketplace on behalf of our
social, cultural and environmental goals.
They ask parliament to reject the current framework of MAI
negotiations that Mr. Johnston is undertaking. They are
instructing the government to seek an entirely different
agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global
trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the
ability of governments to act in the public interest.
ABORTION
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, it is an honour for me to present three
petitions on two different subjects.
In the first, the petitioners ask that the House of Commons
bring in legislation, in accordance with the provisions of the
Referendum Act, 1992, which would require a binding national
referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask
voters whether they are in favour of government funding medically
unnecessary abortions.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these
two petitions deal with the same subject.
The petitioners request that government bring in legislation, in
accordance with the provisions of the Referendum Act, 1992, which
would require a binding national referendum to be held at the
time of the next election. They ask that parents be allowed to
raise their children in the way they see as being appropriate.
They ask, in particular, that the government recognize the
fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference of the state, and to recognize the fundamental
right, responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the
upbringing of their children.
The petitioners urge the legislative assemblies of the provinces
to do likewise.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present four
petitions on behalf of the communities of Lower Sackville,
Jeddore, Wellington and Mount Uniacke in my riding.
The petitioners pray that parliament will enact Bill C-225, an
act to amend the Marriages Act (Prohibited Degrees).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a large number of petitions, so I ask for your
patience as I present them.
I am pleased to present 150 pages of petitions with the
signatures of 3,564 concerned Canadians from Quebec, Ontario,
Alberta, B.C. and my home province of Saskatchewan.
1515
These Canadians are concerned that there is no provision in the
charter of rights and freedoms that prevents government from
taking anything they owned without compensation and nothing in
the charter which restricts the government in any way from
passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment of
their private property or reduces the value of their property.
The petitioners request parliament to support Private Members'
Bill C-304 which would strengthen the protection of property
rights in federal law, which died today after only one hour of
debate in this House.
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second group of petitions I am pleased to present
contains 60 pages with 1,493 signatures from responsible
law-abiding gun owners from coast to coast who are calling on the
government to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act. These citizens
are from Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., Ontario, Quebec, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
The petitioners are concerned that the billion dollar licensing
and registration scheme will do nothing to curtail the criminal
use of firearms, is not cost effective in addressing the crime
problem in Canada and is opposed by the majority of police on the
street. These petitioners therefore request that parliament
repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, and direct their hard earned
tax dollars to more cost effective measures to fight crime.
In keeping with my constituents' request that I keep a running
total of petitions on the repeal of Bill C-68, this presentation
brings the total number of signatures this year to 18,835.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next group of petitions I am pleased to present
contains 716 signatures from concerned Canadians from coast to
coast who are calling on parliament to retain section 43 of the
Criminal Code which affirms the duty of parents to responsibly
raise their children according to their own conscience and
beliefs.
ABORTION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege to present two petitions containing a
total of 818 signatures from citizens across Canada who are
calling on parliament to support Motion M-268 which would require
a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next
election to ask voters if they are in favour of government
funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition containing 131
signatures from my constituents in Yorkton—Melville who are
calling on parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the
Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.
The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that a marriage is
void unless it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one
unmarried woman.
PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition I am pleased to present contains the
signatures of 2,369 Canadians who support Motion M-33, parental
rights and responsibilities, which I introduced in 1997.
The petitioners call on the government to authorize a
proclamation to be issued to amend section 7 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental right
of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference
by the state and to recognize the fundamental right,
responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 35 constituents
residing on Salt Spring Island in beautiful British Columbia.
The petitioners ask parliament to support Bill C-225 which is an
act to amend the marriage act. Basically what it would do is
ensure that a marriage can only be entered into between a single
man and a single woman.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member for Delta—South
Richmond rising on this question?
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yes. As yet I have not received a response to Question
No. 91. Question No. 91 was asked on March 27 so the 45 days
have long since passed. I have other questions I would like to
ask and I would like to get this one off the paper. It is of
some significance and importance to me. As well, the auditor
general who is doing a study on the health protection branch has
indicated an interest in these responses.
1520
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member
that following his last inquiry which was a couple of days ago, I
looked specifically into the status of Question No. 91. I can
assure him it is at the very last stages of processing and will
be presented in the House very shortly.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on this point of order with respect to the answering of
questions.
At one time members were able to submit all kinds of questions
and of course it took forever to get the answers. Sometimes
people never received answers. The idea of going to the 45-day
answering period was that in return for actually getting answers
to some questions, there would be a limitation on the number of
questions.
What has happened now is that we have the limitation on the
number of questions and we still wait forever for answers. The
government for many years now has been systematically violating
the spirit of that reform, whereby the ability of members to
submit many, many questions was traded away in return for a
guarantee that within a certain period of time there would be
answers.
We have a bureaucracy over there the size of the Titanic. Surely
it could come up with answers to these questions within 45 days
and respect the standing orders of the House in this respect.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I must say I did not know
the history of these questions. I would mention that we have
been asked well over 140 questions and there are in fact seven
outstanding.
The Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona raises a point that when I served as a member
of the opposition in this House instead of in a capacity in the
Chair I found irksome as well. I of course wanted to ask a lot
more than three questions at a time but was unable to do so.
I know that he knows that the place to raise this issue is not
here on the floor with the parliamentary secretary who is of
course bound by the rules of the House, but in the procedure and
House affairs committee. I am sure that the hon. member who is
addressing in the course of his remarks the chairman of the
procedure and House affairs committee and likely the next
chairman if the tradition continues, will be able to have this
matter placed on the agenda before that committee at an early
date and deal with the matter there instead of here.
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I seek leave under Standing Order 52(2) to propose an
emergency debate to address the crisis in Canadian farm incomes.
The incomes of Canadian farmers are in steep and rapid decline.
This constitutes an emergency for farm families in every rural
community in Canada. The situation has become desperate and many
family farms are facing economic disaster.
With declining global farm commodity prices, the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture is now predicting that farm incomes may
fall by as much as 40% this year alone and perhaps even more on
the prairies. Statistics Canada has reported that farm cash
receipts for all Canadian farmers in the first half of this year
already declined by 5% and prairie farm incomes were down by
between 10% and 13%. These earlier numbers do not reflect the
most recent declines or the quickly evaporating demand for
Canadian products in the wake of the economic meltdown in Asia
that is now spreading around the world.
Canadian farmers do not receive subsidies like European and
American farmers receive from their governments.
An emergency debate is required to allow us, as elected
representatives, to inform the government of the gravity of the
situation and to have parliament consider what urgent measures
are needed to address the looming crisis on the family farm.
The minister of agriculture in this House on Friday indicated he
would welcome any comments with respect to this particular farm
crisis debate.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your careful consideration of this
very important and urgent matter.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has considered the request
the hon. member has put forward and of course has read with care
the letter submitted in support of this request and has heard the
hon. member's representations here today.
In the opinion of the Chair, this request does not meet the
exigencies of the standing order. It does not appear to be a
matter of such urgency that it requires the House to set aside
its proceedings at the moment.
While it may become such, I do not believe that is the case now.
Accordingly the Chair rules that it is not meeting the terms of
the standing orders.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SOCIAL UNION PROJECT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
1525
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to begin my comments by noting that the motion by the hon.
member urges the Government of Canada to accept the provincial
governments' initial position in the social union framework
negotiations and put forward no principles or objectives on
behalf of all Canadians. This is wrong. With the greatest of
respect, the hon. member should know that all the provincial and
territorial governments recognize that this is a process of
negotiation. They understand that there will be give and take
between the two levels of government before we come to an
agreement.
The hon. member seems to think of this in terms of who should
give in to whom. That is the old way of looking at things. This
is not the way we are proceeding today.
Our overall goal is to figure out how we can serve Canadians
better by working together. This is after all what Canadians
have asked us to do. I am surprised that the hon. member does
not recognize this fact and conduct himself accordingly. Perhaps
I should not be surprised.
The Government of Canada has tabled a position and we are
respecting the protocol agreed to by all the governments involved
in negotiating in public. However, the motion before us
indicates that the hon. member does not wish to acknowledge that
the Government of Canada has any interest in or responsibility
for the social union.
Let me address this question of the social union and what it
represents then.
First, what is Canada's social union? It is the means by which
we as Canadians share our resources and help one another. It
means collaboration and it means solidarity. This after all is
the Canadian way. Newfoundlanders help Ontarians, Ontarians help
Manitobans, Manitobans help Quebeckers, Quebeckers help British
Columbians; making sure that we all have access to the basic
social services we need when we need them, like education, old
age pensions, social assistance and health care; making sure that
we all help each other in times of crisis, like the floods in
Manitoba and the Saguenay, and the ice storm in southern Ontario
and Quebec.
First and foremost, the social union defines what it means to be
a Canadian. It represents part of our values, our institutions
and our symbols which define us as a people and unite us as a
nation. It represents our values, values that include sharing
and compassion, fairness, respect for the dignity of individuals,
and a sense of collective as well as individual responsibility
for our mutual well-being.
Our social union is the way in which we as Canadians pool our
resources, act on our shared values and look out for one another.
It distinguishes us from any other nation in the world. We are
very proud of what this means for us as a country. It is why
year after year Canada is judged by the United Nations as the
best country in the world in which to live.
Because it transcends provincial and territorial boundaries, the
strengthening of the social union is a fundamental responsibility
of all governments, but of course it is of special concern to the
Government of Canada. After all, this is the only government
elected by all Canadians and therefore accountable to all
Canadians.
How did we get to this social union? It was not by sheer luck
or by happenstance. We built it together piece by piece.
Provinces, working to meet the social needs of their residents
and constituents, pioneered new programs. The Government of
Canada encouraged other provinces to try similar programs and
help make the benefits available to all Canadians.
That is how medicare started in Saskatchewan. Today it is how we
are building the child tax benefit. Look at Quebec and its
innovative family policies for example. Programs help people get
back into the labour force. We have a lot to share and a lot to
learn one from the other.
Building the social union then was not an easy process. There
were challenges and disagreements along the way. But we have
ended up with one of the world's best social security systems and
that is partly due to the fact that there are differences of view
between different levels of government. These differences have
forced us to be more imaginative and to work harder to design
better programs that suit everyone. In the end, working out our
differences with respect and accommodation on both sides has made
our social union stronger. This is true just as much today as it
ever was.
Over more than half a century, our social union has evolved so
that both orders of government now have a range of distinct
responsibilities.
In general, provincial governments are responsible for education
and the delivery of health services and welfare. The Government
of Canada's responsibilities include pensions, employment
insurance, health protection, interprovincial mobility and the
redistribution of wealth and resources across the country through
equalization payments to provincial governments.
1530
There are shared responsibilities as well. Both orders of
government, for example, have a constitutional responsibility to
promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians. Securing
equality of opportunity is a responsibility that the Government
of Canada takes very seriously. This is a value that is very
dear to Canadians from all parts of the country.
One of the main instruments that can be used to promote equality
of opportunity is federal spending power. Every major federation
in the world provides for this kind of spending power for the
federal government, but nowhere in the world is this power used
more flexibly and with fewer conditions than in Canada; not in
the United States, not in Switzerland, nowhere. This is a point
that is always lost on the members from the other side of the
House. They cannot contest it so they simply do not discuss it.
This is a good thing. No country as large and diversified as
Canada could function as well as we do any other way. We must
have strong provinces that can try out solutions that fit their
own populations and cultures.
However, it is no secret that provincial governments have been
demanding changes in the way that spending power is used. I
remind the House that the Government of Canada has made changes.
As a government we have been sensitive and responsive to the
various demands of people throughout Canada, and rightfully so.
This government has committed itself not to create new cost
sharing programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
without the consent of a majority of the provinces. This
government has committed to compensate non-participating
provinces provided they establish equivalent or comparable
programs.
At the same time, we have to make sure we do not put too many
constraints on the use of spending power. This would lead to
paralysis. We would be unable to keep up with changing needs and
with circumstances.
Premiere Romanow stated: “The federal spending power gives the
federal government the opportunity to encourage all provinces to
adopt ideas that have been broadly supported throughout the
nation so that all citizens can benefit from equal access to new
social programs”.
This supports the contention that the Government of Canada must
preserve its capacity to use spending power to promote equality
of opportunity for all Canadians. However, as we have just said,
we are fully committed to using it in a way that respects the
provincial governments' legitimate responsibilities in many areas
of social policy.
In recent years we have made real progress working with
provincial governments to design and deliver new social programs
for Canadians. This work has been carried out in the spirit of
co-operation and mutual respect. We have begun to implement the
national child benefit which is providing more federal income
support benefits to low income families with children. This
enables provincial governments to invest in new programs and
services for these families. Nutrition, child care and readiness
to learn programs are but examples.
We have signed agreements with provincial governments on labour
market and employment programs. This has removed overlap and
administrative duplication and has been successful in addressing
a major irritant in federal-provincial relations.
What are the challenges facing our social union in the future
and what should we be preparing for now is a very important
question. What are the pressures we face down the road that a
social union framework agreement would help us deal with?
We live in an increasingly interdependent world. Today's social
and economic policies intersect like they never have before.
Those who argue that we can have an economic union without a
social union in this day and age are sadly mistaken. One only has
to think about adapting to a knowledge based economy and ensuring
that individuals, especially our young people, have the skills
they need for the jobs of tomorrow. This is a social and an
economic issue.
There is globalization and the need to stay competitive in the
international marketplace to secure our standard of living; an
aging population and new demands on social programs associated
with people living longer and healthier lives; innovation and new
technologies, particularly in health care, which we want to
ensure benefit all Canadians; the need to continue maintaining a
balanced budget and reducing debt.
1535
We must emphasize that we can modernize our social programs and
services and create new social programs where required that will
address these pressures.
It means governments working together to clear the way for more
rapid progress, to modernize and strengthen medicare, working
together to help us move forward more quickly with new and better
programs for children and persons with disabilities, working
together to do more to address youth unemployment and learning.
Despite the assertion implicit in the motion of the hon. member,
provincial governments recognize the participation of the
Government of Canada is required to sustain progressive social
programs that will benefit all Canadians.
What is the Government of Canada looking for? Where are we
in negotiations to develop a social union framework agreement?
The Government of Canada has three objectives. The first is to
promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians wherever they
live or move in Canada. The second is to ensure that governments
are working collaboratively on the social union. The third is to
make governments more accountable to Canadians for the results
achieved.
There is no question that the social union framework agreement
would help to strengthen our social programs and services if
designed to meet those objectives. To ensure quality of
opportunity for all Canadians through our social programs we must
then reaffirm the principles that underpin our social security
system.
We must agree on some fundamental principles that would guide us
in strengthening social programs. These principles include
access to comparable basic services. They include freedom of
mobility so that Canadians can move within their country without
fear of losing important social benefits. Finally, they include
making sure Canadians are treated fairly by their
governments.
There is the principle of flexibility. Our social union cannot
mean uniformity. It cannot mean one size fits all or identical
programs. It cannot mean one level of government dictating to
another.
We must respect the principle of flexibility to ensure that
social programs can be designed and delivered in ways that
respect Canada's diversity. This includes the unique character
of Quebec society arising notably from its French speaking
majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law.
We believe that taken together, these principles will ensure
Canadians have the best of both worlds, the flexibility of
programs tailored to meet the needs at the community level with
principles that ensure access and fairness for all Canadians
wherever they live or move in Canada. In short, this is the
genius of the Canadian federation.
[Translation]
Canada is the envy of the world. The federal government remains
committed to act in the best interests of all Canadians.
[English]
Canadians are concerned about social issues. They are worried
about the integrity of our health care system. They are worried
about child poverty. They are worried about the employment
prospects facing Canadian youth in an uncertain global economy.
They are worried about the well-being of elderly Canadians.
The time has come to stop playing politics with these concerns.
While there is a legitimate place for differences of view between
the two levels of government, Canadians' tolerance for
federal-provincial feuding has worn thin.
Confrontation only diverts attention from the issues that really
matter and is an insult to the Canadians who are struggling to
cope with change. It undermines the public's faith in the
government's capacity to serve the public interest. Quite
frankly, it must stop.
This is an important goal for the Government of Canada and the
social union framework agreement. We must work out our
legitimate differences in a manner that is constructive and
non-confrontational. We must find ways to continue building our
social safety net together, putting new programs in place to
address changing needs in an amicable, dignified and respectful
manner.
To do so obliges both levels of government to share more
information, to provide advance notice of any new initiatives or
planned changes to current programs and to consult and to plan
together.
It obliges governments to always put the interests of Canadians
first.
1540
Canadians want their governments to be more responsive and
accountable. As citizens, clients and taxpayers, Canadians want
more of a say in how programs are designed and run and they want
to know more about results. Canadians want taxpayer dollars
spent wisely and they are concerned about the health and
well-being of their fellow citizens, particularly children.
Canadians want to know that what we are doing is working. They
want hope. They want to see evidence that our social programs
and services are making a difference. They want to be sure we
are improving the health of Canadians, that fewer Canadian
children are living in poverty, that our young people really do
have the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow and that our
elderly citizens are living out their lives in dignity.
This requires public reporting on outcomes. This way Canadians
can decide for themselves whether their governments are living up
to the commitments made.
These are just some of the benefits that we believe a social
union framework agreement could lead to. But in these
negotiations the Government of Canada has only one bottom line
and that is what is good for Canadians and good for Canada. It
does not have to be more complicated than that. The social union
is not something we can cut up and divide. It is the very
foundation of our society and we must build on it together.
I point out to the hon. member that his colleagues in Quebec are
now full participants in the social union framework negotiation.
The Government of Quebec recognizes that this is a process of
give and take and that we are in fact making progress. As
recently as last Friday the new Quebec minister for Canadian
intergovernmental affairs said he is confident that the process
is moving forward.
So what is the hon. member hoping to achieve by his motion? For
the good of Quebeckers and all other Canadians I urge the hon.
member to follow the lead of his colleagues and work for
collaboration instead of confrontation. This is what Canadians
everywhere, no matter where they live in this great country of
ours, want and deserve.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Waterloo—Wellington has spoken abundantly about the
social union, justice and social equity. To that end, he dragged
out the old response of his Prime Minister, who has said time
and time again that Canada is the most beautiful, the greatest
and the best country of the world, a country that offers the
best social equity. But when he is not happy with his opponents,
our Prime Minister grabs them by the neck and throws them down.
I would like to ask the member for Waterloo—Wellington what he
answer he would give, about social equity for example, to one of
my constituents, Louis-Philippe Roy, a former worker of the BC
asbestos mine, who received his employment insurance benefits on
his first application. He has served 15 times as a pallbearer.
He was paid $22 each time.
Having worked on 15 occasions and earned $375, he saw his
employment benefits reduced by $102 per week on his second
application. Since he still had 17 weeks of eligibility,
Louis-Philippe Roy has been penalised by its government, which
brags about its sense of social equity, to the tune of $1,734
because he had earned $375 for having served 15 times as a
pallbearer.
Do you intend to encourage people on employment insurance
benefits to find work and get themselves out of that black hole?
When I hear the good member for Waterloo—Wellington, I have the
impression he is living in a bubble, that he is completely
disconnected from the reality of those workers on employment
insurance benefits. What has become of his sense of social
equity?
1545
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for his question.
Canada has a tremendous social safety net in place to help
people in need from time to time and to help people who require
it throughout the term of their life, or whenever it is needed at
the appropriate time.
Perhaps the hon. member is disconnected. This is really all
about a social union framework that will assist Canada and make
it work better. It will strengthen the federation. It is part
of partnerships and it is part of the kinds of things that
Canadians, no matter where they live in this great country of
ours, want us to do in a co-operative fashion.
Perhaps the hon. member fails to realize that we as the federal
government since 1993 have taken over 17 definitive and
fundamental steps in ensuring this would happen. This is
absolutely key for wherever one lives in this great country of
ours, knowing that our government is making the changes necessary
to make the social union work.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested in hearing the speech of our Liberal colleague, the
same rhetoric that we have heard for quite some time. There is a
question I would like to ask him in terms of priorities.
We know the transfer payments to the provinces were decreased by
a large amount, up to 35% I understand in many provinces. That
put the pressure on them and they have had some difficult times
providing their health programs, education programs and so on.
I happen to be one of the people who got into a line-up for
heart surgery, as the member may well know, back in June 1997. I
waited for approximately four and a half weeks before I could
have my operation. A couple of people died in that same line-up
just shortly before my operation. It is really hectic out there.
In 1993 it was quoted in the House that there were one million
children living in poverty. For years now we know that on the
reserves in our nation there is nothing but third world
conditions. I have been in the homes of grassroots natives all
across the country. I have sat on their crates and in their
non-electric homes with no water. They are living in absolute
poverty, yet billions of dollars are being poured into that area.
I would like to know where is the accountability for all of
this. Why are we having all these problems? Why are there so
many homeless on the streets of Toronto? Why are there so many
in Calgary? Why is this all going on if the government is doing
such a wonderful job? To me, it has not done anything. I would
like this member to explain. Where are the priorities?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for his question. I know he has some firsthand evidence with
respect to his own situation and I appreciate that he brings that
to the debate.
However, I listened in astonishment to the sheer hypocrisy of
the kinds of things he said when in fact it was the Reform Party
in its fresh start and in its so-called 1995 taxpayer's budget
that called for a $3 billion cut in transfers to provinces for
health, post-secondary education and welfare.
Added to that was another $3.6 billion to other transfers. On
top of that, as if that were not enough, there was another $7.4
billion slashed from programs funded directly by the federal
government for things like seniors' pensions and employment
insurance and another $1 billion in cuts to social security, for
a grand total of $15 billion.
The sheer audacity of the member opposite to get up and raise
that kind of garbage is beyond comprehension. It is the Reform
Party that should take a look in the mirror to see what programs
it would cut and decimate in the process Canada and our social
union.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
say to the hon. member that the Liberal government has nothing to
crow about. When he talks about the Canadian social safety net,
when he talks about putting the interest of Canadians first, the
record is very clear.
It is the Liberal government that has destroyed the social safety
net in the country.
1550
He talked about his concern for poor children. What about the
1.4 million kids who are living in poverty as a result of the
abandonment of social programs as a direct result of government
policies?
I would like the member to come to my riding of Vancouver East
to see the people who are living in slum housing because of the
abandonment of social housing. I would like him to see the
people who are on the street. I would like him to see the kids
whose parents are unemployed.
What does the member have to say about that?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for the question. I can say to her that we as a government have
not destroyed. Rather we have built on a strong foundation that
over time is the foundation of the very country we call Canada,
and rightfully so.
We are a nation of builders who have done the right thing in
terms of our social safety net and other issues. Quite frankly
we have a record to which we can point and we can prove it.
In terms of where the hon. member is coming from, is she today
wooing the labour people or is she wooing business? I find it a
little galling to take all this from the member opposite and her
party, a party that would promise significant spending on health
and social programs while cutting the GST and trying to balance a
budget. I would take a little exception to the fact that she
would try to promote that kind of nonsense. It really makes no
sense.
We on the government side have made the kind of sense that
Canadians want. We have done it in a manner consistent with
Canadian values and Canadian institutions. That is something we
can be enormously proud of.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today to the
opposition motion of the Bloc Quebecois, because it is directly
linked to the mission of the Bloc Quebecois in this parliament,
namely to, first, defend the interests of Quebec and, second,
promote the sovereignty and autonomy of Quebec.
Our motion reads:
That this House recognize the very harmful effect of federal
cuts to the Canada Social Transfer, particularly on health
services in Canada, and that it support the consensus achieved
by the provincial Premiers in Saskatoon on a project for social
union.
First, I would like to talk about the value of the social union
agreement that was signed in Saskatoon. Members will recall that
in Quebec and Canada, there has been for many years a major
debate as to whether the Canadian Constitution gives Quebec
sufficient authority to administer its own social policies.
In the past, there have been interesting examples proving that
Quebec is capable of administering its social programs. Let us
take, for example, the student loans and bursaries program.
It is the best in Canada. Moreover, it is the only one that
includes scholarships in the basic funding for studies. There is
also the Régime des rentes du Québec, which was taken as an
example by the federal government last year for correcting the
Canada pension plan. So, there are some interesting examples to
show that Quebec has the means and the capacity to manage social
programs in an appropriate fashion.
What is interesting in the motion is that, in a sense, there was
an evolution from 1971 to 1998. In 1971, Quebec was not able to
accept a constitutional amendment because Canada was not ready
to give it the necessary leeway. The federal government is still
not ready to do that and the statements from the Prime Minister
on that subject are not very reassuring.
He finally said that it was necessary for the federal government
to continue to administer its money, to assume these
responsibilities and that it was not ready to let the provinces
administer these programs on their own.
But this time, he is facing a coalition resulting from the
goodwill of the provincial premiers, including the Premier of
Quebec, who have finally said that we should have the right for
a province to opt out, with full compensation, of a new or
modified Canada-wide federal government social program in areas
under provincial jurisdiction, when the province offers a
program or introduces an initiative in the same field.
Let us take an example, not in the social area, but in the area
of education.
1555
Had such a model been applied, we would not be stuck today with
the millennium scholarships. In this case, the model used was
the Prime Minister's model, which says “I have an idea and I am
right; everybody else may disagree, but I will do it my way
anyway”.
As a result, we end up with two parallel systems: the Quebec
loans and bursaries system and the millennium scholarships.
There will be two administration systems. This is the typical
federal program duplicating something that already exists at the
provincial level.
We do not want this kind of action. We want the right to opt out
with full compensation. This way, the Government of Quebec could
implement its own programs where necessary, and it is prepared
to undertake to do so in areas where the federal government
intends to invest.
Take the home care program for example. If it went ahead with
its plan to develop a home care program without co-ordinating
its action with the provinces, the federal government could end
up putting in place a program that totally fails to meet the
needs of one province or another, a program that does not meet
the needs of Quebec, while Quebec would receive its share of the
federal funding if the Saskatoon agreement were applied. The
Quebec government would undertake to invest in health but would
have the necessary leeway to ensure its needs are met.
It is this leeway the provincial premiers agreed on in
Saskatoon.
Last weekend, the premiers met with the federal spokesperson. We
are waiting to see what will come out of these discussions.
Today, the motion before us basically says that a step could be
made in the direction of allowing Quebec to defends its
interests and move toward greater autonomy while respecting the
right the rest of Canada to act differently. Positive results
could be achieved if the federal government showed a willingness
to move in this direction.
One thing this would mean is that when there is “support from a
majority of provinces before new federal initiatives are
introduced in areas of provincial jurisdiction”, Canada's nine
provinces could take action, because Quebec would have the right
to opt out with full compensation. It would no longer hold
everything up.
It would be interesting to adopt this approach, which would
provide a way out of the difficult situations that now arise and
the systematic opposition between the federal government and the
provincial governments, particularly Quebec, because the federal
government has always been more interested in achieving the
desired visibility than in coming up with the best possible
program.
The best proof of this is the millennium scholarships I
mentioned earlier.
It was the same with child care. Election after election, the
federal political parties promised a universal child care
system. The stumbling block each time was the wide diversity of
situations in the various provinces. There is no one solution.
Quebec has done something about the problem in recent years.
It has introduced $5 day care. This is very attractive. Now,
people can send their child to day care for $5 a day. This
program has been tremendously successful. It is now available
for all three and four year olds. This will make good day care
available.
An attempt to find one program for all of Canada will produce
solutions that will not work for Quebec, but there is no way
around this because provinces may not, at the moment, opt out
with full compensation, as provided for in the Saskatoon
consensus.
The consensus contains a number of dynamic, forward-looking
components. This parliament could make a valuable contribution
by requiring the federal government to add its support so that
an agreement can be worked out as quickly as possible. This is
important.
There are four main components in our motion on the project for
social union. I mentioned the right to opt out will full
compensation.
There was also agreement that a program could be implemented
with support from a majority of provinces, and that there should
be “new co-operation mechanisms in order to avoid conflicts or
settle them equitably”.
1600
This is a fundamental issue. We are asking federal players to
get down off their pedestal, to get down to the same level as
the provinces and find mechanisms so that we will no longer see
unilateral decisions as in the past; instead decisions would be
taken by all parties concerned ensuring in the long run that the
choices made are in keeping with the wishes of Canadians and
Quebeckers.
This is a far cry from the federal government saying it knows
best, and others should just listen. Essentially, it amounts to
challenging the federal government's view of the provinces as
mere branch plants.
As a result of the Saskatoon agreement, everyone would be
sitting on the board. There would be decision making mechanisms
to ensure that decisions are arrived at properly.
Quebeckers will be able to assess the federal government's good
will, the ability of the Canadian parliament to suggest
solutions and of the Canadian government to follow through with
them while respecting the provinces' wishes.
It has often been said “As long as there is a sovereignist
government in Quebec, we will get nowhere”. The Quebec
government has shown its good faith saying “Yes, we are willing
to be part of the social union as long as we have the right to
opt out with full compensation; we are going to take a step
forward by promising to spend this money in the area it is
intended for”.
This is what cemented the consensus. The only thing missing now
is the federal government.
We brought this motion forward today because we believe it is
very important for the Canadian parliament to be aware of this
issue and clearly indicate its willingness to accept a solution
giving Quebec greater autonomy with regard to the management of
social programs.
It is very clear in our minds. It is the goal we are pursuing.
Quebeckers are seeking complete autonomy to be able to make all
the decisions concerning their future. They will do it globally
when they opt for sovereignty. In the meantime they are seeking
greater autonomy in order to provide their fellow citizens with
the best programs possible. It is in such a context that
provincial premiers put this constructive proposal on the table.
In the past, the Canadian social union had co-operative
mechanisms to avoid or settle conflicts. Things did not work out
quite that way in the last few years, especially as far as
health care is concerned. The federal government, and especially
the present government, decided unilaterally to make drastic
cuts in health care. For each dollar that has been cut in health
and education in Quebec, 75 cents were due to cuts in federal
transfers to the provinces.
It means that when hard decisions had to be made in Rimouski, La
Pocatière, St-Pascal, and Rivière-du-Loup, where significant cuts
were made in health care because changes were unavoidable, basic
budgetary constraints were one consideration, but there was also
that constant and terrible threat of federal cuts in transfer
payments. Billions of dollars have been cut, and each and every
province had to fully absorb those cuts.
As far as health care is concerned, we should examine more
carefully what that means. Everywhere in Quebec and Canada, the
problem of financing health care is not a provincial problem
made in Quebec, in Ontario, in Manitoba or any of the other
individual provinces. The problem is the same throughout Canada.
Certain decisions were made in order to fight the deficit.
One of the easiest decisions they came up with was to collect
all the money they could through the employment insurance system
and then to tell us today that was not why they collected it.
The other decision was to cut transfer payments. This was the
easiest way to do it: to offload the problem on the provinces
who would have to make do with what they got. This is a very bad
example of how our country should work for those who believe it
should be a federation. We have tests for these things.
1605
When Quebeckers wonder whether tostay within the Canadian system
or not, obviously these are some of the issues they seriously
consider, especially when they see their taxes going to Ottawa
and coming back in ways they do not appreciate.
For the first time ever, the province of Quebec is faced with a
$475 million shortfall on cash from the EI fund. In 1997,
Quebeckers got $475 million less in EI benefits and
administration fees than what they paid in premiums. This EI
program is a bad choice for the future. The federal government
collected a surplus of $6 billion on the backs of each of the
provinces.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Those are your figures. That is awful.
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, would you ask the member opposite
to listen while I speak?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I would ask
members to pay attention to the hon. member's speech.
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, if there is one region where the
employment insurance problem exists it is in the Pontiac region,
where people are having problems qualifying for it, where they
did not three or four years ago. They are now running into this
problem. It is a problem particular to all the resource regions
of Canada, but it is present in the Pontiac region as it is in
all the other regions of Canada.
Therefore, the Bloc motion focuses particularly on showing its
good faith and that of the other parties in this House by
pointing out clearly that the social union is an attractive
route to the future. It would permit sufficient autonomy, both
for a province wishing to withdraw from a program and for
another with an original idea wishing to implement it, so long
as the majority of provinces were in agreement. I think the
federal government would do well to listen to this program and
arrive at results that would enable Quebec to assume greater
autonomy.
If we want to achieve other successes in the future such as we
did with the loans and bursaries system and the Régime des
rentes du Québec, I think we have to develop some mutual trust.
The federal government would be taking a positive step by saying
“Yes, we think that, with a social union, we could achieve
results if those with unique needs or problems are allowed to
set up individual programs in these same areas”.
It is not a foregone conclusion that health care problems in
Quebec are to be managed the same way as those in Ontario. Each
province may have its own needs and priorities. One province
may decide to put the accent on prevention and the other on
cure. These situations occur.
If the House were to adopt a motion such as the one proposed by
the Bloc Quebecois today, it would solve any future problems
associated with federal duplication of existing Quebec programs.
In conclusion, there are two issues here. First, the actions of
the federal government in recent years should be strongly
condemned, including the way it has slashed health care, thus
depriving the provinces of funds that were sorely needed.
Second, the provincial premiers have extended a hand, in that
they collectively put on the table a proposal on which they
agreed in Saskatoon, and which will allow each and every
province to find what they need to implement the programs they
feel are appropriate.
In Canada, we have been looking for a long time for a formula
that would allow, for example, the nine predominantly
English-speaking provinces to adopt a specific type of program,
and let Quebec implement another one, while having the necessary
flexibility for all these initiatives to be legal, wanted and
justified. We are now in the last month of the period during
which it would be possible to achieve this.
1610
We urge the federal government to forget the inflammatory
remarks the Prime Minister may have made a few months ago and to
admit that there are some interesting ideas in the Saskatoon
proposal.
That concludes my speech. I urge the Liberal majority in
particular to pay attention. Quebec could develop its own
social programs, with full compensation, and the rest of Canada
could do as it saw fit, implement the programs it wanted,
without the battles we have seen for the last 40 years.
Let us remember that, in Victoria in 1971, Robert Bourassa, as
Quebec's representative, rejected the constitutional amendments
because this issue had not been resolved. We have an
opportunity to move forward, and I hope that Parliament will
approve the Bloc Quebecois' recommendation.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Oak Ridges.
I am thankful for the opportunity to address the motion of my
colleague on the subject of the social union. The truth of
matter is that Canada is the envy of the world. We have
consistently been rated among the top countries in the world for
our standard of living and quality of life. Canada stands number
one among the nations of the world in this year's United Nations
human development index. We are respected worldwide for the
country we have built by working together.
[Translation]
What are the reasons for this envy and respect? There are
several, but I would like to take this opportunity to point out
two in particular.
The first is the exceptional quality of our social programs. We
need only look around us to realize how fortunate we are to have
the social system that we do.
[English]
Health care is one of the main subjects of the motion before us
today. Let us take a minute just to get back to basics. Through
the combined efforts of federal and provincial governments all
Canadians have access to health care insurance that enables them
to seek timely and high quality medical care anywhere in the
country without worrying that each minute of a doctor's time or
each step of a particular procedure is costing them their
savings. It sounds so simple.
We can compare that brief description with the situation faced
by our close neighbours to the south. The United States is a
wealthy and powerful country and still many people, particularly
low income families, live without access to medical care even for
routine check-ups and much less serious interventions because
they cannot afford medical insurance.
This is not to say that there is not always room for improvement
even in a system as good as Canada's health care system. Nor is
it to deny that there have been some challenging times over the
last few years while all governments, the provincial governments
as well as the federal government, have fought to bring our
deficits under control. That fight was necessary to ensure a
solid future for Canada and for Canadians. It was necessary to
ensure the future stability of our social programs including
health care.
Canadians are not interested in seeing their governments finger
pointing or hurling recriminations or fighting over their roles
and responsibilities. Canadians want their governments to work
together co-operatively to make improvements in health care as
well as in all other areas that form the fabric of Canada's
social union.
It is for that reason the Prime Minister agreed with his
provincial and territorial colleagues that the moment was now for
discussions on how all governments might collaborate to make the
social union work better for Canadians.
I stress that I have been speaking about all governments and
about collaboration and co-operation.
1615
This brings me to the second source of the envy and respect that
Canada garners throughout the world, our success in co-operative
federalism.
[Translation]
Canada is a federation. And it is true that the purpose of
federalism is to protect and encourage the development of the
diversity of Canada's regions and provinces. In particular,
federalism makes it possible for Quebeckers to enjoy greater
protection for their language, their culture and their civil law
system than would be possible in a unitary state.
[English]
However, it must not be forgotten that Confederation was not
about creating a customs union or a free trade zone among
provinces. Confederation was about creating a new country,
Canada, for a group of people with a shared identity as
Canadians. The creation of a Government of Canada that would be
elected to represent all Canadians was a critical part of the
design of the new country. The federal government continues to
play a pivotal role in the federation and part of that role is to
ensure in co-operation with the provinces that there is a strong
social union that works in the interests of all Canadians.
As the government elected to represent Canadians everywhere in
the country, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to
represent the national interest of Canadians in the negotiations
on the social union. This means working together with all the
provinces to come up with a proposal that is in the best interest
of all Canadians.
It is for this reason that as Minister of Justice I have been
given the responsibility of negotiating for the federal
government on the social union and I continue to negotiate with
all my provincial colleagues. It is also for this reason that
the federal government is trying, one step at a time, to ensure
that Canadian federalism works as well as it possibly can by
taking care that each level of government undertakes its
constitutional responsibilities in the most efficient fashion.
For example, this government has entered into agreements with
the provinces concerning labour market developments to ensure the
best service possible to Canadians who require assistance during
transitions in their working lives.
At a more general level the federal government has made a
commitment that it will not undertake any new national shared
cost programs in the areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
without the consent of the majority of the provinces. That same
commitment includes a right to reasonable compensation to
provinces that choose not to participate in the national program.
The importance of co-operative federalism cannot be overstated.
This government has always said that constitutional reform is not
necessary in order to achieve the common goals of all Canadians.
The federal and provincial governments may together take an
approach to the exercise of their constitutional powers that
respects what the Supreme Court of Canada recently described in
the reference on Quebec secession as the federalism principle.
A good example of the success that has already been achieved
through co-operative federalism in recent years is the national
child benefit system. This system was the result of negotiations
between the provincial and federal governments and has two main
elements: increased federal benefits for families with low
incomes through the Canada child tax benefit, and provincial and
territorial reinvestments in services and benefits for children
in low income families.
Between the two levels of government, each working in a
collaborative fashion in their areas of jurisdiction, we have
devised a program that will help to combat child poverty in
Canada.
In conclusion, I can do no better than to quote the words of the
governor general in the Speech from the Throne in September of
last year:
As we look forward to the beginning of a new millennium with new
challenges and new opportunities, we can look back at the last
century of Canadian history and state with certainty that Canada
is rightly regarded, the world over, as an extraordinary success.
Canada represents a triumph of the human spirit, bringing
together the best of what people can do.
1620
The future is ours if only we continue to exemplify the spirit
of co-operation that has already brought us so far.
I look forward to seeing the results of the meaningful
negotiations between the federal and provincial governments on
Canada's social union because I am sure that together those
governments will arrive at a plan for strengthening the social
union that puts Canadians first, both at home and in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
want to take part in today's debate on the Bloc Quebecois'
motion concerning a project for social union, following the
remarks made by the Minister of Justice.
When the government wants to right a wrong, very often it will
change a name. Unemployment insurance quickly became employment
insurance. When protesters shout too loud in front of the Prime
Minister, he does not hesitate to grab them by the throat, to
throttle them, to throw them to the ground and to let his
bodyguards break their teeth. You will agree with me that such
behaviour certainly helps drive his point home.
In this social union where the Minister of Justice talks about
equity and social justice, I wonder what kind of justice she
sees in the employment insurance program. The fact is that the
government has accumulated a $20 billion surplus in the
employment insurance fund over the last four years, mainly on
the backs of the unemployed since they pay EI premiums, and yet,
when they lose their jobs, 58% of them are not even eligible for
benefits.
It is just as if 58 out of 100 people paying car insurance found
out, after a car accident, that they were not covered. I find
this totally unfair.
Premiums are much too high at $2.70 for every $100 of insurable
earnings, especially since a reputable actuary said last week
that $1.81 would be enough. I would like to know the opinion of
the Minister of Justice on this.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan: Madam Speaker, I am not sure there
was actually a question contained in that statement.
As everyone in the House knows, the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Human Resources Development have begun a discussion
with Canadians and have held consultations with Canadians in
relation to employment insurance.
Let me remind the hon. member that employment insurance is one
part of the social union framework in this country that makes our
nation the envy of the world.
Having said that, let me remind the hon. member that he and
other members of the House, as well as all Canadians, will have
an opportunity to participate, and I urge them to participate, in
the debate on employment insurance in this country. It is an
important debate. None of us would deny that. It is a debate on
which many Canadians, many of my constituents, have views which
they want to express.
I would ask the hon. member not to forget that employment
insurance is part of the social framework in this country that
provides all of us and our families with a needed sense of
security.
Therefore, I simply conclude by encouraging the hon. member to
partake in this debate.
1625
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the erudite and
very articulate presentation of the minister. I would like to
ask her a very specific question.
With respect, she did not seem to give a lot of substance
regarding the social contract itself. I am asking about a
dispute resolution mechanism or anything to do with clarifying
the rules of intergovernmental co-operation, or specifically the
issue of tax transfer points as contemplated by Mr. Charest's
platform in the Canadian covenant.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Madam Speaker, let me reassure the
hon. member that as the federal negotiator for the social union
framework, my provincial and territorial colleagues and myself
have had a number of very promising meetings. We had another
meeting last Friday.
Let me assure the hon. member that those discussions are going
very well. Flexibility is being displayed by all levels of
government and by all ministers around the table. I was
heartened by the discussion on Friday.
Indeed, let me reassure this House that provincial, territorial
and federal ministers around the social union framework table are
working with one common objective. Everybody needs to remember
what that objective is. It is to develop, to maintain, to
enhance and to build upon our social programs in this country for
the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate having the opportunity to speak to the opposition
motion. In particular, I would like to clear up some apparent
misconceptions regarding how spending on social programs has
fared under the Canada health and social transfer.
The federal government's actions in the area of transfers to the
provinces clearly demonstrate that social programs are a top
priority. This is fact, not partisan rhetoric.
Under the previous longstanding system of transfer payments to
the provinces, support for social programs came in two forms. The
first was a cash component. In other words, direct funding.
There was a tax point component, where the federal government let
provinces step in to collect a share of taxes that would normally
have been levied by Ottawa.
This is not an abstract issue. Under the formula agreed to, as
the economy grew it meant that the value of these provincial tax
points would grow. That meant that the amount of direct cash
funding could shrink because the total value of that funding
would remain constant.
However, this previous approach spelled a problem for the
provinces because the cash portion was scheduled to gradually
decline. In fact, the cash portion was on track to dry up
completely and there was nothing to prevent it from doing so
until this government acted in the 1995 budget.
In that budget we replaced the Canada assistance plan and
established programs financing with the CHST. In spite of
enormous fiscal constraints that we faced at that time, we saw to
it that this new transfer system would include a five year
guaranteed cash floor of $11 billion in addition to tax points.
In other words, the cash floor is the minimum amount of cash that
the provinces receive for health, education and other social
programs.
We did more than guarantee sizeable and certain cash transfers
to substantial social programs such as health care. At the
earliest possible opportunity, as soon as we got our fiscal house
in order, we increased this cash flow to $12.5 billion per year.
This measure, announced in 1997, means that the provinces will
receive an extra $7 billion over six years.
The interesting thing about this increase is that we brought it
into effect one year earlier than we originally planned. We were
able to increase our commitment to assisting the provinces in
vital social programs because this government's progress in
deficit fighting has given us some leeway to allocate more money
toward new health initiatives.
For example, the 1997 budget provided $150 million to the health
transition fund and $50 million to the Canada health information
system over a three year period. Our budget of 1996 set aside
$65 million for the health services research fund and our most
recent budget increased funding for the Medical Research Council
by $65 million.
None of this would have been possible without drastic spending
reductions during the early years of the government's mandate,
cuts which we made sure were deeper for the federal government
than for our provincial transfers.
The most severe cuts were in the area of direct program
spending, which included the operating costs of government
departments, business subsidies, department transfers and
appropriations to crown corporations.
1630
The federal government also made cuts in transfers to the
provinces. When the government has an annual deficit in excess
of $40 billion and an accumulated debt of over $500 billion, and
when 20% of spending is on transfers to other orders of
government, that is to say $1 out of every $5 spent, the choices
are limited. There is not the option of cutting transfers to the
provinces.
There are those who would argue very different numbers because
they refuse to recognize the value of federal tax points in their
calculations. They ignore the fact that this is a contribution
to provincial revenues that keeps growing year after year.
Has one provincial spokesman suggested a willingness to give the
tax points back? This issue is not often debated but it is
extremely important one.
Canadians owe it to themselves in our national policy debates to
understand the issues involved. Over the years as
federal-provincial social programs were developed the federal
government contribution has taken two forms. One is the
commitment of direct contribution, but as of 1977 we also have to
provide the provinces with tax points.
What is a tax point transfer? It simply means that the
provinces can collect a portion of taxes that would otherwise go
to the federal government. In other words, provincial tax
revenues increase, federal revenues decrease and the national
taxpayer still pays the same rate.
There are good reasons for provinces to accept these tax points
because as the economy grows so does the value of these points.
While there have been economic ups and downs, each of these tax
points is worth much more today than the programs we funded when
they were introduced.
Let us consider for a moment the tax points transfer to the
provinces in 1977 to support health and social programs. In 1977
these tax points amounted to about $3 billion in revenues. Today
they are worth about $12 billion. In other words, if the federal
government did not transfer these tax points it would have some
$12 billion more in its coffers to spend on health and social
programs.
When we hear calls for the federal government to hand over
billions more for health and social programs, we must remember
that this ignores the fact that provinces enjoy significant
additional revenues from tax points they have already collected
in previous years. That is why we continue to calculate the
value of tax points in the final calculation of our transfers to
the provinces.
This being said, I would not deny that we asked the provinces to
share the fiscal sacrifices that governments had to make. Nor
would it be fair for me to belittle or to understate the burden
of restraint that was imposed by necessity on these governments
and indeed on all Canadians.
The opposition must also be fair that the motion we are debating
today fails the test of fairness in two areas. First, it fails
to acknowledge the sheer lack of choice that we faced earlier in
our mandate, and I have already elaborated on that. Second is
the point I would like to address further. The motion suggests
that the funding policies of the federal government have
single-handedly imposed harmful consequences for health care and
other social programs.
Quite simply the opposition motion does not tell the whole
story. I would like to put it in some perspective. Earlier in
my remarks I demonstrated that health and social programs were a
top priority of the government. What are the priorities of
provincial governments?
Looking at the province of Ontario as an example, in the current
fiscal year the CHST is $850 million less than in 1993-94. Yet
Ontario has brought in a tax cut amounting to $4.5 billion. If
Ontario can afford a $4.5 billion tax cut then it can afford to
cover the $850 million it is missing in transfers.
I realize that what the provinces do with their money is beyond
the scope of this debate, but nevertheless to have a fair,
meaningful and informed debate about how social programs have
been affected by savings under the CHST we must remain mindful of
what we are doing as a government, what we can and what we cannot
do.
Can we as a federal government balance the federal budget? The
answer is yes. In fact we have already done that. By restoring
order to our finances can we as a federal government do our part
to ensure that the provinces have more money for health and
social programs? Clearly the answer is yes, and we have already
done that. We raised the CHST cash floor to $12.5 billion and we
did it a full year ahead of schedule.
As a federal government are we in a position to increase direct
funding to key health initiatives? The answer is yes.
As I have already indicated our last three budgets have allocated
more money toward the health transition fund and other programs.
1635
Can we as a federal government force the provinces to balance
their budgets? The answer is no. It is up to them. Some have
and some have not.
Can we as a federal government demand that provinces use any
budgetary surplus for spending on health care? The answer is no.
Again that is up to them.
Can we as a federal government insist that the provinces treat
health care rather than tax cuts as a top spending priority? The
answer is no.
The answer to these questions are quite revealing. For one
thing they reveal that even though spending on social programs
may be the top priority in Ottawa, it does not necessarily follow
that spending on social programs is the top priority of the
provinces.
The mark of leadership is the ability to accept responsibility
for decisions, even unpopular ones. The record of the federal
government speaks for itself. We have no problem accepting
responsibility for the tough spending decisions we have made. The
wisdom of these decisions has been borne out by the dramatic
turnaround in the fiscal health of our nation.
We cannot accept blame for weakening the social safety net
through our restraint measures. In fact the opposite is true. As
a government that is once again in control of financial destiny
we have been able to put in place a sound financial foundation.
Our fiscal turnaround has meant significantly lower interest
rates for all governments. That helps business growth and tax
revenues. Together this means lower costs for governments
themselves and that we are better placed than ever before to
enhance the quality of life and security of individuals.
The policies I have outlined clearly demonstrate the
government's commitment to sustaining and improving social
programs.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
there is one comment the hon. member across the way made that I
agree with. He said that the record of the federal government
speaks for itself. In reality the record is very different from
the record the hon. member has described.
While we hear on the one hand that the transfer of tax points to
the provinces over the years has somehow been something that has
mitigated the damage done by the federal government, let us be
clear that the situation we are in today in terms of the
provinces now proposing radical changes to the social union is a
direct result of the $6 billion cut by the federal government
from the Canada health and social transfer. It is a direct
result of the abandonment of the Canada assistance program that
laid out the entitlements and rights to Canadians in social
programs. That is what the Liberal government has abandoned.
My question is for the hon. member who gave the same line as the
hon. government member before him, that somehow Canada is the
envy of the world. If that is true then why is it that the UN
committee studying the economic, cultural and social covenant to
which Canada is a signatory is asking Canada why we have the
second worst incidence of child poverty in industrial nations?
Why is it that we have increasing homelessness that now
constitutes a national emergency?
Those questions are coming from the UN and are being directed to
the Canadian government. I think they speak to the true record
of the government in terms of abandonment of social programs.
What will the hon. member say to the 1.4 million children who
live in poverty or the 5 million Canadians who live in poverty
and do not get any of the benefits that he speaks about today?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, Canada is a federation
and therefore there is power sharing among other orders of
government.
I certainly am not pleased to see that we have a homeless
situation, that we have people who go to bed hungry. However
that is why the government has been working with other orders of
government in the country to improve the living standards of all
Canadians.
There is no question that the responsibility is at the ground
level but Ottawa can only do so much. As I pointed out in my
comments, moneys are transferred to the provinces. What the
provinces in some cases are doing with those dollars is open for
debate.
We still have the most liveable cities not only in North America
but probably in the world. I would point out to the hon. member
across the way that the government is committed to working with
our counterparts across the country. We are committed to
improving the standard of living of all Canadians.
We have demonstrated that. Certainly the comments I made show
that we are putting our dollars to work in conjunction with our
counterparts.
1640
In order to renew the federation, rather than pointing fingers
we are trying to get all provinces to work with us to improve the
state the hon. member talked about just a few moments ago.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): I cannot believe it,
Madam Speaker. People must know that, in the 1970s, when the
federal government and the provinces entered into an agreement
providing for equalization payments for health, the federal
government unilaterally cut transfer payments to the provinces.
These transfers, per capita, were drastically cut year after
year. More recently, billions of dollars were cut from transfer
payments for health.
While the federal government kept the money paid by taxpayers in
Quebec and the provinces, this money was not available to the
provinces to provide health care and post-secondary education.
That is a fact. And the consequences can now be seen from coast
to coast.
Does the hon. member opposite not agree that the federal
government abdicated its responsibility, diverted public funds
and brought the provinces to their knees? It is time for a
change.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, I would not agree. The
provinces were not brought to their knees. The national child
benefit system is an example of redirecting resources toward new
programs to assist low income families.
Obviously this promotes the fact that we are not hearing that
message from the other side of the House. When we work together
that message does not come from the other side. Only the
sovereignists, the separatists, continue to say that they want
the money, they will take the money, but we will not have any say
in terms of how those dollars are spent.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I will be sharing my time in this pressing debate with the hon.
member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to address the
motion of the Bloc Quebecois. Briefly the motion talks about the
House recognizing the disastrous impact federal cuts to social
transfer payments have had, particularly on health services in
Canada, and that the House support the consensus reached by the
provincial ministers in Saskatoon on the social union project.
The four principles mentioned in the motion are: to reinstate
federal health transfers, to require support of the majority of
provinces for new federal initiatives, to provide an opt out
option for the provinces, and to provide new mechanisms of
co-operation to avoid conflict.
Last week federal-provincial discussions took place to change
the way social programs are developed and delivered. Our new
Canada act introduced these concepts earlier this year. This
indicates that the federal government and the provincial
governments are somehow getting their ideas from the official
opposition.
The new Canada act unveiled by the official opposition in May
1998 is a proposed blueprint for building a stronger federation
in the 21st century. That act incorporates some of the Reform
Party's best ideas on strengthening the federation and puts them
into a new legislative format. It works on two of the main
founding principles of the Reform Party of Canada: reform of the
federation and democratic accountability.
The new Canada act outlines how our federation can be
transformed into a true partnership between the provinces and the
federal government. It balances existing powers, strengthening
the federal and provincial governments in several key areas.
The present Liberal government has shown no leadership on one of
the most important issues facing the country. When it comes to
strengthening our federation, the Liberals have been unable to
reach beyond the status quo. Our leader has said that it is our
duty as the official opposition to fill this leadership vacuum.
1645
The social union discussion on the weekend was the first where
Quebec was a participant and not just an observer. It makes me
proud that the new Canada act introduced by our worthy leader
with a true vision of Canada is an alternative that federalists
as well as separatists will embrace. Therefore I will be voting
to support this motion.
I remind the House that the Liberal government has been making
massive cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, amounting to
about $6 billion or 23%. This has completely destabilized the
social safety net. As a result it has placed greater pressure on
provincial governments. It has forced cuts in hospitals, medical
staff and pharmacare programs. All the while the Prime Minister
and the finance minister, the prime minister wannabe, shed
crocodile tears and pose as the champions of medicare. Our health
care is suffering. Just yesterday the old Calgary General
Hospital building was demolished.
Cuts to health care by this Liberal government have affected the
delivery of health services in Surrey Memorial Hospital in my
constituency. Patients have even died due to lack of adequate
equipment and services. All schools, hospitals and medical or
health care facilities across Canada have been hurt by the
government's efforts to balance the federal budget.
The Liberals have not reduced or eliminated waste and
duplication in government spending. Immediately upon balancing
the federal budget, the government announced new spending
initiatives.
It is important to emphasize that the Liberals balanced the
budget by raising taxes. They did it on the backs of Canadian
taxpayers. They did it by giving Canadians the highest tax
burden in the G-7 countries. Nothing is sacred. The Liberal
finance minister is eagerly and desperately searching for a way
to take and spend the $20 billion employment insurance surplus. I
warn the Liberals that Canadians will not stand for that.
Surrey Memorial Hospital is supposed to be providing hospital
services for our community. Many people in Surrey Central tell
me about the long waiting time, sometimes one to five hours, in
the emergency ward. The situation is so bad that many of the
people I talk to say they will go to a hospital in Vancouver if
they need emergency medical attention.
Surrey is probably the fastest growing city in Canada. Our
hospital services have not kept pace with our growth but the
cold-hearted finance minister, the legal-talking lawyer health
minister and the know nothing Prime Minister do not care about
that.
We do not have a health care system in Canada. We have a
sickness care system. The system does not help you stay healthy
or get healthy; the system only serves you if you are already
sick.
Turning to the question of the House supporting the consensus on
a social union project reached by the provincial ministers in
Saskatoon, we know that the only stumbling block to support for
the project is the Prime Minister. The provinces want to limit
the federal government's power to launch new programs in areas of
provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education, without
their support. They want better collaboration in launching new
social programs and rules established in the event that
collaboration fails.
This desire to establish rules is magnified because of concerns
about remarks made by our Prime Minister last month. His
willingness to give up some control over social programs was not
made clear. His remarks in an interview claimed that “if the
premiers do not want to take what I am offering, they take
nothing”. This is completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister
prefers fighting the old battles and maintaining divisions rather
than bringing people together. No one is free to disagree with
the Prime Minister. If you do, you will get fired or pepper
sprayed.
Reinstating federal health transfers has been a Reform Party
policy for at least as long as the Liberals have been cutting the
transfers.
In our fresh start platform we promised $4 billion more for
health and education. We would have gone through our federal
government's expenditures department by department, program by
program, and if necessary, desk by desk to reduce and eliminate
wasteful spending and duplication of work. On the contrary,
Liberals preferred to fund the old pork barrel programs and
sometimes invent new ones like the millennium scholarship fund.
As the government we could find taxpayers' money to redirect to
health and education.
1650
Again, requiring the support of the majority of the provinces
before starting new federal initiatives that are under provincial
jurisdiction is a proposal found in the new Canada Act. Why
would we want our federal government to implement a program that
six of the provinces did not want? The new Canada Act calls for
the federal government to have the support of seven provinces and
50% of the population before foisting a program on all of us and
forcing taxpayers to finance it.
The Bloc motion also asks the House to support providing an opt
out option for provinces with full compensation from new or
modified federal social programs in the provinces' jurisdiction
when that province offers a program or initiates a project in the
same field of activity. The new Canada Act that the Reform Party
is promoting offers an unconditional opt out clause.
The Bloc asks us to support providing new mechanisms of
co-operation to avoid conflicts to deal with them fairly. No
room for pepper spray here. I presume the Prime Minister will
not be able to support this one. This is a well-known legal tool
used to reduce levels of conflict. The goal is to replace the
adversarial system of conflict and dispute resolution with a more
co-operative system. Arbitration can protect both sides in a
dispute.
I will be happy to support this motion. As hon. members know,
the Liberals have been sneakily recycling our ideas and the other
opposition parties have been learning from us as well. Now the
Bloc has shown some interest in us.
I am proud of my leader and Canadians will be proud when he is
the next Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague on the comments that he
has made. I encourage him to continue in that direction.
There are a couple of issues I think we should explore a little
further. There have been accusations made by other members of
the House. They suggested that what we really want to put
together is a potpourri of the social service programs so that
each province has its own special little program which is
different from any other, so there will be no continuity of
programs and everything will really be chaos and there will be no
standards.
One of the references in the new Canada Act says very clearly
the establishment of national standards with regard to social
programs and things of this type. It seems to me that we need to
be very careful how we do this. There seems to be a borrowing of
ideas by the Liberal Party in particular. It seems that the
Liberals forget completely to study the concept and to understand
what we are really trying to do.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague could help the Liberals
understand what we are really trying to do so that they are not
taking things on the surface and forgetting totally what this is
really all about.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the wonderful question.
The new Canada act is a draft. It is there for public
consultation. It is so good that everyone is embracing it and we
are getting very positive responses from every corner in the
country.
On the other hand the remarks of the Prime Minister who is
supposed to lead this country are very arrogant. Can anyone
believe the Prime Minister of Canada making these remarks when he
says that if the premiers do not want to take what he is
offering, they take nothing. I do not expect that from the Prime
Minister of Canada. Probably the prime minister of Indonesia
could make that kind of comment. It is very arrogant and is not
acceptable in our society.
1655
The new Canada Act which we introduced in the early part of this
year is working and we are getting responses from every corner.
I am sure that the other parties are getting these ideas and I am
very happy and proud that they are learning from the Reform
Party.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member across
the way recite Reform dogma. I am wondering if he really
understands what tax credits to the provinces mean because that
was part of his speech.
We have watched the economy grow because we have the deficit
down to a zero balance and we have the government budget under
control. The rest of the countries in the world see that we are
serious about fiscal restraint. We have had economic growth of 4%
in the last few years and this year looks like it will be around
3%. That means to say that the provinces have got 4% more and 3%
more. Interest rates are at a 30-year low which means the
servicing on their debt is lower. Does the member really
understand all this?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, the question speaks
for itself as to how the Liberal Party understands the important
issues in the House.
The transfer payments to the provinces were cut by the huge
amount of 23% which is more than $6 billion. It affects health
care and education in our provinces. The provincial governments
and the municipal governments are under pressure.
I invite the hon. member to come to my constituency and talk to
the people who are not offered emergency services. How long is
the waiting period? How many hospital beds are closing? I ask
the member to wake up and listen to Canadians to understand the
situation in the country.
The member talked about balancing the budget and eliminating the
deficit. Anyone can balance the budget. They could have
balanced the budget 29 years ago if it was to be balanced on the
backs of the Canadian taxpayers. We are paying 28% higher taxes
than the average of the G-8 countries. We are paying higher
taxes than the Americans south of the border. Look at the effect
on the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is diving. The hon.
member needs to understand all these things before he asks that
kind of question.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the Bloc
Quebecois motion on the social union.
[Translation]
I have had the opportunity to work with the hon. member for
Témiscamingue and I admire his passion for politics, his
political smarts and his dedication to his constituents. I think
this motion clearly shows the failure of the status quo and how
this failure hinders the delivery of social programs in Canada.
At a discussion forum in Quebec City and a similar meeting in my
riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, everyone realized that the hon.
member for Témiscamingue and I were proposing a slightly
different approach to resolving the national unity problem.
But we both understand that this problem is mainly the result of
federal mismanagement of constitutional affairs and social
policy.
[English]
The federal government has overstepped its jurisdiction and has
entered into areas that rightfully belong in the domain of the
provinces. This federal intervention is seen as a kind of
insulting paternalism in Quebec, Alberta and the rest of Canada.
As is being discussed today, the federal intervention has also
led to the deterioration of Canada's social programs. The
federal government promised a centrally planned and administered
solution to our social needs. It has not been able to live up to
that promise.
[Translation]
With all due respect, I would like to remind my colleagues in
the Bloc Quebecois, whom we should congratulate on their motion,
that we can build a new partnership within Confederation if we
keep trying to break the federal government's monopoly. We must
bring about changes that will ensure every province has the
level of autonomy it demands.
1700
[English]
This motion addresses among other things the very serious
problem of underfunding of our national health care. When the
federal government established the Canada Health Act there was an
understanding that it would pay 50% of the costs. In exchange
the federal government was able to implement the nationwide
health care program that legally bound the provinces to implement
health care according to dictates of Ottawa. Many Canadians
viewed this as a fair exchange. The provinces lost some autonomy
but Canadians saw the benefits of a nationwide comprehensive
health care system.
This system is no longer working the way it was supposed to.
Since 1994 cuts to health care and social transfers have reached
23%. The federal government does not even meet half the
commitment to the provinces it said it would commit under the
Canada Health Act. The same federal Liberal politicians who
claim to care about health care are starving the provinces of
health care dollars.
The irony in this is that premiers Ralph Klein, Mike Harris and
others have received criticism for trying to work creatively
within a cash strapped health care environment. This has meant
some tough choices but the Canadian people should remember that
it is the federal government that has broken its health care
promise to the people and not our premiers. The Prime Minister
has let us down and the premiers are working to fix the problem.
The Prime Minister has not only broken his promise to the people
of Canada, he has ignored the legal opinion of the supreme court
which over the summer stated that the federal government has a
duty to enter into good faith negotiations with any provinces
dissatisfied with the status quo. When the first ministers get
together defers to old style political bullying. The Prime
Minister wants to call the shots without making a fair
contribution.
There is a new reality in Canadian politics that the Liberals
are going to have to understand. There is now widespread support
for the rebalancing of powers and widespread dissatisfaction with
overcentralized, out of touch Liberal style federalism.
My colleague from the Bloc has brought attention to an issue
Reformers have campaigned on for some time, the need to reinvest
in health care. Reformer has proposed a $4 billion reinvestment
that would come from cuts to programs we believe are not core
government services. Any politician who does not believe there
is at least $4 billion of waste in the federal government is
either dishonest or asleep.
The problem is not finding the waste. The problem is convincing
Liberal politicians to stop playing politics with the paycheques
of average Canadians and to start spending taxpayer money on
programs taxpayers actually support. Why is the Liberal
government spending money on the millennium fund when health care
remains underfunded? Why has it once again interfered with
provincial jurisdiction?
Another important aspect of the social union is the suggestion
that the federal government should actually have to work to gain
the support of 50% of the provinces before pursuing a new
program. Imagine a system where the federal government has to
find support for federal programs before moving ahead with them.
This would be truly revolutionary in Canadian politics.
The Reform Party has outlined in the new Canada act a provision
that seven provinces must give their support before a federal
initiative can be implemented. But the provision in front of us
today calling for six provinces to commit to a program is
definitely a good place to begin. If the federal government goes
ahead with the program after six provinces have signed on, those
provinces that are not supportive of the federal initiative can
pursue their own programs with full compensation. This is very
important. For too long the federal government has used its
powers of taxation to ignore constitutionally protected
jurisdiction.
If the federal government is interested in seeing quality
programs implemented it should not be concerned if they are being
implemented at the provincial level or the federal level. It
should be argued that programs administered locally better meet
the needs of the people.
The motion also suggests some form of conflict resolution
strategy should be created in cases where the federal government
and the province or provinces disagree as to what qualifies as an
equivalent provincial program. I have looked into a prospect of
a national standards tribunal, a proposal that goes beyond what
is mentioned in the new Canada act and what is being offered
today by my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue. It is a project I
will continue to work on, as I believe there is clearly a dilemma
between the rebalancing of powers and the establishment of
national standards.
Canadians are not prepared to accept extreme regional disparity.
Nor are they prepared to accept poor federal mismanagement of
social programs.
Therefore some dispute mechanism must be created that addresses
the question of jurisdiction in the context of national
standards.
1705
I say this not to qualify my commitment to the realignment of
powers and the return of many powers to the provinces but to
reaffirm my commitment and to find a way to remove the obstacles
currently standing in the way of the success of the new Canada
act and the proposal put together by the premiers in
Saskatchewan.
The Liberal failure to understand that Canadians want to see
fundamental changes to the administration of Canadian social
programs will very likely become the single most united force in
the united alternative effort. Status quo federalism is a
failure that Liberals continue to hang on to, despite the damage
it is doing to national unity and despite the damage it is doing
to the Canadian social fabric. It is a shame that Canadians have
to suffer, but I am optimistic that this issue will unify
Canadians in opposition against an arrogant, out of control
Liberal government that refuses to listen to the people, the
provinces, the courts or anyone else who disagrees with it.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, this is
really a speech that we have to take with a grain of salt from
what I have heard.
Reform's 1995 taxpayers' budget, which Reformers have cited so
many times, called for $3 billion worth of cuts in transfers to
the provinces for health, education and welfare. Their plan also
called for a further $3.6 billion to cuts in other transfers,
including equalization payments. On top of that, the $7.4
billion that the Reform wanted to slash from programs was funded
directly by the federal government such as seniors pensions,
employment insurance and an additional $1 billion worth of cuts
to social security spending. That is $15 billion worth of cuts
in social programs. I think the member is talking through his
hat.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon.
member needs some clarification because he is probably reading
those statistics upside down, as Liberals normally do.
If I can take a moment to clarify our position. The Reform
Party has always campaigned that there should be more money made
available especially for health care and education. That is in
all our campaign material from the last election and we continue
to say it is possible.
The reason we say that is we all know, as I mentioned in my
speech, this government fails to see what exactly it needs to
priorize when it comes to spending. If we would sit down and put
partisan politics aside, as we continue to hear from that corner
of the House, and say what is best for Canadians perhaps we could
find the solutions that the Reform Party has put forward when it
comes to putting more money in areas of health care and
education.
I will not get into the specifics, but we have outlined areas
where we see enormous amounts of waste in the way the federal
government spends its money. I would take the time with the hon.
member any time to show him that waste and hopefully we can come
to the conclusion that the Reform Party has the answer.
We want to work with the provinces, unlike the heavy handed way
of central government we have seen from the Liberals. We want to
work with the provinces to actually achieve their goals in the
best possible way.
I encourage the member to take a close look at those figures and
look at himself and see that the Liberals have done more to hurt
the social union in Canada than the Reform has ever done in its
history.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, to
the member, is it not true the Liberal government slashed
transfers to the provinces by about $7 billion in the last two
years, 35%, and closed more hospitals than all the provinces
combined?
1710
Given that, does it not make sense to try to work with the
provinces as we proposed in the new Canada act?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Medicine Hat for his well stated question. I agree with him
totally. It has been unfortunate that the Liberals and
governments of the past have managed in such a poor fashion to
cut over $7 billion in transfers to the provinces. Shame. That
is what I say. I agree with the hon. member that it is a
terrible thing.
What we propose and what we have always said, as the hon. member
questioned, is there needs to be a stronger commitment from the
federal government to deal with the provinces.
We heard from a number of members that the tax points are an
element that the provinces can use in order to spend money within
their provinces. There still remains a problem of flexibility
that comes with this argument of tax points. If the provincial
governments do have increased tax points, as many members
opposite argued, what good are those tax points if they do not
have the flexibility to actually implement the programs that
would work best within their provinces?
I think the core of the debate is also addressing the fact that
the federal government needs to move outside of this domain of
central, heavy handed politics and start working to create a real
sense of unity, start working to entrench the transfers that were
initially taken out of the system by this government and build
stronger unity in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have just a
few comments on the motion before the House. I will make a few
remarks on the federal government and its initiative.
We have clearly shown Canadians that we are not interested in
turf wars. The Government of Canada wants first and foremost to
offer equal opportunities to each and every one of its citizens.
We are absolutely convinced that all Canadians have an
irrevocable right of access to comparable social programs and
services, regardless of the region in which they live.
Our government has implemented a variety of initiatives aimed at
redefining the roles and responsibilities of the federal
government and the provinces, and has contributed to renewed
federalism. On the leading edge of these initiatives is the
federal-provincial-territorial council on social policy reform, a
forum which enables the government to strike productive
partnerships for joint solutions to the most common social
problems facing Canadians.
The council on social policy reform has met four times since its
establishment in June 1996. Over that short time, our country
has witnessed unprecedented co-operation.
The innovative initiatives that have ensued are clear evidence
that the elements uniting us outnumber those dividing us. More
specifically, they demonstrate that governments are at their
most effective when they pool their efforts.
The national child benefit is a perfect example of this new
collaborative approach.
In the summer of 1996, the premiers made child poverty one of
their priorities and agreed to co-operate with the Government of
Canada to provide an integrated child benefit system.
As soon as the government negotiators focused on the real goal,
which is to provide children with a good start in life to help
them become healthy, educated and productive adults, partisan
politics were set aside.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I forgot to tell you that I will be
splitting my time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
1715
Negotiators of both levels of government realized that it was
important to ensure that poor children have a chance to make it.
They realized that the fight against child poverty requires a
national effort based on a constructive partnership between the
federal government and the provinces and territories.
In January, we started to put $800 million back in the pockets of
middle income working families with children. An additional
amount of $850 million will be given to them in the year 2000,
for a total of $1.7 billion handed out every year to the middle
income working families.
And that is in addition to the $5.1 billion we now allocate to
families with children.
I remind my hon. colleagues, and in particular the sponsor of
the motion before the House today, that, thanks to the increased
Canadian child tax benefit, the province of Quebec now has
access to an additional $150 million a year to provide programs
and services that can meet the particular needs of Quebeckers.
Following the agreement reached on the national child benefit, a
working group made up of federal, provincial and territorial
representatives started to develop a national action plan for
children to promote the well-being of Canadian children through
new policies and procedures in terms of social services, health,
justice and education.
Canadians are fed up with federal-provincial bickering. They know
we live in a democracy and differences of opinion are
unavoidable, but coexistence is possible. As a matter of fact,
they want us to work in co-operation to establish efficient and
sustainable social programs for the 21st century.
If anybody has doubts about the determination of the Government
of Canada to take this approach, he should consider the
agreements on labour market development we have signed with the
provinces and territories in the last two years.
The hon. member for Témiscamingue will certainly agree with me
that our unprecedented offer to transfer to provinces and
territories the jurisdiction over labour market development has
allowed Quebec to design and implement training programs suited
to its particular needs.
These agreements fulfil the Canadian government's commitment to
get out of labour training, and they show that the Canadian
federation changes to meet the needs of Canadians.
For example, we are going to transfer $2.7 billion to the Quebec
government under the terms of the Canada-Quebec agreement on
labour market development for active programs to help the
unemployed re-enter the labour force.
These agreements give new opportunities by reducing duplication
and overlap. Even more important, they yield concrete results.
They allow governments to improve employment opportunities for
Canadians by providing them with good services at the right
place and time, and at the lowest cost possible.
This new distribution of powers shows that, with a few mutual
concessions, governments can effectively consolidate the social
union. Thus, we can co-operate to achieve common social goals
and, in doing so, create governmental programs that are better
targeted, improve the delivery of services and make considerable
savings.
1720
As we all know, the most recent talks on the social union were
held in Edmonton last Friday. I learned with great pleasure that
this meeting was very productive, the province of Quebec being
represented for the very first time at the negotiating table.
The media echoed comments by the Quebec minister of Canadian
Intergovernmental Affairs, Joseph Facal, who said that he was
confident about the outcome, which hints at the possibility of
new developments in the next few days.
The negotiations on the social union are tangible evidence that
it is possible to live together in harmony, thanks to the
respect and trust that we have for each other. It is possible to
share the same values of generosity and social justice, without
giving up traditions and approaches exclusive to each region in
the area of social development.
I take this opportunity to congratulate all my colleagues from
both sides of the House who took part in this very important
debate.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make a couple of comments and to question the hon.
member.
I listened very carefully to what he had to say about the social
union. He made it sound like a very positive affair. However, I
think one concern expressed by Canadians right across the country
is that basically the deliberations taking place between the
provincial premiers and the federal government on the social
union have absolutely no context in terms of a public debate.
There is no involvement by the Canadian people as to what should
constitute a social union in Canada, what the relationship should
be between the provincial governments and the federal government
when it comes to jurisdictions of the provinces or the federal
government.
Why does the hon. member believe that such a closed door,
backroom process that has basically cut out and censored the
Canadian people from that debate is something to speak of so
positively?
If the hon. member believes the social union that is being
developed is something so positive, why is it that basically in
Canada the social safety is in complete tatters? We have growing
homelessness and growing poverty as result of his government's
policies.
What do he and his government propose to say to Canadians who
have now been placed at increasing risk and are very vulnerable
because of the $6 billion cut to those programs?
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member is
not suggesting that the two provincial NDP governments from
Saskatchewan and British Columbia have entered the meetings
unprepared and without consulting their people. One would assume
that the premiers, the NDP government and the other
representatives of the other political parties would at least
have some understanding of what their people want.
As for us at the federal level, this is an ongoing discussion
and debate. Many of my colleagues and I on a regular daily basis
hear from our constituents that they want a framework which
responds to the needs of the people, a framework which is
flexible and maintains the integrity of social programs from one
end of the country to the next.
I remind the member it was not too long ago that one of our
ministers responsible for the transfer payments to social
programs threatened not to give one of the provinces the transfer
payment for social services. That was the province of British
Columbia. The province decided on its own to tinker with the
social program the federal government had set up and it
threatened not to give the money for it.
We will continue to maintain a social program that is flexible,
that is national in scope, and that responds to the needs of the
people.
1725
I want my colleague to remember that many of the provinces at
the table are New Democratic. I presume they have consulted with
their people.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I begin by observing that politicians are the
representatives of the people. We are supposed to hear from the
people and carry on a debate such as this one in a forum like
this place. This is democracy in action.
I congratulate the member for Témiscamingue for putting his
motion on the order paper and giving us an opportunity to debate
it today on behalf of all our constituents and all Canadians.
I am pleased to take part because I would like to take the
debate around the corner and deal with another aspect of the
problem of transferring money from the federal government to the
provincial government for health and education.
One idea we have not debated much in the House today—and it has
not been much of a debate at all—is that we should be examining,
among other things, how efficiently that money is used by the end
users, principally education and medical institutions.
It is certainly true that the federal government cut social
transfers and that the Ontario government passed that cut on to
hospitals and universities. This is not to disparage the Ontario
government. Indeed I hope it is listening. One of the problems
with what it did is that it basically cut approximately 20% out
of the funds available for hospitals and universities as a result
of the cuts in transfer payments by the federal government.
The problem with that is when an efficient organization running
at 100% efficiency is cut by 20%, the organization gets hurt. On
the other hand, if institutions that are running at 50%, 60% or
70% efficiency are cut by 20% they are not hurt. In fact they
become even more inefficient.
The question I would like to raise is whether or not,
particularly the hospitals and the universities and especially
the hospitals, are using the money they receive from all levels
of government as wisely and effectively as they should.
The money involved is big. It is not just the $12.5 billion in
social transfers from the federal government. It is also from
the provincial governments. It amounts annually for hospitals
alone from government sources to $17 billion a year. When we
include universities and other higher education institutions the
amount is $34 billion per year. That is a lot of money.
The difficulty is that the institutions receiving this money,
again particularly hospitals and universities, are charities.
They are usually incorporated as non-profit organizations under
the Canada Corporations Act. These two business entities or
organizational entities that comprise hospitals and universities
have very little requirement in law for the kind of transparency
that other institutions have which leads to accountability.
It might amaze members to realize that a non-profit corporation,
for example, does not need to have, certainly under the federal
statute, a chartered accountant perform its audit. It does not
have to submit annual financial statements to the government as
do non-profit organizations. There is a serious omission here.
The board of governors of a non-profit corporation has no
standards set by any level of government to explain what it does.
When they are charity boards of governors the only legislation
that pertains to them is no legislation at all. It is case law.
We have this very big difficulty about whether a charity or
non-profit organization, the collective of these, is actually
spending the money it is receiving from both the provinces and
the federal government in a way that the public can monitor
effectively and know that money is being well spent.
The member for Témiscamingue earlier in the debate said that we
should let the control of health care and education be done by
the citizens, those who are closest to the situation. We cannot
do that if the citizens do not know what is happening.
When it comes to hospitals I will give a few examples from my
own area, although there are anecdotal examples across the
country.
The Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation in my riding is in a bit
of a controversy. It was contracting out brain injured patients
to a facility in Texas which turned out to have such a bad
reputation for treating patients that the state of Texas would
not use the facility. When the Hamilton Health Sciences
Corporation was challenged on this by local journalists and the
local MPP, its chief executive responded that it was not the
obligation of the institution to monitor what was happening in
Texas. This is the problem of a hospital contracting out without
careful due diligence as to whether it is a good facility and the
public does not even know this is happening.
1730
We must ask ourselves if we want to know in detail how hospitals
and other institutions are carrying on when they contract out
services. I suggest that this is only the tip of the iceberg of
a very big problem. It is not just a matter of health care and
care for the patients, it is a matter of the effective use of
taxpayer dollars.
There are other areas concerning compensation which have created
another major problem in my riding. Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals
gave a severance package to their chief administrator worth
$818,000. That is an incredibly unacceptable use of taxpayer
dollars, but that was done. I will not go into the details of
this controversy because it is the subject of litigation, but
when the chief executive was hired in 1991 she immediately hired
onto the staff a close personal friend. This is a case of
nepotism.
One might say that the board of directors of the hospital should
be in control of this. But I challenge members to talk to
politicians and citizens who have served on hospital boards of
directors. They will say that trying to get information out of
the administrators of hospitals is near impossible. The reason
is that there are no standards. There is no countrywide standard
for the administration of charities and non-profit corporations
which would apply in the case of hospitals that are spending $17
billion a year as of 1993.
There is a great deal of anecdotal information about how
hospitals contract out for goods and services. Hospitals do not
have to issue tenders. They can do it however they want, and
indeed this happens. Gifts are received by people in the
business of purchasing for hospitals. I do not know about
universities, but certainly for hospitals there is a lot of very
negative information about how goods and services are purchased
and gifts are exchanged. This is all because of a lack of
transparency.
The cuts originally made by the federal government and the cuts
that were inevitably and maybe properly passed on would have
worked. I do not know whether the Ontario government had much
choice or whether any other provincial government did. Those
cuts would have been efficient if only we could have rid the
institutions of the inefficiencies. These institutions cut
nursing staff and beds when they should have been cutting
administrators. They should have been cutting the fat out of
their bureaucracies. The machinery is not there and the
transparency is not there to enable this to happen.
I would encourage and seek the support of other members of the
House for any initiative that might come in this House that would
involve bringing a greater level of transparency and
accountability to charities and not for profit organizations. It
is imperative that we re-examine the Canada Corporations Act and
require at least the same level of transparency that exists with
for profit corporations or, at the very least, the same level of
transparency that exists now with bureaucracies. That would be
an important first step.
The next thing would be to re-examine the government's
obligation to oversee charities across the country and perhaps to
write new legislation that defines the standards of
accountability and transparency for charities. That would go a
long way to making the cuts in social transfers acceptable to
Canadians.
1735
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be brief.
I would like the member to tell us whether he is in favour of
the part of the motion we moved today, which would give a
province the right to opt out with full compensation when a
federal program does not meet its needs.
Is the member willing to push the proposal which was unanimously
approved by all the premiers in Saskatoon, giving a province the
right to opt out with full compensation, provided it reinvests
in the same area, and sell it to the Prime Minister, who seems
to have his mind made up on the matter, in sharp contrast with
the consensus reached in Saskatoon?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: No, Madam Speaker, I would not support
the motion, simply because if we are going to have a standard in
every province across the country then it has to be the national
government which sets that standard.
The problem with the provinces is that they all seem to want to
go it alone. Ontario made a 20% cut. However, it did not think
to create efficiencies in the institutions that it was cutting. I
think that leadership has to come from the federal government so
that we can give all Canadians the same opportunities to health
care.
I am the first one to admit that Quebec, if it can go it alone,
may do it better and more efficiently, but what about the rest of
the country?
I think it is very important that the national government be a
national government and show leadership in this.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my
colleague that the Saskatoon proposal provides for the right to
opt out with full compensation, but it is also possible for five
provinces representing the majority of Canadians to set up
different programs.
This forms a whole. This would allow English provinces to have
the federal government agree to their program while Quebec would
set up its own. Would it not be a way to allow every province to
develop programs meeting its particular needs?
My colleague said earlier that we cannot do away with
leadership.
It should not be forgotten that our proposal includes decision
making mechanisms. The provinces could not do it alone, but they
could have some influence to avoid a repeat of what we saw with
the millennium scholarship fund when, because of its autocratic
attitude, the federal government created a system parallel to
the existing one in Quebec, the loans and bursaries system.
Is my colleague adamant in his view that it is unacceptable for
Quebec to exercise its right to opt out with full compensation,
and that, basically, he would rather see Quebec leave Canada?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, we are all in the same boat. We
must work together on that boat. In my opinion, the federal
government must show leadership in this matter.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
somewhat amazed to hear the Liberal member answering my
colleague by saying we are all in the same boat and need to all
row in the same direction.
He does not know his history and he does not respect the
constitution. In the constitution, we in Quebec had rights as a
people. When the government interferes in an area that comes
under provincial jurisdiction, as it does in Quebec, we are not
in the same boat.
1740
I would also like to tell the hon. member that, in this the
finest country in the world, as it pleases the Prime Minister to
call it, there are one and one-half million poor children at the
present time. If children are poor, this is because parents and
women are poor. I would like him to think about that.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I strongly feel that if
any province is disadvantaged in this country then it is the duty
of the federal government to come to its rescue.
Right now things are fairly good in Quebec. Elsewhere in the
country they are not so good. It is true that, given the money,
Quebec does have the expertise to manage it well. I do not doubt
that for an instant.
However, as Canadians we must look to the entire country. This
is federal money we are talking about. It is all very well to
talk about provincial rights, but we are talking about federal
money. As long as this money is coming from the federal
government, then surely the federal government should make sure
that it is used in the interests of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise and speak to this opposition motion introduced by the
Bloc Quebecois. I would like to reread the first paragraph:
That this House recognize the very harmful effect of federal
cuts to the Canada Social transfer (CST), particularly on health
services in Canada, and that it support the consensus achieved
by the provincial Premiers in Saskatoon on a project for social
union, with the following main components,
I will deal with those components later.
I would like to return to the very harmful impact of federal
cuts on the Canada social transfer. I would first like to point
out that, before the transfer, there were inter-regional
subsidies, if I may put it that way. There used to be the
Régime d'assistance publique du Canada, the RAPC, the Canada
assistance plan or CAP.
There were programs that subsidized individual Canadians equally
in matters of health and education.
Under the Canada assistance plan, need determined the level of
funding. In other words, since the end of the 1960s, the poorer
provinces received more of the money set aside to fight poverty.
What has the Liberal government done since it took office? It
eliminated the Canada assistance plan and the established
programs financing and came up with a single amount for
essentially equal redistribution among all the provinces. In
other words, Quebec, which had been entitled to 34% of the
Canada assistance plan because of its needs, found itself with a
share of the Canada social transfer that was equal and
proportional to its population. The first cut was on needs.
Quebec was relieved to not be held back any more by a set of
standards that some regretted, but that others regretted less,
because they prevented what happened under the Canada assistance
plan.
1745
This set of standards precluded among other things the
reimbursement of the difference between the salary paid to
individuals who chose to work to earn a living and social
assistance allowance paid out by Quebec since 1975, in 1976
under the PQ government, to encourage those who wanted to not to
go on welfare and to stay in the labour force. Incentives were
provided, so that workers would not be penalized for working
instead of going on welfare.
This system, which was introduced in Quebec after 1976, in 1977
I think, and was still in place when the Canada health and
social transfer was announced, has never been compensated by the
federal government.
In other words, Quebec could get 50% of its social assistance
expenditures refunded by the federal government, out of the
Canada assistance plan account, but it had to make up the
difference out of its own pocket for the working poor. There is
no doubt the Canada assistance plan needed to be changed.
The Canada health and social transfer was the first form of cut
sustained by Quebec.
The following year, the federal government slashed funding
across the board bringing social transfer payments down from $19
billion to $11.7 billion, imposing an initial cut of $7 billion.
In the last election, it gave us back $1 billion, claiming to be
increasing payments when in fact it was reducing the cut by $1
billion. With these drastic cuts, being made in often difficult
circumstances because unemployment was high, Quebec ended up
paying a high price for the adjustments made by the federal
government in its fight against the deficit. The social
transfer, in itself and as a channel for making more cuts, has
taken its toll.
When, in its motion, the Bloc asks that the federal government
put money back into the Canada social transfer, it seems to me
that members on all sides should applaud.
It is essential that now that the federal government, to a much
greater extent than it cares to admit, has eliminated the
deficit by taking money—that is what we said, and it is true—from
those who could least afford it, return the money to the health,
education and welfare sectors through the Canada social
transfer. It must not start dreaming up new programs like the
millennium scholarships, regardless of whose ego is in need of
stroking.
These are the people who have been hurt, and who are still
hurting. Seventy-five cents of each dollar cut in Quebec last
year was because of federal cuts in health and education. The
Government of Quebec was stuck with actually making the cuts and
is the one being blamed.
I think the entire House should agree that the money should be
returned to the Canada social transfer and nowhere else.
But the motion goes further. It says:
That this House—support the consensus achieved by the
provincial Premiers in Saskatoon on a project for social union,
with the following main components:
—the support from a majority of provinces before new federal
initiatives are introduced in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
1750
The members opposite who are so fond of saying that Canada's
federalism is the most flexible and “federalizing” of all are
demonstrating their great ignorance.
Several federations I know cannot even conceive of the central
government—which is not the best government, not a more
intelligent government with greater compassion, but just another
level of government—deciding unilaterally to interfere in areas
that, under the terms of the Constitution, belong to another
level of government—which is not inferior in level, intelligence
or compassion, but merely has different responsibilities.
The motion says that there should be “support from a majority of
provinces before new [federal] initiatives—”
We could have gone a lot further. Everyone should have no
problem agreeing with that wording.
But I am sure there will be a problem with a fundamental issue,
since the notion of the social union is no longer a meaningless
expression coined for Quebec. Indeed, the provincial premiers
agree on “the right to opt out, with full compensation, of a new
or modified Canada-wide federal government social program—because,
as we know, some amendments can change the nature of
things—in areas of provincial jurisdiction when the province—and
here Quebec made a concession considering what has existed
for 30 years—offers a program or introduces an initiative in
the same field”.
This right to opt out with full compensation is essential, not
for Quebec's sovereignty, but so that the existing
constitution—which has been terribly twisted, transformed and
tainted—may have a minimum of meaning, and so that in the social
sector—which, historically, was strictly a provincial
jurisdiction—there would be no question of imposing on a
province—and I am thinking of Quebec of course—programs and
amendments regarding which a province could not opt out with full
compensation.
Why? Why Quebec? Because in the social sector people can make
different choices. These choices are all legitimate, but they
are different. In Europe, some countries have the same level of
social spending, but the choices they make are different. It is
a matter of culture, because culture also involves that aspect.
In the social field, the key word for effectiveness is
integration.
Quebec can have a co-ordinated range of social policies because
this is what it wants given its priorities, the priorities set
by the National Assembly—not by one party or another, but by
the National Assembly. It wants this integration to ensure a
better use of the money and a greater effectiveness of the
resources.
When this government was elected, the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development was asked to conduct a comprehensive
review of social policy. From the outset, it was felt that the
integration of social policies would be a priority. It is
strange how all researchers and, I might say, the rest of Canada—that
expression “the rest of Canada” is not from us—were
hoping that the integration would be implemented by the federal
government.
1755
The rest of Canada wanted policies to be harmonized at the
federal level, whereas Quebec always wanted to integrate its own
social policies. That is precisely why it agreed for the most
part with the Canada social transfer.
This right for a province to opt out with full compensation is
absolutely fundamental. In Quebec, it has been defended equally
strongly by Liberal and PQ premiers. It is the expression of
Quebec's cultural desire to integrate its own policies.
I mentioned that Quebec made one concession. The right to opt
out with full compensation as historically applied did not
require any kind of commitment from Quebec to spend that money
in a particular area. Therefore, to show that it was willing to
compromise, Quebec agreed that this would apply only when the
province offers a program or introduces an initiative in the
same area.
This proposal is extremely important because it is fundamental
to the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, not only in
words but in practice. It is fundamental to the recognition of
the right of Quebec to do as it pleases in areas of provincial
jurisdiction under the Constitution. This is something Quebec
cannot give up.
I followed the work of intellectuals, because they are the ones
who initially worked on the social union concept.
I know that, in Canada, they wanted to adjust to our changing
society. I also know some of them wanted to reach out to Quebec.
I am sure that when the premiers agreed on these proposals, they
must have been very happy because they were looking for a way to
reconcile Quebec's social objectives with those of the rest of
Canada.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois and Quebeckers have always
respected the other provinces' opinion that social and economic
policies must be integrated by the central government. We have
no choice but to recognize this right. But, in the same way, we
have always wanted others to recognize Quebec's right to
integrate its own social policies and to define its own
priorities as it sees fit.
As long as the federal government has this spending power, which
means that it has the power to impose taxes, Quebec intends to
get its full share.
Social policy has been deeply affected by the cuts the
Government of Quebec has been forced to make as a result of the
federal government's cutbacks and its battle against the
deficit. Although there were still social democratic concerns,
there was not enough money to meet all of the needs, and we had
to make some painful and difficult choices.
1800
As I, and others, have said, people have suffered, people
needing health care, welfare and education. How many young
people have had to go further into debt, how many resources have
had to be cut at all levels of education, up to and including
post-secondary education? Some universities have been left
seriously short of funds.
Now that we have brought the deficit under control, which we
always agreed was the prudent thing to do, and that the federal
government, which already has a budget deficit of over $7
billion for the first four months, is headed toward a sizeable
surplus, it is urgent that this House recognize that this money
must be put into the Canada social transfer.
This House must also accept the right of the provinces to opt
out, which is essential if this Constitution, which does not
make much sense, is to have a least a modicum of meaning for
Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Mercier for the history lesson she just gave us on what I would
call the social evolution of Canada. She clearly described how
the premiers came to the consensus they have reached, especially
on the right to opt out with full compensation.
All the information she gave us about our history and our
evolution shows why the federal government has to get on board,
agree to this consensus and allow Quebec and every other
province in Canada to make their own choices in order to meet
their particular needs.
The question I want to put to the hon. member is the following:
Would this right to opt out with full compensation not provide
the people with a better way to assess the efficiency of their
governments? We have seen significant federal cuts in health
care, especially in the last few years.
Taxpayers, at least in Quebec, do not ask themselves each and
every day who is responsible for what. With this proposal to
allow the provinces to opt out with full compensation, would the
people not be in a better position to clearly assess, at the end
of a mandate, if a government made the right choice and did a
good job in this or that area?
Could the hon. member for Mercier give us her views on this
issue and tell us if she thinks this would help to improve the
quality of democracy in Quebec and Canada?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his question.
I think the question refers to the notion of integration I
mentioned. If policies could be integrated, they would be more
effective. The government that integrates is in fact in a
better position to be accountable and to say why it used money
and then it can be judged in this regard.
It is a very bad thing when the public is unable to see how
government decides. Canadian federalism today certainly lacks
clarity. I was saying earlier that the government in Quebec cut
deeply. However, what the public does not know is that for
every dollar cut, 75 cents went to the federal deficit.
The deed was done to health, education and social assistance,
but it went to reduce the Canadian deficit.
So, it is vital to democracy that people know that government is
accountable and that the details of management are revealed.
1805
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the opposition day
motion.
I have been sitting in the House all day listening to the
debate. I have found it very interesting. The subject matter we
are covering is called the social union in Canada, the
discussions between the provincial premiers and the federal
government. This is something of critical concern not just to
the House but certainly to the people in every region of Canada.
It would be very interesting to hear the kind of discussion that
has taken place.
I would like to make a couple of observations to begin. First,
it is very clear from the motion before us and from the debate
that has taken place that the premiers of Canada and the
territories are involved in a debate on what they would like to
see as a new social union or their relationship with the federal
government as a direct result of the massive cutbacks in the
Canada health and social transfer that have been experienced in
Canada. There is no getting away from that reality.
I listened very carefully to the debate by hon. government
members who tried to persuade us or convince us that the social
safety net in Canada is alive, well and healthy. They tried to
convince not just the House but the people of Canada that we are
the envy of the world. I have heard cabinet ministers say that
today.
The reality is something different. Being involved in the
debate today I would like to draw the attention of members to the
fact that Canada was a signatory to the UN international covenant
on economic, social and cultural rights.
What is very interesting about that covenant is that the UN
committee assessing the record of member countries in carrying
out the covenant has recently sent the Government of Canada a
very tough list of 81 questions outlining its concern about where
Canada is not meeting its obligations.
I would like to quote from some of the questions the UN
committee has put to the Canadian government that have to be
responded to by Canada. For example it says:
The committee has received information that food bank use has
continued to increase in Canada and has approximately doubled
over the last 10 years—Does the government consider the need
for food banks in so affluent a country as Canada consistent with
article 11 of the covenant?
We are all waiting to hear that answer. It goes on to ask
another question:
—Child poverty is at a 17-year high of 20.9%, meaning that
nearly 1.5 million children live in poverty in Canada. Although
the last recession ended in 1991, poverty rates have risen since
then. Please—explain how this unacceptable situation has been
allowed to occur.
This is not me asking the question. This question comes from
the UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights and is
to the Canadian government. It asks another of its 81 questions
of the Canadian government:
I know the answer to that question. I only have to look at my
riding of Vancouver East to see that there are more than 6,000
people living in slum housing. There are people living on the
street. We only have to look at the city of Toronto or the city
of Winnipeg or any major urban area. We only have to look at the
status of aboriginal people in Canada to know about homelessness,
the lack of shelter and the lack of food security. It is a very
desperate situation.
There is no getting away from the fact, no matter what
government members try to convince us of, that this is a direct
result of the abandonment of the Canada assistance program in
1996 and the federal government running for cover under the
Canada health and social transfer and slashing $6 billion from
social programs in Canada.
1810
I would like to speak about that a bit because it signalled the
beginning of a new era. Clearly the federal government was
abandoning its national responsibilities, which has resulted in
the proposals we hear from the premiers of Canada who are saying
that the federal government is not relevant any more. They feel
the government has cut them back so much that they want to take
what they can and set their own standards and programs. They
want the federal government to butt out.
The Canadian people and members of the House, certainly those of
the New Democratic Party, have a different view. We believe it
is very important there be an increasing and strong role for the
federal government in terms of a social union, a social charter,
and the establishment of national standards in Canada.
It simply is not good enough to say that there will be a
transfer of funds to the provinces and there will be no
conditions attached to it. We only have to look at things like
the child tax benefits or the state of post-secondary education
to know that the Canada health and social transfer has been a
dismal failure, not only in relation to the lack of funding and
the retreat of public funding it has signalled in Canada but also
because it has not been accompanied by the conditions, standards
and guidelines we need to have.
For example, when we look at social welfare programs, the much
touted child tax benefit by Liberal members is something that is
quite appalling when we consider that the poorest of the poor,
the people on welfare, will not be able to benefit from the child
tax benefits.
There is absolutely no assurance that provincial governments
which save money as a result of this benefit from welfare
payments will put that money back into welfare programs to
actually help people on welfare. There is no assurance that
those moneys will not end up in workfare programs where people
basically lose their entitlement to social assistance as a result
of the demise of the Canada assistance program.
When we look at the reality of what has come about with the
advent of the Canada health and social transfer, is it any wonder
that the provincial premiers are now convening their own meetings
and trying to draw up their own framework of what they think
their relationship with the federal government should be?
We in the federal NDP believe that the federal government not
only has to be at the table but has to reinstate the funding that
has been lost from our health care programs, our educational
programs and our social programs.
In the last budget we heard a lot of hype about the budget being
an education budget that would help young people. Again the
reality has been something very different. I only have to speak
to young people in my own riding, students who are suffering from
an enormous debt load, some of them $25,000, $30,000 and $40,000
as a result of skyrocketing tuition fees.
This begs the question: Why have those tuition fees gone up so
much? It is because of the retreat in public funding by the
federal government which has abandoned the area of education.
Post-secondary institutions have been left with no recourse but
to increase tuition fees so that now the tuition fees in Canada
are higher on average than tuition fees at publicly funded
universities in the United States, a situation that is very
shocking.
We have the millennium fund that was unilaterally announced by
the federal government with no consultation with the provinces,
no consultation with the stakeholders and no consultation with
the experts in post-secondary education. It is being touted as
the future for students when in fact it is a foundation that is
increasing the privatization and corporatization of the
post-secondary education system. The money that has been put
into that fund does not even begin to make up for the funds that
have been taken out by the federal government in its support for
post-secondary education.
1815
There is no question there has been an abandonment of federal
responsibility and a complete absence of national standards and
national programs that historically have helped hold this country
together. This is something we should be aware of as we begin
this debate of a new social union.
We have to demand that the federal government take up its
responsibility not just in terms of a fiscal framework but also
its responsibility in setting, with the co-operation of the
provinces, a sense of national purpose, a sense of national
accessibility whether it is health care, social programs or
post-secondary education.
The other very disturbing aspect is the lack of accountability
and public debate around the issue of a social union. The
provincial premiers have been meeting and may feel they are
having productive discussions and have their own process of
dealing with their own jurisdictions. However on an issue as
fundamental and critical as this one which really deals with the
future vision of our country, it is critical that the federal
government and this House ensure there is accountability for the
way the process unfolds.
Just before the provincial premiers met in Saskatoon, the result
of which is this motion before us today, some of the leading
representatives from the social justice, civil society and labour
movements wrote to the provincial premiers. These included the
Canadian Health Coalition, the National Anti-Poverty
Organization, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, the
Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives and the Canadian Federation of Students.
What did these groups have to say? These organizations have
been involved as watchdogs. They have monitored the shocking and
appalling situation that has unfolded as a result of the retreat
of public funding under the Canada health and social transfer. To
quote from their statement to that conference in Saskatoon, they
said:
Such fundamental change to the way in which Canada's national
social programs are managed is of great importance to the
Canadian public, the labour movement and the vast array of social
justice organizations dedicated to a vision of progressive social
policy for Canada.
The social union has already undergone significant change. The
implementation of the Canada health and social transfer marked a
massive restructuring of national programs for health, education
and social assistance. The block funding approach and the
elimination of national standards for social assistance put us on
a path toward `no strings attached federalism' and further
devolution of federal responsibility for national programs.
As a result of the elimination of national standards for social
assistance, abysmally inadequate rates of assistance have been
cut in many provinces and workfare is flourishing, putting Canada
in shameful violation of the United Nations Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights requiring that work be freely chosen,
a fundamental tenet of democracy.
They went on to say in their statement:
As members of the public and organizations committed to the
preservation and enhancement of national social programs, we are
concerned that the Canadian public has had no opportunity to
discuss and debate the vast changes to the social union which
have already taken place nor is there any process in place
through which the public can participate in these and future
negotiations on the social union.
In the interest of democracy, closed door, backroom federalism
must end.
That is a very significant statement which has come from these
groups. Not only have they been the watchdogs of the federal
government in what has gone on, but they are now sounding the
alarm in terms of this debate that is taking place. They are
making it quite clear that this type of critical debate about the
relationship of the provinces to the federal government and how
it encompasses our social values and our national programs must
be a debate that includes organizations such as those which I
mentioned and others, key stakeholders that do have a significant
contribution to make.
1820
In closing, the motion before us today raises some very key
points about what has gone fundamentally wrong and is clearly at
the feet of the federal government as it brought in the Canada
health and social transfer. We have to be very careful. We have
to make sure that we do not embark on a new kind of proposal and
a process that excludes the Canadian public and sets us on a
course where we will no longer have a framework of national
programs and national policies, whether it is education, social
programs, welfare or health care.
We have a lot of concern over the fact that the premiers are
suggesting that there would be a right to opt out of any program
that was new or modified. What does that mean exactly? What does
a modified program mean? Does it mean that if the federal
government provides some modification to our medicare system the
provinces can opt out in some way?
We have to insert into this debate the sense that there will be
national standards that can provide a sense of universality, a
sense of security and significantly provide a fiscal framework.
When the committee at the UN on the covenant on social, economic
and cultural rights writes to the Government of Canada and asks
at what point will we be declaring homelessness a national
emergency, we have to be able to demonstrate that we have
national programs that will ensure we do not have those kinds of
emergencies. They should not exist in a country as wealthy as
Canada.
One of the most harmful things that has taken place in Canada in
the last few years has been the destruction and abandonment of
our social housing programs by the federal government. In my
riding people are literally on the street. People are living in
slum housing as a result of the lack of federal funding for
social housing.
I just came back from a mission to Indonesia and Thailand with
the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. We looked at
the conditions in those countries as a result of the economic
crisis there. There is no question the impact has been
devastating.
I was shocked by the reality that some of the conditions there
are not dissimilar from what I have witnessed in my riding.
People are at incredibly high risk as a result of the demise of
the role of the federal government and the abandonment of the
sense of a national focus in these programs. We are at a very
critical point. We have to hold this government accountable for
the damage and havoc it has created for the people who could
least afford it: people who are unemployed, people who are
homeless, people who are living in poverty.
We now have the second highest poverty rate of any
industrialized nation. I heard the Minister of Justice say that
Canada was the envy of the world. We have five million people
who live in poverty and 1.4 million children who live in poverty
as a result of her government's policies. That is nothing to be
proud of.
If we want to talk about social unionism, we should talk about
social unionism in a way that respects social entitlements and
human rights in this country so that no person goes hungry or
homeless. We should make job creation a priority. We should not
abandon the unemployed by cutting back on UI benefits. That is
what real social unionism would be if we were to take the time to
sit down and bring about the new kind of co-operative federalism
many of us would like to see.
1825
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
certainly agree with some of the things my colleague mentioned,
in particular with the fact that the Liberal government is
responsible for the chaos in the health sector coast to coast.
I would also like to comment on what she said regarding national
standards. At first glance, national standards seem to make
sense, but when you start thinking about it and look more
closely, you realize that such a vast country, made up of
provinces and of Quebec from coast to coast, and to another
coast since there is the Arctic, cannot have a single standard.
You cannot impose the same norm across the board.
There are differences in needs between the Atlantic provinces,
Quebec, Ontario and the West. National standards might do more
harm than good. In fact, the proposal of the premiers assembled
in Saskatoon provides that a province, Quebec or any other, can
withdraw from a new federal program, if judged inappropriate to
its particular environment.
It would be an excellent thing, because the government would
transfer to the province enough fiscal points to generate the
same amount of money the federal government was willing to
offer. That way, the province could set up a similar program,
but better tailored to its own needs.
If we had followed this kind of approach over the last decades,
we would not have experienced the troubles we have. I would like
to give an example, and I will ask my colleague for her comments
on the matter.
A case in point is the millennium scholarship fund; $2.5 billion
of taxpayers' money will be entrusted to a private body headed
by the president of Bell Canada. What for? To give scholarships
to students. This seems great and it is for the rest of Canada,
but not for Quebec.
For over 30 years we have had a scholarship system which has
been running smoothly. Our situation is different. These
millennium scholarships deal with a problem we do not have.
Statistics prove it: Quebec students graduate from university
with an average debt load of $11,000. In the rest of Canada, it
is $25,000. Why?
Quite simply because CEGEP is free; the last year in CEGEP is
first year university in other provinces, a very expensive year
since tuition fees are much higher than in Quebec. In some
places they are more than double what they are at Laval or in
Montreal.
The problem is when you want to make a system universal, it is
very difficult to meet everybody's needs. How is the member who
raised these issues earlier reacting to this? Does she not
understand the opting out clause is fundamental to meet
everybody's needs?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, it was a very long
question and I know the debate is going to finish in two minutes,
so I will try to give a very short answer.
I thank the member for his thoughtful question. He says that
national standards sound good, but somehow they have not worked
in the past. I would not agree with that opinion.
I think it is because we have had national standards in the past
that we have been able to produce very good national programs
such as medicare, social programs that have helped bring Canada
together.
I agree that there is huge diversity in this country. But it is
precisely because of that that we need to have some sense of a
base of what it is Canadians can expect as an entitlement to
services and programs, whether they live in the west, the
maritimes or Quebec. That is precisely why we need to bring back
those national standards.
1830
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time allotted to debate
on the motion before the House has expired.
[English]
It being 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)