36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 9
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 2, 1997
1000
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments During Question Period
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Stony Reserve
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1005
1010
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1015
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| The Speaker |
1020
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. John Bryden |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| INTER-PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1025
| CANADA-YUKON OIL AND GAS ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADA MARINE ACT
|
| Bill C-9 Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-227. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| PLAIN LANGUAGE ACT
|
| Bill C-228. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1030
| CITIZEN-INITIATED REFERENDUM ACT
|
| Bill C-229. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-230. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-231. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1035
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1040
1045
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1050
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1055
1100
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1105
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1110
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1115
1120
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1125
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1130
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1135
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1140
1145
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1150
| Mr. John Cannis |
1155
1200
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1205
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1225
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1230
| Mr. René Canuel |
1235
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1240
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1245
1250
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1255
| Mr. David Pratt |
1300
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1305
1310
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1335
| Mr. John Bryden |
1340
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1345
1350
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ASIA CONNECTS YOUTH CONFERENCE
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1400
| LEADER OF THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| KINSMEN CLUB OF ERIN MILLS
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1405
| BILINGUALISM
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| COMMUNITY ACCESS
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| QUEBEC PREMIER
|
| Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
| MINING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1410
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| MEMBER FOR SAINT JOHN
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1415
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1420
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| JOB CREATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1425
| The Speaker |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1430
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1435
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1440
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
| CALGARY DECLARATION
|
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1450
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| VETERANS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| CUSTOMS
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1455
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| INTEREST RATES
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1500
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Private Members' Business
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Randy White |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Customs
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1510
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mrs. Jean Augustine |
1515
1520
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1525
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1530
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1550
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. David Iftody |
1555
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
1600
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on the Address in Reply
|
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1625
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1630
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1635
1640
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1645
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1650
1655
| Mr. David Iftody |
1700
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1720
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1725
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1730
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1735
1740
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1745
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1750
1755
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1800
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1805
1810
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1835
| Mr. Julian Reed |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 9
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 2, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
The Speaker: Colleagues, before we begin with orders of
the day, I have received notification from the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas. Yesterday we had an incident in the House
where the word treasonous was used by a member putting a question
to a minister. At that time I asked the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas to withdraw his comments. At that time his
answer was no.
I see that the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is in the House
this morning. Rather than have any kind of a long statement or
explanation, as far as the House is concerned I have a question
to put to the hon. member and it will be quite direct.
Does the hon. member wish to withdraw the word treasonous which
he refused to withdraw yesterday?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yes. Out of respect for the traditions of the House I
do withdraw the word treasonous.
The Speaker: I consider this matter closed.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STONY RESERVE
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose raised a
question of privilege on September 30. At that time I heard
argument not only from the member but from other members in the
House. This morning the hon. minister of Indian affairs will be
making a statement, giving us further information on this
question of privilege.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to provide additional information for your
consideration of the question of privilege raised by the member
for Wild Rose.
The member for Wild Rose alleges that an official of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
deliberately misled him and subsequently denied him information
to which he was entitled as a member of Parliament, thus
constituting a contempt of Parliament. This is not the case. I
wish to put before the House an outline of my understanding of
what occurred that day and the rationale for the official's
actions.
On August 29, 1997 my staff offered to have senior departmental
officials from the Alberta region provide the member for Wild
Rose with a briefing on the initiatives being undertaken by the
department in the Stony community. While I cannot speak to the
specifics of the hon. member's expectations, there was no promise
at that time to release confidential financial information of the
band to him. The meeting was subsequently arranged for September
16, 1997.
A few days prior to the meeting Indian affairs officials learned
that members of the Stony band would be attending with the hon.
member. On the day of the meeting the departmental regional
office became aware that members of other bands in Alberta were
also accompanying the member to the meeting.
On September 16 the hon. member for Wild Rose arrived by bus for
the meeting accompanied by two assistants and approximately 20
members from three different Alberta bands.
The member conducted at least one interview via telephone with
the media while on route to the meeting.
1005
Representatives of the media also arrived at the building that
afternoon, apparently at the invitation of the hon. member.
Despite this development the participants at the meeting were
advised that they could be present for the general briefing but
that DIAND officials were not at liberty to reveal to non-band
members financial information confidential to the Stony band.
The position taken by DIAND officials was guided by restrictions
of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
It is acknowledged that the information sought was not requested
under the Access to Information Act. However, given the
government's potential liability over inappropriate disclosure of
confidential information to third parties, the Access to
Information Act is used for guidance on the informal release of
information.
Confidential financial information relative to the band is
mandatorily protected by the Access to Information Act. As such,
it can only be released to third parties after a consultation
process. Consultations are with the chief and council or duly
authorized officials of the band. Some of the information can be
provided, however, to individual members of the band, as they are
entitled.
At that point the largest contingent at the meeting, primarily
members of the Samson band, agreed to leave the briefing and
requested a separate meeting with DIAND officials immediately
following the meeting with Stony band members. That request was
granted.
The hon. member for Wild Rose and one other member of another
First Nation protested the position being taken by DIAND
officials. An assistant to the hon. member then drafted a
handwritten note at the meeting which he had signed by members of
the accompanying group. This note appointed the member as their
financial advisor.
The hon. member for Wild Rose claimed that as their financial
advisor he was entitled to the same information as the band
members themselves. DIAND officials were unsure of the legal
implications of releasing the information under these
circumstances or the rights of a financial advisor to receive
such information. As such, he advised those present that if they
pursued the matter legal advice would have to be sought before
the meeting could continue.
The hon. member agreed to leave the meeting to allow a
discussion of financial issues with the members of the Stony
tribe.
The member for Wild Rose was not present during the discussion
of financial issues which was provided to individual members of
the Stony band, but he was present during the briefing by DIAND
staff of the initiatives being taken to address the situation at
Stony. These initiatives include the appointment of a third
party manager to manage the day to day operations of the Stony
First Nation, the initiation of a forensic audit of the band
operations and the establishment of a joint task force to examine
the conditions on reserve and develop proposals to address them.
After the meeting the hon. member asked if the department could
contribute to the cost of the bus which was used to bring the
group to the briefing. The member was advised at that point that
this was not possible.
Sometime after the meeting the hon. member's assistant contacted
the DIAND regional office. He stated that he had a conversation
with an official in the office of the access to information
commissioner and claimed he was advised that the member was
entitled to the information he had sought as a representative of
the individual band members present. The member's assistant was
advised by DIAND to submit a formal access to information
request. This would allow the member to specifically state what
information he required and it would enable the department to
obtain legal advice on a specific request for information.
These events appear to have led to the hon. member's question of
privilege. I wish to submit the following points for
consideration.
First, the member for Wild Rose alleges that officials
deliberately misled him and withheld information. The fact is
there was no intention to deliberately mislead or withhold
information. It was my staff that offered the briefing and
regional officials provided the briefing as promised. The
regional official involved did not provide information which he
felt was confidential and protected under acts of Parliament.
Second, I do not believe that the official's actions indicate a
contempt of this Parliament. The fact that he said he would not
release the requested information under unusual circumstances
without first obtaining legal advice was, I believe, the prudent
course of action and demonstrated no contempt for Parliament
or the member's rights as a parliamentarian. His emphasis on
prudence with respect to confidential information demonstrates
his respect for Parliament and the laws that it develops.
1010
Third, in this question of privilege the hon. member refers to
regulations governing disclosure of information. While it is not
clear to which regulations he is referring I wish to make the
following points. The member for Wild Rose claims that the
released confidential financial information is permitted if
written consent is received. The member argues that he had such
consent.
While it appears that he had the consent of a few band members,
the information being sought related to the entire band and was
not specific to those members. He did not have the consent of
the band. He also claims that as a member of Parliament he is
entitled to confidential information. If he is referring to the
Privacy Act, section 8.1(g) does allow that personal information
can be released to a member of Parliament “for the purpose of
assisting the individual to whom the information relates in
resolving a problem”. Again, in this case the information
requested was not specific to the individuals but related to the
entire band.
My department arranged a briefing in good faith, provided the
briefing and attempted to accommodate the request for information
within the law. The official involved acted prudently by not
revealing confidential information without seeking legal advice.
I am sure the hon. member would not want officials of the
department of Indian affairs or any public servant to risk
releasing confidential information or violating the spirit of an
act of Parliament.
I appreciate this opportunity to outline the circumstances
surrounding the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Wild Rose.
The Speaker: I see the hon. member for Wild Rose is
seeking the floor. I presume it is on this same matter. I do not
want a debate to go back and forth. I am looking for the facts.
If the hon. member for Wild Rose feels he has some additional
facts, new facts, that he has not laid on the table already to
add to this discussion, then of course I would recognize him at
this time. If he does not have any new facts I will proceed from
there.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to put it in the form of a question more than anything
else. The minister states that a member of Parliament cannot
receive this information based on the signatories of the band
present authorizing me to do so. Yet in the same breath when I
left the bureaucrat in question was willing to give that
information to those very few band members.
If I am required to get the entire band's permission, then
surely the bureaucrat would not be allowed to give just a handful
of people that information. It must go to the whole band.
I am really confused as to exactly what the minister means by
that.
The Speaker: Once again, this is put in the form of a
question and of course it is one of the questions that this House
has asked me to take into consideration and which will be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you suggested that if one had any new information that
might help you would receive this.
I know of this particular official. I spent 20 years in the
consulting business in Alberta. One of our areas of work was
trying to improve relations between aboriginal people and oil
companies. In the conduct of that work I had encounters with
this official.
1015
The real problem—and the minister simply does not address
it—is that many bureaucrats in this department started out
idealistic and got into this matter to try to help aboriginal
people. Because of the difficulties of the problems being dealt
with and the machinery they had to work with, they have become
utterly cynical about whether there is anything they can do. They
now no longer try to help. They simply play by the bureaucratic
rules and the more bureaucratic the better. Those are the real
problems.
The minister's response does not address those problems at all.
Perhaps the minister could think for a moment. If we were first
nations people who were pulled in from that band, 15 to 25 of us,
could she put herself into their shoes and listen to her own
statement? It is utter bureaucratic nonsense that does not
address the concerns of the people.
This is what the hon. member was endeavouring to get beyond by
arranging this meeting. The minister's response takes the side
of the bureaucrats, not just against this member of Parliament
but against the interests of ordinary people who would find her
answer utterly incomprehensible, as do the members on this side
of the House.
The Speaker: We are getting a little more into debate
rather than facts. If there are pertinent facts that have not
been laid on the table as opposed to opinions in terms of
personalities, I will permit interventions. They must deal with
facts and if they do not deal with facts I will intervene on the
statements.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
you look into this instance in its entirety I know you will
review all the discussions.
This question affects not only the hon. member for Wild Rose but
many of us who have bands in our ridings—and in my case I have
over 20 of them—that face similar problems.
We should look at the privileges of a member of Parliament with
regard to the Access to Information Act and other problems. The
minister says that information cannot be given out without the
consent of chief and council, and the chief and council are the
ones the aboriginal people with whom I deal want me to
investigate.
Look at the dilemma the member for Wild Rose and I are in. The
access to information people are now at the point where they will
have to proceed to court to try to get this stuff, because the
member of Parliament cannot represent the people who sent him
here.
The chief and council, the very ones grassroots aboriginal
people have come to me for help on because they have a problem
with them, are told they cannot get the information because it is
the chief. But it is the chief who is the problem. What are we
to do?
The Speaker: Once again, we are sort of enlarging on the
whole question. I ask hon. members to be very diligent in their
remarks. If there are other facts, let us stick to the facts and
I will hear them.
I return to the hon. member for Wild Rose, and this will be the
final intervention.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to
one thing stated by the minister. She said that I was acting on
behalf of these people from the Stony reserve as a financial
adviser. That is false.
I am not a financial expert in the slightest. I am the MP for
that riding. I am their elected official. I was there at their
request and was trying to serve on their behalf. That is why I
was there and not as a financial adviser. That is hogwash.
The Speaker: Many times we have situations where we
have disputes and different interpretations of the facts on what
really happened. One person will look at it one way and another
person will look at it another way.
1020
It falls upon me now to take the information you have laid
before me on this question of privilege. I undertake to do that.
I will have a look at the statements on both sides. I will have
a look at whatever information the member has laid before me.
After I have studied it to my satisfaction, I will come back to
the House with a decision on this matter.
Does the hon. leader of the Reform Party in the House have some
facts to add?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is for a point of information. I ask whether the Speaker will
be willing to accept more information, statements and depositions
to help your decision.
At this point I am not sure whether the Speaker has all the
information. You could request witnesses or anything that would
help your decision in this matter.
The Speaker: When members raise questions of privilege
they usually lay whatever information they have on the table. The
words of hon. members are taken as hon. members, and I will deal
with the situation as presented to me by hon. members.
Should I need any other information I will inform the House that
I need it to make my decision. If not and if I can come to a
fair decision for all of us, I will do so and I will base it on
the facts that hon. members from both sides have laid before me
and before the House.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to this
issue.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member rising on a point of
order on this issue?
Mr. John Bryden: I am not sure. I would like to make one
observation with respect to what I have heard. I request that
you consider this issue in the context of—because I do not think
it has been very well expressed—members' privileges under the
Privacy Act.
It would appear from what I have heard that this issue pertains
to the Privacy Act more than to the Access to Information Act.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for that
intervention. I assure the House that I will look at all aspects
of the matter because the privileges of a member and the
privileges of members are at stake.
I will take as broad a view as possible, but I will bring to
bear precisely on the issues raised by the hon. member for Wild
Rose and the response by the hon. minister.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
order in council appointments made 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.
* * *
[Translation]
INTER-PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the
House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
section of the International Association of French speaking
Parliamentarians on a symposium to exchange information on
parliamentary action in a democracy, which was held
in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on April 25 and 26, 1997.
* * *
1025
[English]
CANADA-YUKON OIL AND GAS ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, an
act respecting an accord between the Governments of Canada and
the Yukon Territory relating to the administration and control of
and legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and gas.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA MARINE ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, an act for making the
system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially
oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and
the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the
commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services
and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and
amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other acts
as a consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Hon. David M. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order.
I wish to inform the House that this bill is exactly the same as
the one passed by the House in the last Parliament. It is my
intention to propose that it be referred to committee before
second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-227, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (income
deferral from forced destruction of livestock or natural
disaster).
He said: Madam Speaker, my bill is quite straightforward. For
some years now under the Income Tax Act income from the forced
destruction or sale of livestock as a result of a drought
situation has been deferred.
I am simply proposing that the same system and rules apply to
the destruction of livestock under any natural disaster
circumstance.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PLAIN LANGUAGE ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-228, an act to promote the use of plain language
in federal statutes and regulations.
He said: Madam Speaker, sometimes constituents ask me for
copies of legislation that has been passed in the House, bills
that we are currently talking about. Then they realize that they
cannot understand a word in the bill; they have no idea what it
means.
In addition to the fact they are written in such complicated
legalese, these bills are always open to legal challenges in the
courts.
1030
My bill would force those who write the bills to construct them
in plain language.
Other countries that have this type of legislation have found
that it greatly simplifies the bill writing process.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CITIZEN-INITIATED REFERENDUM ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-229, an act to provide for the holding of
citizen initiated referenda on specific questions.
He said: Madam Speaker, in 1987 when the Reform Party was first
talking about citizen initiated referenda, hardly anyone else was
talking about it. In the early 1990s New Zealand introduced
citizen initiated referenda into its parliamentary system. The
Harris government is in the process of doing so and the Klein
government has already introduced a referendum process for tax
increases.
This bill would bring the federal government in line with the
trend worldwide for greater democratic input from the people. It
is the most important bill I am introducing today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-230, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(election expenses).
He said: Madam Speaker, passage of this bill would force
political parties to raise all the money they need from the
people they purport to represent, instead of gaining money by
compulsion from taxpayers through the election rebate system. I
hope members will support this bill and force their supporters to
actually support them.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-231, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act
(warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol).
He said: Madam Speaker, alcohol is the only consumer product
which, if misused, can harm you that does not have a warning
label to caution about the risks. Forty-five per cent of motor
vehicle collisions, 30 percent of accidental fires, 30 percent of
suicides, 5 percent of birth defects, 65 percent of homicides, 50
percent of family violence, 65 percent of child abuse and
one-sixth of family breakdowns are all directly or indirectly due
to alcohol misuse.
In the last House I introduced a bill to require health warning
labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. It received all
party support, passed second reading and was at committee at the
time of the prorogation of the House.
I am pleased to raise this bill again in the House and I look
forward to getting the support again from all hon. members.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1035
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I propose
that all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion
for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to
his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg
North—St. Paul.
It is my distinct pleasure to rise in the House today as the
newly elected member for the riding of Oak Ridges. The riding is
named after the Oak Ridges moraine which intersects nine
municipalities. It is made up of the communities of Richmond
Hill, the home of the largest observatory east of the Rocky
Mountains and the home of Elvis Stoyko, world championship
skater; the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, the home of the
largest strawberry festival in Canada; and the northern Markham
area, the high tech capital of southern Ontario.
The residents of the riding have placed their trust and faith in
me. I will not let them down. Public office is a sacred trust
and I believe that our role as parliamentarians is to listen to
the people, act with fairness and wisdom, and to never forget
that we are here to serve the interests of Canada.
Lucius Clay said of government:
The road to democracy is not a freeway. It is a toll road on
which we pay by accepting and carrying out our civic
responsibilities.
We have accepted our civic responsibilities as members of this
House. I believe that Canadians now more than ever expect and
even demand that our nation's leaders try to work toward
consensus on issues. The days of political attack and rancour
have not served this nation well, in my view. Political parties
and governments need to work more co-operatively if we are to
achieve the best for our citizens.
Yes, there will be fundamental issues on which we will disagree,
but where there is an opportunity for us to work together to
achieve solutions, let us do it, in the words of Nike.
The Speech from the Throne is the government blueprint for the
coming term. I would like to focus on three areas which are of
concern to me: youth, national unity, and investment in
knowledge and creativity.
In order for Canada to be truly a land of opportunity we must
develop an economic atmosphere which speaks to young Canadians,
which tells them they have a future in Canada. They need to be
able to dream and to reach for the stars.
The government has stated very clearly that the level of
unemployment among our young people is far too high. We have the
best educated young people in our history and we need to create
the conditions that will position them to thrive in our knowledge
based economy.
In February the government announced the youth employment
strategy which consolidated over $2 billion in new and existing
funding for programs and services that young people need to
acquire the skills and work experience to find jobs and lasting
careers.
I welcome the three priorities of the government in this area:
to make sure that young people make a successful transition to
the world of work; to make sure that our young people who want to
continue to learn have access to education; and finally to make
sure that our young people who have found it difficult to get
started in the workplace get a second chance.
As a former educator I have worked closely with students. I
know their concerns and their aspirations. Canada is the land of
opportunity and the government has committed itself to making the
vision of tomorrow a reality for Canadian youth.
The role of internship programs has been particularly successful
in helping young people get started. The government has
committed itself to expand these programs. Enhanced funding for
student summer placements will continue.
Working with the private sector and provincial governments, a
Canada-wide mentorship program will be developed.
I believe that the greatest investment we can make in Canada is
in our young people. The government has listened and is
responding to the needs and concerns of young Canadians.
1040
Former American Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said of
government “the impersonal hand of government can never replace
the helping hand of a neighbour”. His words are fitting when
applied to the national unity debate. The nation was created in
1867 by people of vision, men and women who were prepared to hold
out a helping hand, to say that together much can be
accomplished, but divided little can be achieved.
In the words Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
We are all Canadians. Below the Island of Montreal the water
that comes from the north from Ottawa unites with the waters that
come from the western lakes, but uniting they do not mix. There
they run parallel, separate, distinguishable, and yet are one
stream, flowing within the same banks, the mighty St. Lawrence,
and rolling on toward the sea bearing the commerce of a nation
upon its bosom—a perfect image of our nation. We may not
assimilate, we may not blend, but for all that we are still the
component parts of the same country.
In the Speech from the Throne the government has indicated that
the most important commitment is to keep Canada together. It is
our duty. It is our responsibility. The overriding goal is to
strengthen and unite the country by joining in the common purpose
of keeping Canada as one of the best places in the world in which
to live.
[Translation]
Canada has a proud and rich history.
[English]
In spite of geography, we have shaped a society that reflects
our cultural values as a nation; tolerance, understanding,
recognition of the vital role that two languages, generosity of
spirit and respect for the individual.
There are those in this House who would fail to adhere to the
words of Sir John A. Macdonald: “Let us be English or let us be
French but let us always remain loyal and above all, let us be
Canadian”.
[Translation]
I think Canada exists because its people can work together.
[English]
We are destined for greatness because of the Canadian spirit.
That spirit was shown on the battlefields of Ypres in 1915 and
Vimy Ridge in 1917. Canadians acted as one: French, English,
people of many backgrounds united in a common goal. The
Canadians who risked their lives in 1942 in their raid on Dieppe
and in June 1944 on the beaches of Normandy understood that. My
late father was wounded on those beaches in Normandy. He
believed, as did those of his generation, that Canada was worth
protecting and that Canada and our way of life was worth saving.
The forces of disunity are the forces of despair, the forces of
gloom. Men like Sir George Etienne Cartier believed that French
speaking Canadians would survive as a people within the larger
nation. His belief has proven to be well founded. The French
language and culture is protected by the Constitution, the
charter of rights and freedoms. The use of two official
languages, the thriving of the French language not only in Quebec
but the unparalleled demand for the language in our schools
across the country is a testimony to Cartier and his vision.
I believe sincerely that Prime Minister Laurier was correct that
the 20th century does belong to Canada. Our leadership on the
elimination of land mines is another example of how Canada is
recognized around the world for its compassion and concern for
others. Canada is my home. It is my passion. I believe the
issue of unity can only be addressed by people of goodwill.
Yes, there are issues of alienation that must and will be
addressed by people who are unified in the belief that this
country is worth preserving. I am reminded of the words of
Macdonald on the fate of our nation when he stated “whatever you
do adhere to the union. We are a great country and shall become
one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall
sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be
broken”.
1045
The time has come to reawaken Canadians to our history, to
remind them of our roots and to acknowledge the contribution of
men and women across this country, men like Sir John A. Macdonald
and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I believe the time has come to proclaim
our faith in their work and to declare two national holidays in
their honour to recognize their contributions to Canada and to
the building of our nation.
I applaud the government for having the wisdom to invest in
knowledge and creativity. We live in a changing technological
world. To quote from the Speech from the Throne, “With the
nation's finances in good shape, we will soon be positioned to
make choices and investments that support innovation and risk
taking in Canada, and to attract more foreign investment in
knowledge based industries”.
The government has targeted growth strategies that focus on
knowledge intensive sectors where we are stronger and have good
prospects for new growth and global leadership, areas such as
biopharmaceuticals, the environment and information and
telecommunications. SchoolNet is another good example.
I am pleased the government has focused its efforts in these
areas. I believe that together we can achieve the greatness that
Laurier and Macdonald spoke of 100 years ago.
Long live a united and strong Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam
Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Oak Ridges, who describes
himself as a teacher, has had much to say about youth, Canadian
youth in particular. I would like to ask him a question.
As he is well aware, barely 4 percent of our electorate trusts
politicians and many of that number are members of our own
immediate families or friends of ours. However, our young people's
trust in politicians is pretty close to 0 percent. In order to give
Canadian young people more faith in parliaments and in elected
representatives particularly, would the hon. member not agree to
try to convince his colleagues in the Liberal party to propose a
bill similar to the one in Quebec?
This legislation would allow only voters to contribute to political
parties, so big business would no longer be telling them what to
do. Fundraisers would not be allowed to twist the arms of company
CEOs in order to get $10,000, $20,000 or $100,000 in exchange for
certain recompenses from the government.
I can see several Liberal members of this House who are
nodding to indicate that they would be in agreement with such a
bill. However, I would like to hear it from this hon. member's
lips. Would he be agreeable to the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois
joining forces to look at what is being done in Quebec in order to
improve finances at the present time, not just government finances,
but also those of the political parties?
When we see things like what we saw on last night's news—this
morning, when I called my riding office, they reported a number of
constituents' calls still coming in, along the lines of “Is that
what is happening in our fine riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, as it
is in Drummond and Trois-Rivières, where Liberal fundraisers are
forcing company CEOs to pay up $10,000 or $20,000 if they want any
recognition?” This is scandalous.
Surely the hon. member for Bourassa will want to rise in his
place and—
Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
object to a member making false allegations leading to unfounded
accusations. I ask that the member withdraw his comments.
An hon. member: It is in all the newspapers.
Mr. Denis Coderre: He said the Liberal Party was putting pressure
on certain company CEOs in several ridings. It is unacceptable and I
ask that he withdraw that statement.
1050
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): This is a debate period.
Everyone must be given the time and opportunity to speak.
The questions and comments period is almost over. I would ask the
member for Oak Ridges to make one last brief statement, should he wish
to do so.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the
member for his question. Although I did not raise that issue, I
certainly agree with him that we want to restore confidence in
our youth. I believe this government is certainly doing that
with some of the programs that I outlined.
The hon. member raised a concern about campaign financing. We
do have spending limits. We do have a process of disclosure. If
there are suggestions that the member wants to put forward, I am
all ears. I think the process we have in place is a good one.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am honoured and delighted
to rise today on behalf of my constituents and reply to the
Speech from the Throne for this 36th Parliament.
It is truly an honour to be sent by the people to this House to
represent their concerns and aspirations. I therefore seize this
opportunity of my first debate in this Parliament to once more
thank the people of Winnipeg North—St. Paul for their trust and
confidence in me.
I thank those from the former riding of Winnipeg North who now
constitute nearly half of my adjusted riding of Winnipeg
North—St. Paul. I thank them for the continued confidence which
they first entrusted in me in 1988, renewed in 1993 and again
last June 2. I also thank those who are my constituents for the
first time. I assure them that I will continue to discharge my
duties and responsibilities as their member of Parliament with
the same dutiful and careful attention I have served the people
in the past. I shall consult with them and will continue to use
my best judgment at all times taking the collective interests of
our constituency and our country as my guidepost.
May I share with my colleagues in this House and with my
constituents that I feel a special sense of honour and privilege
as I debate today knowing that this new Parliament will be the
last Parliament for the departing 20th century and the first
Parliament of the 21st century as the throne speech so aptly
noted. I am sure we collectively share this special moment in
Canadian history just as we collectively share a special sense of
duty to serve our country, the country of birth for most of us
but the adopted country for some of us.
Nearly 30 years ago I became an adopted son of this country
believing I was to begin a new life for my family and myself. As
soon as I landed on its soil I felt at once a sense of security.
I knew this would be a country where I could build a home, a
career and most importantly yes, a future.
It was the future that became the driving force in building my
family. Had I not believed that there was something good in this
country to build upon, there would have been no inspiration there
to pioneer the way for our children in order that they would have
as equal if not a greater opportunity for success as their father
has had.
1055
I now look at my family, my four sons: Reis, Advin, Sherwin and
Christopher. I ask myself, have I done what I set out to do in
being the best leading example of fatherhood to my family. My
wife Gloria would ask too, has she done what she set out to do in
being the best leading example of motherhood to our sons.
Like any parent, father or mother, perhaps there is a need for
insurance that the future for our children will continue to
advance. On this earth there is no insurance of longevity, only
the belief, the faith that what we have contributed in our
lifetime can be an assurance of a future.
In essence we are only caretakers of this world. This is the
directive of our humanity to which we are all instinctively
called. And so it was with our First Nations people who began
building Canada's first communities thousands of years ago. And
so it was with the pioneers of Canada today who brought this
nation together just over 100 years ago.
There must have been something great in creating a country of
such immense promise. They could never know that future but they
could ensure that it would happen by putting in place those
building blocks upon which its future could be founded. They
built our Confederation, the physical structure of our nation and
the social infrastructure for our citizens, pensions and medicare
just to mention a couple.
I put forth to hon. members this challenge, that we face up to
the responsibility of ensuring our nation's continued future into
the next millennium. This country has spent over a century
discussing nation building. It is now up to us to project that
history into this new millennium by securing and sustaining that
nation Canada which has been built.
We must as members of Parliament in partnership with the
government be prepared now to answer to the future needs of our
children or else in this 36th session of Parliament we will have
failed in contributing to this period of Canadian history
entrusted to us. This is why our government strongly believes in
seeing our youth educated and therefore empowered to be creative
and innovative in facing the social, economic and political
challenges of our fast growing world.
We recognize the need for an education that is responsive to
these challenges by committing an endowment fund for scholarship.
I am indeed delighted that the prime minister announced in his
reply to the throne speech the millennium scholarship endowment
fund. What will it do for young Canadians? The fund will help in
at least two key priority areas, investing in the knowledge and
creativity of Canadians and giving young Canadians a chance to
thrive in the new economy by ensuring that post-secondary
education is accessible and affordable to them.
Earlier I said I am delighted to rise and speak. I am delighted
because this government has restored our nation's finances to
order. The deficit has been reduced significantly and in a year
or two we will have a balanced budget. The inflation rate is low.
The interest rate is low. The unemployment rate is going down.
But the work must continue.
I am also delighted because we have a government that believes
that each Canadian child existing now and hereafter is guaranteed
a future beyond the year 2000. It is a call for our government to
be accountable to each member of its citizenship who is entitled
to the fullest exercise of Canadian rights and privileges, and we
have responded with the introduction of the national child tax
benefits program.
That is why above all when this government speaks of Canada's
future, it will deliver its message with one united voice for all
Canadians, that in the true spirit of Canadianism what we ensure
for one we must be prepared to ensure for all.
As we continue this 36th session of Parliament our job is to
secure the future of this great nation. At times it may seem a
daunting task.
Yet, we must ask, can we afford to doubt ourselves when the
future of our country is in our hands?
1100
Had I been told 29 years ago that I would one day be standing in
Parliament representing the constituents of Winnipeg North and
that in my third election as the member of Parliament for
Winnipeg North—St. Paul, I would reclaim my seat; and had I been
told that amidst the devastation of my province plagued with the
natural disaster of floods, its citizens would rise to the task
of meeting the needs of our communities, I could never have
doubted that the challenge would have to be met, not just out of
necessity but because the vision of our nation's future was at
stake.
Therefore I ask, are we prepared to take this country into the
next millennium? If so, what is the government ready to do about
it?
I am proud to be part of this government which has restored an
infrastructure of hope and confidence for Canadians since it took
office in 1993, because it understands the changing world. I am
proud as well to be part of the government that has now set an
agenda for the Canadian people that truly will bring us to the
new millennium.
I thank the House and my colleagues for their indulgence. We
shall work together so that Canada will continue to be the number
one nation in the world in which to live.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his eloquent
speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
During the member's comments he indicated that he felt the
government had restored health to the nation's finances. I
wonder if the member could comment on what his definition of
economic and fiscal health is.
Does it include 9 percent stagnant unemployment, shrinking family
incomes, 17 percent youth unemployment, 100 billion additional dollars
in the national debt, the highest personal income tax rates in
the industrialized world, a $600 billion Canada pension plan
unfunded liability that future Canadians will have to pay for?
Is this his idea of giving hope to young Canadians?
I am always entertained to hear members opposite talk with such
great passion about the future and youth. This is a caucus that
does not have a single member under the age of 30 talking
condescendingly about hope for future generations, which it has
forever indebted and made poorer because of the choices of the
government to add $100 billion to the public debt and the
previous government, of which this Prime Minister was an integral
member, created the debt to begin with.
Does this minister think that debt and that kind of serious
economic problem creates hope for young Canadians?
Mr. Paul Forseth: No vision.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to
respond. In 1993 the whole nation knew that the deficit was $42
billion. In another two years the budget will be balanced.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: If the hon. member would allow me
to reply and not ask questions to his questions, perhaps he may
share in the real facts and figures.
Mr. Ken Epp: He did not ask about the deficit. Answer
his question.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, if the member would
be courteous and respectful of the House—
Mr. Ken Epp: You be courteous enough to answer the
question then.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I have not yet
finished answering the question. The member is prejudging my
answer. How could the member say that I am not answering the
question when he does not give me the opportunity to answer the
question?
When the deficit has been reduced from $42 billion to nearly
zero and the budget will be balanced in two years, that is a sign
of fiscal health.
We recognize that there is still a debt. We do not deny that.
That is why we continue to work to increase the economy of the
country so that we will have the revenues and eventually we will
be able to repay the debt. The government has stated that when we
have the fiscal dividend we will spend half of it for the
repayment of debt and reduction of taxes. However, in contrast
to the Reform Party we will spend half of our fiscal dividend for
social and economic programs for the country, for medicare,
education and for research and development.
The Reform Party does not care about the essence of politics. It
does not care about the essence of government. Government is for
the people. It is not only for the reduction of debt. A
reduction of debt is not the ultimate essence of our obligation.
We will reduce the debt. We will reduce the deficit because we
would like to serve the people. Meanwhile we need a balanced
approach. The Canadian people gave us that mandate and so I am
pleased to be part of the government.
1105
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to my hon. friend. He spoke with a great
deal of eloquence about how well the government has done in his
view. I suspect, knowing his constituency well, that he deals
with a great number of immigration problems.
Years ago one of the dark sides of Canadian history was the head
tax on Asians. We have rejected that as one of the darkest
moments in our history as a country.
His government recently imposed a major head tax on all new
Canadians. He will know that this poses an incredible burden, in
particular on poor families coming from developing countries.
I would be curious to know what my hon. friend says to new
Canadians who are applying to have relatives, friends and
extended families come to Canada and have to pay these exorbitant
head taxes now as a result of the taxes imposed by his government
on new Canadians.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, when the issue was
emerging a couple of years ago I consulted with my constituents.
Every new Canadian that I spoke to understood that we are in a
tight financial situation. They understood that they would have
to pay the $975 landing fee, but what they did not understand,
and for which I fought with them, is that the fee must be paid at
the time of landing and not before. On that we succeeded.
I might inform the hon. member from the NDP that even the NDP
member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly signed the petition
accepting the landing fee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I need to
challenge the hon. member. Of course we ask questions about the
diversion of the taxpayers' dollars to paying interest which
really is what happens when we have a $600 billion debt.
One-third of every dollar that taxpayers send to Ottawa is simply
transferred to financial organizations that have lent the
government money. That is money that is not available for
government programs.
How can this member claim success for the government's fiscal
policies when what it is doing is arranging to spend one-third of
the taxpayers' dollars on things that have nothing to do at all
with delivering government programs to needy people in this
country?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, perhaps the best way
to answer the question would be with another question so that the
members could get the meaning.
Let assume for a moment that we spend all the revenues of Canada
to pay our debt. What would happen to the people of Canada? What
would happen to the people who get sick? What would happen to
the children who are hungry? What would happen to the children
who would like to get an education?
We have placed our priorities. I consulted at the doorsteps
during the last election. I presented the program of the Reform,
the program of the NDP. Canadians shared their confidence with
us because they believe a balanced approach is the way to govern
the country.
1110
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, as this is
the beginning of the 36th Parliament, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the people of Drummond for once again
demonstrating their faith in me. They can count on my
co-operation and be assured that I will defend the interests of
this riding with a booming economy, which is also referred to as
the heart of Quebec. As I did at the beginning of the 35th
Parliament, I want to offer my constituents my full co-operation
and promise them that I will do my utmost to promote their
interests.
Since I will continue to act as health critic, my comments today
will pertain mainly to the throne speech sections that touched on health
issues.
But first, I must condemn this Speech from the Throne for promoting
nothing less than a Pierre Elliott Trudeau style of federalism with all
its consequences. This overbearing and centralizing federalism
adamantly refuses to recognize the equality of the two founding peoples,
thus thwarting the legitimate ambitions of the Quebec people. This type
of federalism wants Quebeckers to choose between being unique like the
Pacific salmon or facing the threats of plan B if they want to assert
themselves. Never before has a Speech from the Throne so openly
threatened Quebeckers' right to decide their own future.
In the face of this spurious choice of a renewed federalism
provided everyone fits the same mold, we say that our aspirations are
legitimate, that they are imbued with the spirit of democracy and that
we are marching down that road to freedom and to our future.
Getting back to the issue of health care and the government's plans
as stated in the throne speech, I would like to talk about the way the
cuts were distributed. The Liberals go around preening and busting their
britches over their balancing the budget by next year. However they are
not saying how they got to that point.
They do not mention that for the most part cuts have been made at
the expense of the poorest of the poor. Nor do they boast about the fact
that they cut $4.5 billion in transfer payments to the provinces,
including $1.3 billion to Quebec alone. Also, they neglect to mention
that the government has grabbed the surpluses in the unemployment
insurance fund, to which it stopped contributing several years ago.
Not a word either about the federal departments' expenditures,
which were supposed to be cut by 19 percent but were reduced by
only 9 percent, or less than half the Liberals' rather modest
goal. Moreover they hide the fact that 54 percent of the cuts
made were to social programs, health care and education.
But we in the Bloc Quebecois are going to tell it all. We are not
going to let the Prime Minister and his finance minister get credit for
the sacrifices made by others.
This is typical of Liberal smoke and mirrors. Governments in Quebec
and the other provinces are made to look like heavies, because they have
been forced to make cuts and not Ottawa, which in turn steps in as a
saviour using the money it took from workers and the neediest and
reinvesting mere crumbs in areas which are not even under its
jurisdiction, namely social programs, education and once again health
care. I say “once again” because this is not the first time the Liberals
have tried to intrude on health care.
1115
They date back to the first red book, which called for the
creation of a national forum on health, raising objections from all
of the provinces because they had no representation on it. No
provincial minister was allowed to take part. And anyway, a number
of them had already carried out a similar exercise. Here, once
again, they were having standards and views dictated to them, while
the provinces were the ones that knew what they needed in the area
of health.
This Forum cost $12 million at the very least. They are
shoving the unemployed onto welfare because of the cuts, but paying
$12 million for a national forum which leaves no room for the
provinces. They tabled a condescending report which was a total
endorsement of federal interference in the health field. This
report went beyond the Prime Minister's expectations, and here he
is ready to spread his tentacles further out into this area of
provincial jurisdiction.
They found new ways to interfere. Take tax credits for
home-based care, for example. Not only are they interfering but
they are adding to what has already been put into place.
In red book II, the Liberals promised to create a new credit
for home-based care. In the Speech from the Throne, they say they
want to follow up on this promise of interference.
Having seen the Liberals make cuts in transfer payments for social
programs that could reach a total of $42 billion between 1995 and
2003, what are we to think when we see them announcing a new annual
program worth some one hundred million dollars? This is nothing
more and nothing less than hypocrisy.
Rather than including that amount in the transfer payments to
the provinces, the federal government is using its powers of
taxation to interfere in the delivery of home care, an area that
comes under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government wants
to see its maple leaf logo on the cheques, rather than leaving the
provinces alone to manage their own areas of jurisdiction.
And what about another attempt at interference, the
integration of a federal drug plan?
According to the throne speech, the federal government will
establish a national plan, with national standards, a timetable and
a fiscal framework to set up its new discovery in the area of
meddling and duplication: drug insurance. This meddling and
duplication is unacceptable.
It is out of the question for the federal government to come
along and impose its own standards, when the whole thing is already
set up. The Liberals must promise to provide a system whereby
those provinces not interested in participating or already having
such a program, like Quebec, can withdraw from the program, with
full compensation.
Then there is the Canadian information system. The Canadian
health information system is another example of the federal
government's centralizing tendencies.
Here come the Liberals again with the announcement they made in the
latest budget on the Canadian health information system, a fund
worth $50 million over three years.
Madam Speaker, you are telling me I have only a minute left,
but I still have a lot to say. However, I will move to my
conclusion.
What we in the Bloc Quebecois object to is that this is the
Liberal government's tactic of smoke and mirrors, of doing anything
to save face. We in the Bloc, however, have news for the Prime
Minister. People are no longer being taken in by this sort of
antic.
Quebecers are increasingly aware of what goes on here and can count
on the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois, who will be here every
day, in every debate, to reveal the pretence and go beyond
appearances, to show people what really goes on here, even though
that may not be to the liking of the other side of the House.
1120
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.
I listened with great interest to the member from the Bloc
Quebecois and there are a few things I would like to point out.
We have to accept in this House the comments from the opposition
party on how it feels about our programs and our achievements.
However, I believe the best judge of that is the people of
Canada. They reflected this in the last election by not only
renewing our mandate but by sending the message to the Bloc
Quebecois, because its numbers went from 54 to 44.
The member talked about the national forum on health.
Consultation was done well before the election and when its
recommendation came back one of its highlights was to restore
funding to a base of $12.5 billion. Without hesitation the prime
minister and the government took the initiative to restore the
funding and accepted the recommendation of the committee. At the
same time they went beyond and added $50 million over the next
three years, which the member also pointed out.
I want to comment on the point the member made about the
aspirations and the path to freedom. I am puzzled about the use
of the word freedom. I feel I and the rest of Canada are being
told we are hostages held in a ball and chain. As a Canadian,
whether I live Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, I like to
believe I have freedom. I have the freedom to vote, I have the
freedom to select, I have the freedom to travel, I have the
freedom to choose. Maybe in Quebec I am restricted as to the
schools I can send my children, but that is for the Quebec people
to decide.
I do not know what the member means by the path of freedom. As
Canadians we are all free citizens.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to
respond to the last comment made by the hon. member. I should remind him
that what we have been saying for the past 30 and perhaps even 300 years
is that we are one of the two founding peoples of this country and that
we want to be recognized as such. That is what we call freedom.
I would also like to comment on some of my hon. colleague's remarks
regarding the National Forum on Health. This forum was established
following the last throne speech.
The government was committed to travelling across Canada to find out
what works and what does not work in each province's health care system.
This was to be done in co-operation with provincial ministers and
representatives. The ministers and their representatives said no, as
they considered this to be outright interference in an area of
provincial jurisdiction.
Under the Constitution—which you like to bring up when it suits
your purpose—the federal government is only required to transfer tax
revenues. These amounts are to be distributed among the provinces on the
basis of population, and the federal government is required to transfer
some of the money to help the provinces carry out their responsibilities
in the area of health.
Need I remind the House that health care management is the
responsibility of each province. Health is an exclusive provincial
jurisdiction. I hope that is clear.
As for the Canada social transfer, we read on page 58 of red book
II: “A new Liberal government will raise the CHST cash floor to $12.5
billion beginning in 1998-99”. The $6 billion increase in health
spending announced by the Liberals is a sham. This is not new money; it
comes from the cancellation of cuts the Liberals had planned to make.
This money is spread over five years. It is definitely not extra money
the federal government will be transferring to the provinces every year.
So, don't tell us—
1125
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with a
great deal of respect that I take part in the debate on the throne
speech.
First, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as assistant
deputy chairman of committees of the whole House, and I also want to
take a few moments to thank the voters of Louis-Hébert for putting their
trust in me, and also the numerous volunteers without whose support I
would not be here today.
Everybody agrees that research and development is a key component
for any society wishing to be fully prepared for the 21st century.
Economic prosperity is increasingly the result of research and
technological development, rather than the development of natural
resources. The government opposite may be full of good intentions in its
speeches, but we are still waiting for concrete action.
For instance, the throne speech is extremely vague on the government's
approach regarding this strategic sector. The government only included
a few paragraphs to affirm its supposedly crucial role in that area. It
is so ironic.
Science and technology are at the core of a modern country's
prosperity. The government claims to recognize the primary role of
science and technology in preserving the public's health and well-being.
It claims to recognize it has a contribution to make to job creation and
economic growth. In their red book, before the 1993 election, the
Liberals promised to double funding for research and development.
However, as always, these commitments turned into cuts of 50 percent to
research budgets.
If this government truly cared about research and development, it
would at least restore research funding to its pre-1993 level, and as
quickly as possible.
Even then, Canada would still be trailing far behind other OECD
countries. This is how serious this Liberal government is, in its throne
speech.
As Mr. Tavanas, the Rector of Université Laval in Quebec City,
recently pointed out, “because of the globalization of knowledge-based
economies, particularly in the developed world, knowledge is finally
recognized for what it is, namely a collective wealth, a tool for
economic and social progress, and a competitive asset for nations. The
role of universities is particularly important in Quebec, where research
and industrial development still lag behind what is being done in other
developed countries with which, unfortunately, we must compete”.
Last February, in full pre-election mode, the Liberals, with their
sense of the dramatic, announced with much fanfare the creation of the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation. One election and a few months
later, the Bloc Quebecois is still waiting for more information on this
tool to modernize research infrastructure.
Questions come to mind. Will there be funding with which to pay
researchers? This is vital to ensure the quality of research and stop
the brain drain. The question remains unanswered.
The whole scientific community is impatient to see this much
heralded foundation become reality. It is not known when it will
actually be up and running.
The Bloc Quebecois has already identified a number of weak points.
The new foundation's mandate excludes social sciences, a key sector that
is seen as secondary to research.
The preferred emphasis was on “hard sciences”, leaving universities like
the Université du Québec à Montréal, which does not have a medical or
engineering faculty, out of luck.
Despite the $800 million investment, an annual contribution of $180
million announced by the Minister of Finance in the February 1997
budget, it is clear that it will not offset the deep cuts made by the
Liberals in recent years in R&D.;
1130
The Bloc Quebecois has not forgotten that the federal research
councils sustained cuts of close to $100 million, or 10 to 14
percent of their budget, and that funding for health and
post-secondary education was slashed by $3.3 billion, with a
direct negative impact on research in these two sectors.
These blithe cuts in transfers to the provinces, as well as
departmental budgets, the latter having lost half a billion for R&D;,
have been detrimental to the activities of all the country's research
laboratories, centres and agencies.
In this throne speech, the government is trying to look generous,
but it is in fact interfering in three areas of provincial jurisdiction:
health, universities and social programs. This is a sure way to
irritate provincial governments, which in turn are forced to make
corresponding cuts in these same areas, in response to dramatic cuts in
federal transfer payments.
For those who are in any doubt, from 1994 to 1997 federal cash
transfers for health, welfare and post-secondary education dropped from
$19.3 billion to $14.9 billion. They will drop by another $2.4 billion
this year.
The selection of R&D; projects will be the responsibility of the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which may, if necessary, resort to
peer evaluation.
Universities have already expressed their views on the matter by
demanding this particular selection process, peer evaluation, without
receiving any guarantees in that regard.
Moreover, for new programs, the foundation will require partners
to contribute 50 percent or 60 percent of total funding. It is
hard to imagine how universities and hospitals, already faced
with considerable budget constraints resulting from cuts in
transfers to the provinces, will manage to meet this major
challenge. We do not know how this foundation will distribute the
available funds among the provinces. Can we hope that Quebec's
share will be proportionate to its population?
Considering what is at stake here, namely our ability to
participate fully in the economy of the next millennium, the
shortsighted vision favoured by the Liberal government is cause for
concern.
Yet there is a sense of urgency because of the fierce competition that
exists at the international level in the area of research and
development. Therefore, I call upon the government to stop talking and
start acting before it is too late.
I should advise the government that, as my party's critic for
science, research and development, I will monitor the
establishment of this foundation and the funds that will be
invested in these areas. I will act as a watchdog for that
community, which has contributed more than its share to the
government's struggle to put its fiscal house in order. I will be
all the more vigilant since my own riding of Louis-Hébert
includes universities, CEGEPs, research hospitals and a thriving
high tech sector.
All this activity, of which I am very proud, will pave the way
for the new economy in our region and in the national capital of a sovereign
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member on what I believe is
her first speech in the House and I welcome her. I am
particularly pleased when we have members opposite who are
interested in the science and technology files. I welcome a lot
of the remarks which she made today and I would like to ask her
one question.
I represent a large university in my riding. Research and
development, the development of new technologies and the building
of research infrastructure which will be a part of the product of
this new foundation is of great interest to me. We are
constantly seeking out new partnerships and new forms of
investment in order to build the kind of research strength which
we would all like to see. As the member has recognized, it
creates jobs and a secure future for us.
However in discussions with some of the larger firms, the
political instability in Canada particularly in the province of
Quebec is a significant disincentive to investment.
I just wonder how as a new member in this House with experience
and an interest in this very important area she answers that.
Would we not be better off if we resolved the unity question, if
we put that aside and got on with the work of investing in this
country together and building a future for all of us?
1135
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, fortunately, my hon. colleague's
concerns are not shared by investors around the world. We are
experiencing healthy growth in investment, and hence in the number of
potential partners in research and development.
If I may refer to the terms recently used by the metropolitan
Quebec chamber of commerce, concerning an investigation on the job
losses in the public service resulting from early retirement policies,
it said that the research and development sector was so vibrant in the
Quebec City area that those jobs losses were gradually being offset by
new jobs in research and development.
This is what we call the new economy.
At this time, everything is fine and investors from around the
world—I will not go through the list of the most recent investments,
although I could if you were to ask me to—are much more concerned with
the quality of researchers and the development sector than they are with
any other problem. For the time being, they are very positive about
Quebec.
To conclude, I would like to say that each dollar invested in
research and development creates jobs.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, first of all,
I would like to congratulate the new member for Louis-Hébert on her
speech.
I have a question for her. I have often visited the great city of
Montreal, and I remember Montreal used to be the most important city in
Canada, and it was booming. In the last 20 years, Montreal has
experienced high unemployment and a great deal of poverty. Over that
period a Parti Quebecois government has been in office in Quebec City
for a long time.
How is it that, with a Parti Quebecois government, in Montreal
there is high unemployment, poverty is on the rise and prosperity is a
thing of the past? Does the hon. member have an explanation for this?
This is really sad, because Montreal used to be the most important city
in Canada.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, my answer will
be very brief indeed. If it were not for all these cuts to transfer
payments, maybe poverty would not be so acute in the Montreal area.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
congratulate you again on your apppointment. I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Scarborough-Centre.
I must confess that it is with some pride that I rise today in this
House as the new Liberal member for Bourassa. You undoubtedly know that
I lost three previous elections before winning on June 2. All those
years of relentless efforts have earned me the nickname of Mr. Tenacity.
My colleagues opposite will surely have the opportunity to find out why
real soon, if they have not done so already.
Since June 2, the voters in Bourassa have, for the first time in
four years, a real member of Parliament, a true federalist voice in the
House of Commons, a good representative who will fight to protect their
interests and express their viewpoints in Parliament.
So, my first words in this House will be for the voters of
Bourassa. I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for letting
me live my dream, which is to represent them in the Parliament of
Canada.
The taxpayers of the wonderful riding of Bourassa, in Quebec, have
elected me to take part in the building of a strong Canada for the year
2000, a strong Canada for our children, a strong and united Canada
proudly looking to the future. That is what I will be trying to achieve
in the next four or five years.
Let me assure you that the mandate the people of Bourassa have
given me is something near and dear to my heart and that I take it very
seriously, because I am very much aware of my responsibilities and the
trust these people have put in me.
1140
It is in that spirit that I intend to contribute, in my limited
capacity, to the reflection on the trust which must exist between the
citizens and their elected representatives in a healthy democracy.
If I asked for the floor in this venerable House today, it is to
talk about the priorities of our government. By the way, some of my
colleagues on the other side of the House would do well to listen. They
could learn how to go about taking this country beyond the year 2000.
The hon. members across the floor have frequently accused us of not
going to the people with a book full of promises and undertakings to
cure all the ills of Canada.
Had we done so, nobody would have believed us and we would not have been
re-elected with a majority, as we were on June 2.
Had we said that the federal government could solve all the
problems, we would have been lying through our teeth. We chose to
concentrate on a few clear, essential priorities we can deal with
vigorously.
You probably recall the sorry state of the country's finances a
mere four years ago. Need I remind you that within a single mandate,
the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Paul Martin, did a tremendous job of
turning things around? So much so that we will reach a balanced budget,
a zero deficit, earlier than forecasted.
It is now possible to think about reinvesting in social programs.
As a matter of fact, the government will increase its financial
assistance to provinces beyond the budgeted level. We will
introduce a bill that will bring up to $12.5 billion the guaranteed
annual cash payments to provinces and territories within the
framework of the Canada health and social transfer.
This is certainly good news for all Canadians. Interest rates
are the lowest in 30 years, inflation is under control, the dollar
is stable and investment is constantly increasing. Even consumers
are starting to believe again in the strength of our economy, and
this is a very good sign.
The good news as we are pulling out a difficult period of
downsizing is that while putting our house in order to reduce our
costs, we have also changed our methods and approaches in order to
get better results.
The reforms that we have initiated and that we are pursuing will
allow us not only to save money, but also to get our money's worth,
to pay for services that Canadians really need, in a flexible and
efficient manner.
In short, we made all the changes needed to develop a less
costly model, but also a more modern and efficient model. Now that
the health of our public finances is progressively improving, we
have to put forward an action plan for the future.
The Liberal government's action plan is based on our highest
priority, employment, that is to make sure that this good health is
also reflected in the quality of life of all our citizens. This is
why we intend to intensify our efforts in the development of job
opportunities, for young Canadians especially.
Our young people are enterprising, well educated and ready to take
over from us and contribute to the development of Canada. We must ensure
that conditions are such that they can find their place in the sun. It
was to that end that, last week, the Prime Minister announced in this
House the establishment of the millennium scholarship fund to provide
financial assistance to young people.
In the years to come, our government will be spending $800 million
to stimulate youth employment. That is positive, concrete action, not
empty promises. With the economic indicators forecasting continued
recovery in consumer spending, the basic conditions for the private
sector to increase its hiring level are in place. But to get a job when
jobs are increasingly specialized, one must first get appropriate
training. Our government plans to focus its energies on that.
We are confident that we can work toward ensuring that as many
Canadians as possible have the necessary skills to get the jobs opening
up in high tech areas. The changes to employment insurance were designed
with that in mind. It is also with that in mind and to demonstrate
flexibility that we signed with the Government of Quebec an agreement
ensuring that the management of training assistance is brought closer to
the people concerned. This is proof that the federal system does work.
Finally, the changes we are thinking about making to the financial
support to families are along the same lines. We intend to increase the
federal government's contribution to the child tax credit by at least
$850 million over the course of this mandate.
Let me conclude by summing up our priorities for the next four
years.
We are committed to building a prosperous country, through careful and
responsible policies aimed at reducing underemployment and child
poverty, and a healthy country that will remain healthy thanks to better
organized health care services.
To these two main priorities I must add a third one, without which
implementation of the other would be impossible.
1145
Our third priority, therefore, is to promote national unity and it
is also why we have picked the right way to go about it: deliver good,
flexible, honest and effective government to all Canadians, government
that stays the course during hard times, government that manages the
public purse wisely and works to eliminate the deficit and the debt.
I am convinced that our government will approach the whole issue of
national unity in a spirit of co-operation and partnership with the
provinces. We will do everything it takes to make Canada a strong and
united country.
The people of Bourassa, like all Quebeckers and all Canadians, want
a federal system that works better and that meets their needs.
During this term of office, I will personally and with pride promote
Quebec's interests within the Liberal Party of Canada and campaign
tirelessly for the French fact in this country.
Finally, and more particularly, our determination to serve our
fellow Quebeckers well can be seen in our desire to take action to help
the greater Montreal area make the transition to the new economy.
Behind the statistics on unemployment and poverty, there is still lots
of good news for the area's economy.
Throughout greater Montreal, there are business that are
innovating, discovering new markets, and expanding; in a word, hiring.
Better news yet: these businesses are not all in high tech sectors.
Whether it be textiles, tourism, retail sales or home care, there are
businesses doing well and hiring people.
Our government thinks that the best way to offset job losses in
slower growth areas is to encourage the creation of more new jobs in
emerging sectors.
We have already invested heavily in research support and
infrastructure renewal, and we intend to continue our role of supporting
and jump starting the Montreal economy in the years to come.
Change, prosperity, responsibility, flexibility and honesty; this
is the best guarantee of a united Canada where Quebeckers like myself
can be proud to be what they are: full-fledged Canadians.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the new member for Bourassa, who until recently was the assistant
director general of his party, the Liberal Party of Canada, in Quebec
said it would be effective and desirable to forge bonds of trust between
him and his voters, between the Liberal Party of Canada and Canadian
voters.
It would be extremely difficult to build up trust, given that, as
a whole, members of this Parliament do not enjoy a great degree of
credibility among the public. According to a poll conducted last year,
barely 4 percent of voters have some confidence in members of Parliament.
The member for Bourassa spoke about promises, promises which, need
I remind him, were not kept. During the 1993 election campaign, his
government promised to abolish the GST. That promise was broken. His
government also pledged to set up a $5-a-day child care program from
coast to coast. Another broken promise.
How can the member believe he can promote trust when, yesterday,
the headlines of every newspaper in the country revealed that
fundraisers from the Liberal Party had twisted the arms of
businesspeople throughout Quebec to collect funds for the last election
campaign, not to the tune of $5, $10 or $50 but, rather, $10,000,
$50,000 or $100,000. As we all know, when Bombardier, for example, or
the CIBC gives $100,000 to the Liberal Party, it is because it will make
five times that amount. Theirs is not an investment that will bring in
a mere 3 percent in interest; it is a lot more profitable than that.
It is very difficult to build up trust between voters and MPs when
some Liberal members behave in this fashion.
In the past, the Conservative Party experienced problems of its
own. Today, unfortunately, it is the Liberal Party. The former director
general of its Quebec wing certainly did not provide a good example if
his goal is to promote trust. It is just empty rhetoric.
1150
Mr. Denis Coderre: This is laughable, Madam Speaker, because
regarding credibility, if you look at the facts, I won the election by
9,000 votes. The Bloc Quebecois lost more than 500,000 votes altogether.
We have increased the number of our members in Quebec. We are everywhere
or almost in the Quebec area. Federalists won a majority of votes
compared to 38 percent for the other side.
If the hon. member wants to make allegations, if he has new facts
to disclose—because that concerns me as much as it concerns all of us
as members of Parliament—he should tell the RCMP, which, according to
the news release, is conducting an investigation at the request of the
human resources minister. They should stop reading newspapers and making
allegations. If the hon. member has some new facts to reveal, he should
do so outside the House so he will not be protected by parliamentary
immunity. If he knows of anyone engaging in such practices, he should
disclose their names.
I have been in the Liberal Party of Canada for 15 years and I know
everyone. But if he is in a position to name names, he should do so. I
myself have never witnessed anything like that and I find this kind of
thing appalling—
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Are you ready to put your seat on the line?
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, if the member for Frontenac has
new facts to reveal, he should do so. We in this party have forged a
link of trust. The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies won the
election by almost 8,000 votes. I won by 9,000 votes. In the riding of
Ahuntsic, we won by more than 10,000 votes. We chose job creation,
investment and financial credibility instead of playing the same old
record.
They have played that old record so much that, as the Cyniques, an
old comedy group of the 70s, used to say, you can hear the other side of
it. This is terrible.
For the sake of all of us in this House, I hope that if the hon.
member knows names, because he seems to know some things, he should
leave the House and say what he has to say during a scrum. I too would
like to know who is collecting money. This would be helpful to all of
us.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to have the opportunity in
the 36th Parliament to join in the debate on the Speech from the
Throne.
I begin by thanking the residents of Scarborough Centre for once
again entrusting me with their vote and their confidence. It was
a privilege and an honour for me to have represented them during
the 35th Parliament. That I find myself today in the 36th
Parliament I owe it to them and I thank them. I pledge to them
that I will once again do my utmost to bring their concerns to
this honourable House. I also thank my volunteers, for had it
not been for their support and commitment the excellent result we
achieved would not have happened.
I also take this opportunity to thank my staff: Costas, Effy,
Sandra and Kathy for keeping our office in an excellent working
mode and serving our constituents during the election period. I
thank my entire family, especially my two sisters, Nomike and
Kathy, for their love and support. Also a very special thanks
goes out to our riding president, Ernie Chaplin, for his
dedication and continued support.
Last but not least I thank my children, Irene, Paul and Daniel,
and my partner and loving wife, Mary. I say “Thank you, Kohani,
for your love and support. You are my Rock of Gibraltar”.
Since the debate began last week many members have spoken on the
throne speech. They brought forth many issues and many
statistics. They dissected, analysed and commented on the throne
speech in a way they chose to interpret it. I am sure every
member in this honourable House respects each other's views
whether we agree or disagree.
This is the arena where we all come to debate, to state our
position, to bring forth the concerns of our constituency and our
region. Because time does not permit I do not want to go into an
in depth analysis and talk about how, when the Liberal government
took office in 1993, the unemployment rate was at 11.5 percent and today
as we all know it is 9 percent and dropping; how we inherited a $42
billion deficit from a Conservative government that had never met
its budget targets; or how we inherited a country so weakened
from all aspects that we were being described as a third world
economy.
Our social safety net was also falling apart, not being able to
address our needs today let alone the needs of the future.
1155
Within just a few short years and as a result of prudent
initiatives, we have restored our economic sovereignty and have
put our country on a solid footing. We are once again a nation
and all of us as Canadians, whether we live in Ontario, Quebec,
British Columbia, Manitoba or wherever, can realistically see the
light at the end of the tunnel. These initiatives are well known
and the results are well documented.
I personally do not want to gloat about them. I choose to leave
it up to the economists, the statisticians, the pundits and, yes,
even the international community. Mostly I leave it up to the
people of Canada to be the judge.
When I was canvassing during the election the households I
visited in my riding often confronted me with various issues such
as our pension system, our health system, our deficit, our job
initiatives, crime issues, moral issues and issues such as the
fiasco of topless women, which I might add I do not support and
find unacceptable. I hope the government will do something to
right that wrong. As members can see there are a variety of
concerns.
However there was a common issue in each and every household,
the issue of Canadian unity and how our country today is being
torn apart. I was constantly asked what was happening to our
country and why, when we have the privilege of living in the best
country in the world, we would want to destroy it.
I was told a small group of separatists wanted to break up a
country which on more than one occasion has been recognized as
the best country in the world to live in. It is beyond me and
the constituents of Scarborough Centre.
A strong message given to me in the last election, to do
whatever I can to make sure the country stays united. I pledge
to my constituents and to everybody else that I will do
everything within my power to make sure not only us and our
children but generations to come will inherit a country that is
strong financially and indeed united.
It takes more than the member for Scarborough Centre and the
constituents of Scarborough Centre. It takes more than just
rhetoric. It takes goodwill and understanding from all
Canadians. It will take political will and not the political
rhetoric often used to exploit the weak and the vulnerable.
My constituents—and I know I speak for a vast number of
Canadians—have recently been greatly disturbed by the comments
of an unelected member of the Senate, Pat Carney. She suggested
that separation be left on the negotiating table and that there
was a bias shown by the federal government toward B.C.
Let me remind the senator that six Liberal members were elected
from British Columbia and four of them are ministers of the crown
and one is a parliamentary secretary. That is a hell of a lot
better than what her and her boss, Brian Mulroney, did during
their mandate.
That is not all. Even the Reform member from South Surrey,
B.C., in an article I read just the other day agrees with Ms.
Carney that separation will be on the table when B.C. attempts to
negotiate a new deal with Canada. The article goes on to state:
While she agreed that Ms. Carney's comments were irresponsible,
she said the senator was only expressing the concerns of British
Columbia.
What a flip-flop. This is what they call their new style of
politics, saying one thing one day and another the next,
tailoring the message for one region and changing it for another
region.
The leader of the Conservative Party used that tactic during the
last election and we all know how it backfired. Therefore I
suggest members of the Reform Party take note.
Now we have the NDP. One of its senior members, the member for
Burnaby—Kingsway, is ready to tie himself to a fishing vessel
and at the same time advocate the same type of tactics. The
Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are simply saying their way
or the highway. That is not the approach to recommend.
I am appalled at the tactics being used here. Why is it that
before we sit down to negotiate we first threaten separation?
For example, when a family problem comes up, does the husband and
wife first talk about separating or do they for the love of their
family and children sit down and rationally work things out?
They comprise if they have to because we all know there is no
perfect solution.
1200
Why must we always start our negotiations with a knife to the
throat? Is that what we are all about? Is that the Canadian
way? I do not think it is.
When we find ourselves abroad we have no hesitation in talking
about our wonderful country. Proudly we talk about our systems,
our lifestyle and everything we have in this great country. When
we return home we also say how great it is to be home, even
though we have visited some exotic places.
I spoke earlier about the family. Let me tell members about a
special family. This past year we had two unfortunate and tragic
incidents in Canada, the Saguenay and the Manitoba floods. It
was that special Canadian family that lived in Scarborough,
Saskatoon, Vancouver, Trois Rivieres and Charlottetown. Together
they came, cared, reached out and helped.
I recall one interview in which a gentleman from the Saguenay
region, with tears in his eyes, said how moved he was by the
response from the rest of Canada. He went on to say how he voted
yes in the last referendum. But he said that in the next
referendum, and he hoped there would never be another referendum,
he would vote for Canada because he now saw the light.
That is what we are about, a caring and loving country. This is
the country that is admired worldwide. That is what makes us all
proud and different Canadians.
I close with a statement made almost 130 years ago by Sir John
A. Macdonald, one of the founders of this country.
If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any
power over their intellect, I would leave them with this legacy.
Whatever you do, adhere to the Union. We are a great nation and
shall become one of the greatest in the Universe if we preserve
it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer
it to be broken. Let no factious men put it asunder.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I want to comment on some of the remarks by the hon.
member, some of which were regrettably partisan, to the Speech
from the Throne.
There were some very eloquent remarks from the member from
Scarborough Centre on Canadian patriotism and the importance of
national unity. I would like to strongly second some of the
sentiments he expressed. I and my colleagues have always
believed that patriotism, a genuine love for one's country, is
better expressed through actions than through mere words.
How does the hon. member believe his government can express
that love and passion for Canadian unity through actions of
fundamentally reforming the federation so that we do not hear
the kind of remarks from Senator Carney and so we no longer have
the presence of the secessionists in this great Chamber?
Is this hon. member willing to look at reforming the upper
chamber of the House so Canada will no longer be the only major
federal government in the developed world which does not have
proper regional representation in its halls of power? Is the hon.
member willing to look at concrete reforms of federal
institutions so that all Canadians feel included and can share in
the kind of magnificent patriotism expressed by this member?
Mr. John Cannis: Madam Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for an excellent question.
I talked the other day in an S.O. 31 of an accountable senator.
The key work was unaccountable.
The member knows that he and I and every individual sitting in
this House have to go to the people every four or five years.
The people judge us based on our performance, results, programs,
etc. I bring back that word today in response to the question,
unaccountable.
Senator Pat Carney is unaccountable because she does not have to
go to the people every four years. Maybe the time has come to
look at the other house and make those senators accountable,
whether it be for their attendance or what they say, for the sake
of this country.
follows
They should be held accountable for what they say. They should
have to go to the people every four or five years and present
themselves as candidates so that when they speak in every region
of this country they will have to answer to the people, as we
have to answer to the people.
1205
Yes, I agree that the time has come that maybe we should have an
elected Senate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I do not
question our colleague's sincere desire to represent his constituents
properly. I think, however, that he should not question our sincerity,
as we are democratically elected members from Quebec.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that the government,
in the throne speech, far from giving up its power to spend, the
spending power of the federal government, has just shown that it intends
to do the opposite. My hon. colleague said that, as with married
couples, when things are not going very well, always threatening to
leave does not solve any problem, and that we should not always be made
to react because a gun is being held to our head.
I would like to remind the hon. member opposite that several
members on this side have risen to point out to the government what the
priorities of Quebec are in the area of occupational or manpower
training.
Again, we have to remind this government that, in the throne
speech, far from giving up their power to spend, they are at it
again, overlapping and duplicating, in the section dealing with
young people. I will read him a brief passage from a letter I
received from the Quebec minister, Louise Harel, as a result of a
meeting with a youth advisory committee within the Société
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the SQDM:
In an opinion submitted to the SQDM, some representatives of
youth groups question the federal youth employment strategy,
pointing out that if the federal-provincial agreement of April 21,
1997 is a first step towards respecting the consensus in Quebec,
the youth employment strategy put forward by the federal government
goes in the opposite direction.
That is why we, as a group in the Bloc Quebecois, condemn this
strategy of overlap and duplication in areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Thibeault): The hon. member for
Scarborough Centre for a very short answer.
Mr. John Cannis: Madam Speaker, that is what I refer to
when I say exploitation. The cacophony of condemnation is so
swift from the Bloc Quebecois it is unbelievable.
She talked about manpower. This is where they confuse the
issue. I remind the member that when the Quebec government asked
for manpower training this government was more than willing to
give it the responsibility for manpower training. That has been
done.
Maybe what they should do in the Quebec legislature is look at
how to refine and use the tools which we have given them, as
opposed to exploiting them for their own agenda.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I am dividing my time today with the hon. member for Vancouver
East. Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.
I rise to address this House as the honoured representative of
the people of the riding of Sydney—Victoria in Cape Breton. Like
most members who have spoken here today, I am both privileged to
represent my constituents and humbled by the trust they have
placed in me. I would like to extend a special thank you to my
constituents for placing that trust in me and to my family.
Anyone who has served in this position knows that it is our
families and our partners who are the unsung heroes of Canada.
The people of my riding are proud Canadians, being among the
first founding people of this federation. We are a strong
people. We are a resilient people. We are a generous and a hard
working people.
As members of Confederation we have in the past prospered when
Canada prospered and we have contributed to the prosperity of
Canada.
1210
We have given Canada our artists and our musicians. From our
rocky shores have come great Canadian writers and leaders in the
fields of commerce, labour and statesmanship. We gave our young
service men and women in 1914 and again in 1939 when they served
in all facets of the military and merchant marine. We shared
with all Canadians the goods we had in the dark days of the Great
Depression.
Like all citizens, we kept no tally sheets. We kept no balance
of payments because we knew that Canada is more than a ledger of
debits and credits. Canada can only exist if it is supported by
the values of compassion and sharing. This is the basis of
Confederation.
At different points in this country's history some provinces
have always prospered more than others. It is the willingness to
share and ensure equality of access to national programs and not
necessarily equality of powers that makes Canada unique.
One of the core characteristics of Cape Bretoners is our
penchant to speak the truth. I think it was Disraeli who said
something unpleasant is coming when men are anxious to speak the
truth. As I look across at the benches I think that
unfortunately this government may find the truth I am about to
convey unpleasant, I hope a little unsettling.
I will speak with the candour my constituents expect. We face a
crisis, a crisis that has been building in Cape Breton for at
least 40—
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, you do not have a quorum
in the House at the present time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We do not have a quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I was trying to make
the point about how forgotten the people of Cape Breton feel in
the nation today and I found myself speaking to an empty
government, empty of ideas, empty perhaps of compassion and empty
of concern for the people I represent. I was speaking about the
truths that I hope to convey to some of the government members on
the other side.
We face a crisis in Cape Breton that has been building for 40
years. It has been brought to the attention of politicians of
every stripe by every member of Parliament to come from my
island. To give an example I will provide a quote. On October
11, 1962 the hon. Malcolm Vic MacInnis, the member of Parliament
for Cape Breton South, rose in this very House to deliver his
first speech:
Last winter our people experienced unemployment at the rate of
25 percent. We will be the first to admit we have received assistance
from this and other governments, but the assistance has always
been a stop-gap measure, in times of emergency to meet each crisis
as it comes along.
Exactly 17 years later to the day, on October 11, 1979, my
predecessor rose in this House to deliver his first speech. He
commented on the suffering of Cape Bretoners faced with an
unemployment rate of 17 percent.
As I rise today, 17 years later almost to the day, we face an
unemployment crisis in Cape Breton of 20 percent minimum.
1215
To say we have been patient is an understatement. To say that
we are angry is a simplification. To say that we have been
betrayed is perhaps the truth.
We have become the third solitude in Canada. What worries me
and my constituents is the growing ranks in this country of that
third solitude. It includes many Canadians. Men and women not
only in Cape Breton but in New Brunswick, in Newfoundland, in the
Gaspé, in all regions of this country. It includes our First
Nations people, our youth and our elderly, our farmers and our
fishers. It includes in short all those who have lost faith in
the generosity of our nation.
The people who control the money markets, the free traders and
those who sing the praises of the multilateral agreement on
investment stand today with the absent members of the Liberal
government indicted in the court of public opinion.
In the throne speech this government congratulated itself for
its so-called economic recovery and for maintaining our social
programs when in fact it is the same government that has slashed
transfers to the provinces, cut EI benefits and failed to meet
its commitments to the east coast fishers and has failed to
address the concerns of our veterans from the merchant marine.
In this land of plenty, we have hunger. In this land that
should echo hope, we have despair. In a land that should be
strong, we have weakness.
The third solitude is the millions of Canadians who no longer
believe that Canada's strengths are their strengths or that
Canada's gains are their gains. They are the people who have not
benefited from the so-called economic recovery. They are not the
people who benefit from the bond trades and the stock market
rallies. They do not make transactions on their laptop computers
or their cellphones.
They are the people who used to make things and it is they who
built this nation. They worked on the assembly lines and in the
mines and plants and on the boats and in the fields and in the
forests. Today it is they who make up a class that was once
middle or called working but is no longer.
It is 17 years since my predecessor rose in this House to give
his first address and 36 years since his predecessor's.
We are angry. Cape Bretoners are angry. In fact they are
enraged. I do not rail against hard times alone. That is
nothing new to us in Cape Breton. What is new is the new
meanspiritedness of this new Canada.
We built and worked and fought for a nation that believed in
compassion, equality and social justice. But persistent and
unrelenting cuts by this and past governments to our national
social programs have threatened the very fabric of our society
and impacted Cape Bretoners more than most. In response,
governments shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they
can do.
Government is not powerless. This government could act today to
improve the lives of the people I represent.
It could take action on the environmental disaster that is the
Sydney tar ponds. A real commitment from this government could
not only clean up the environment, but create new jobs and real
growth in the environmental sector while helping to establish the
University College of Cape Breton as a centre of excellence in
this field.
This government could act immediately to develop the Donkin
mine. This government could stop the offloading of ports and
docks in communities like Baddeck and Iona, communities that
depend on these services. This government could make a real
commitment to the east coast fishers in towns like Ingonish and
Pleasant Bay.
If this government does not move in a bold and decisive way and
take action to develop a strategy for real economic recovery in
Cape Breton, then they will have done nothing but to continue
their legacy of hopelessness and despair.
We in Cape Breton will endure. We always have. We will
continue to face the adversity before us. We ask for the support
of our government. It is after all the reason we have a federal
government.
We have always been committed members of Confederation. We ask
this government to show the same commitment to the people of Cape
Breton.
In closing, it is my deepest hope that years, many years from
now when my successor rises in this House for the first time, it
will be to speak of our natural beauty and the prosperity of our
people and not the economic and social disparity that we face
today. It is to that end that I will devote my energies as a
representative.
1220
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that the constituents of
Sydney—Victoria riding are a strong and resilient people. The
member spoke about giving and sharing rather than calculating
what we can get from society. The Bloc often uses the word demand
specifically rather than talking about the nation as a whole and
how we can all flourish, be together and share.
Despite the harshness of the land, we have seen some great
accomplishments in Canada. It is indeed generous and has been
aware of the solitude the member spoke about. But what does he
propose? Does he propose more of the same while he admits that
what he has had in the past really does not work? Will he not
admit that some of the problems of the past have been that the
people of Cape Breton have sent the wrong people to Parliament
and when they do this they get more of the same that he is asking
for? He mentions 36 years of anger yet the solution I hear him
proposing is more of the same.
I will say that he is right about the Sydney tar ponds issue.
There is a point where things can be done. However for him to
say that we need more of the same and indeed much more of it will
probably not bring the kind of solutions he is looking for.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
the number of questions contained in his statement. I will try
to deal with each one. I propose a number of possible solutions
to the problems.
First would be a fairer tax system in the country which is not
necessarily the tax breaks advocated by the party the member
represents. Lowering individual tax rates for an individual who
is already living below the poverty line is of little assistance.
But a fairer tax system to tax some of those who are not paying
taxes in the country would contribute to the national good. That
money could then be used to invest in places like Cape Breton.
That could be a first step.
The member says that things in the past have not worked and that
I am proposing more of the same. Some past solutions have worked.
When they are free of political interference, the ideas are good.
In Cape Breton we have a project called New Dawn, a community
based developmental agency that is doing remarkable things for
seniors and housing.
He asked if the people of Cape Breton have often sent the wrong
people to represent them. Sometimes we have and sometimes we have
not. I would point out that we have had representatives as
distinguished as Clarence Gillis and Malcolm MacInnis and other
very good representatives.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague was attacking the record of the government in social
development and other areas.
I want to point out to him that in publications from the OECD
and other agencies such as the United Nations, on many fronts
such as the health and medical index as well as on the human
development front and higher education, Canada has ranked as the
best country in the world when it comes to taking care of its
people.
We spend more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any of
the other G-7 nations with the exception of the United States.
In terms of health care, Canada's is the best in the world. In
terms of human index development, Canada ranked out of 100 at
about 95.1, which is the best in the world.
We have the highest number of people who can enrol in
post-secondary education.
1225
I hope that the hon. member is not suggesting that more money
needs to be spent. I hope he is suggesting that we have to look
at the way we are spending those moneys.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged the good
things in this country. As I indicated at the beginning, if the
member had been present for my speech, Cape Bretoners were among
the major contributors to the good things in this country.
He says that Canada is doing well. I would only respond that
some people in Canada are doing much better than others. It is
for those people who are not that we ought to have concerns.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did
not want to interrupt once again the hon. member from Cape Breton
as it is his first speech in the House, but we do not have a
quorum in the House at the present time to continue on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Saint
John claims that we do not have a quorum. If the member will
give me a moment I will count.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is a quorum.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very proud to be here in this House in the 36th Parliament as the
new member representing the riding of Vancouver East.
I have to say as I make my inaugural speech that I feel a very
heavy responsibility as I struggle to find the ways and means to
bring to the attention of this House a sense of the urgency that
comes from the communities I represent.
We are not wealthy or affluent communities. Vancouver East is a
highly urban community of over 100,000 people from very diverse
and multicultural backgrounds. It is made up of people who are
coping with the difficulties of everyday life. In many ways the
experience of my first week in this House of Commons seems very
far removed from the sometimes harsh realities of life in east
Vancouver. Yet despite these difficulties the pride and dignity
in Vancouver East is a model for other communities to embrace.
It is a community with a long tradition of social activism and
social commitment. It is home to many of Canada's First Nations
peoples as well as home to many new Canadians who find in east
Vancouver a balance of Canadian roots and multicultural
diversity.
If we walk up and down Commercial Drive or through bustling
historic Chinatown or along the neighbourhood streets of
Strathcona, one of Vancouver's oldest communities, the sense of
unique neighbourhoods and their history and character is very
evident.
At Hastings and Nanaimo we experience the urban flavour of
thriving small businesses that serve the community. There is the
landmark Carnegie Centre on one corner of Main and Hastings and
the Four Corners Community Savings opposite. At the Kiwassa
Neighbourhood House the breakfast program for families is a
welcoming start to the day. There is also the pioneering Western
Front artist run centre in Mount Pleasant, the Italian Cultural
Centre and the new Chinese Cultural Centre Museum. These are only
a few of the many community facilities and programs that serve
and define east Vancouver as a place of strength and support for
its residents.
Unfortunately my riding, like many other ridings and communities
in Canada, is also living the consequences of federal Liberal
policies of continuing high unemployment especially among youth
and aboriginal peoples, of growing poverty, homelessness and
inadequate housing.
Vancouver East is poorer because of the failure of this
government to aggressively deal with unemployment and declining
wages. At the same time this federal government has slashed our
social programs at an unprecedented level. There is more
homelessness in my community because the federal government has
callously abandoned the development of social and co-op housing.
1230
Some of the people in my riding are never heard by those in
power. In the downtown east side, in one of the communities in
Vancouver East, more than 6,000 people live in what is called
single occupant rooms, meaning that they are living in very
substandard accommodation. In this same community, we are
struggling to cope with a health crisis that results from
poverty, an epidemic of HIV transmission among injection drug
users.
I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Health in my
first week in this House. The people of Vancouver East are
waiting for a response with hope that the government will
demonstrate that it is willing to act. We ask: How many more
deaths will there be? Already over 1,200 British Columbians have
died from drug overdoses since 1993.
Vancouver poet and activist, Bud Osbourne, spoke to the
community about these and other tragic deaths. He said “But
with these thousand crosses planted in Oppenheimer Park today,
who really see them, feel sorrow, feel loss, feel rage? Our
hearts shed bitter tears. These thousand crosses are symbols of
the social apartheid in our culture, the segregation of those who
deserve to live and those who are abandoned to die”.
Last week I listened very carefully to my first throne speech.
I listened for words of concrete action to be taken, for example,
to assist students reeling from the burden of student loan debts
or for real targets to reduce unemployment and eliminate poverty.
I hoped to hear about commitment to act against violence against
women or to hear that the government is going to introduce a
national child care program so often promised by the Liberals, or
for any indication that the government might finally embark on a
campaign of fair taxation to ensure that the vast wealth in this
country is something that benefits all Canadians.
However, there was silence from the government on these critical
issues. It led me to think about what meaning there is in being
here in this place that honours tradition and ritual and holds to
represent the people of Canada. The meaning, I believe, is
created by the change that is possible if we have the will to
act. I know that I and my fellow New Democrats bring back to
this House a value and tradition that has almost disappeared, a
quest for social justice and social equality and a voice for
those who have been silenced and shut out.
We live in an increasingly globalized corporate economy where
the rights of multinational corporations, about to be embodied in
the multilateral agreement on investment and furthered by APEC,
are seen as more important than the rights of people and
sustainable human development.
However, as New Democrats we believe that we can bring hope and
change not only to this House but to Canadians who believe as
well in the progress of nations as outlined in a 1996 UN report.
It states “The day will come when the progress of nations will
be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor by the
splendour of their capital cities and public buildings, but by
the well-being of their peoples: by their levels of health,
nutrition and education; by their opportunities to earn a fair
reward for their labours; by their ability to participate in the
decisions that affect their lives; by the respect that is shown
for their civil and political liberties; by the provision that is
made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the
protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of
their children”.
The people of Vancouver East expect and deserve no less and I am
honoured to represent and fight for their interests in this
House.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech by my colleague for Vancouver East and
I agree with her almost 100 percent.
1235
Unlike the members opposite, she is very sensitive to the plight of
the destitute in our society. Unlike them, she is very sensitive to the
concerns of the unemployed. I listened earlier to one of the members on
the other side. He keeps saying that Canada is one of the richest
countries in the world. However, as my colleague said so well, some
people are in dire straits.
We must be sensitive because what is happening in Canada is that
the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. We take from the
poor to give to the rich.
I have a question for my colleague. I know that the government is
in a very difficult situation because multinationals are always filling
their slush fund.
The recipient, of course, must return the favour. As we recently saw in
the newspapers, the situation is getting out of hand.
Will my colleague support me when I introduce a private member's
bill to restore fiscal health? I ask my NDP colleagues for their
support.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments and his question. He has outlined the
sensitivity of the issues that I have raised and remarked on the
fact that the government has been insensitive and callous in its
treatment of poor people. I acknowledge the comments of the hon.
member and share his view.
I also agree that it is very clear that the Liberal government
has acted in concert with multinational corporations. There is no
question that the public finances and our taxation system have
been designed to assist those wealthy corporations.
One of the major issues which we need to address in the House,
which my fellow New Democrats and I will raise, is the issue of
fair taxation. We live in a very wealthy country. The issue is
not whether there is enough money. The issue is how those
funds are distributed.
When the hon. member's private member's bill comes forward we
will examine it with great seriousness and sensitivity to ensure
the common goals that we have, are supported in the House.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East used the
term fair taxation a number of times. That is typically one of
the buzzwords or the mantras of the NDP. Perhaps it is, from
that particular perspective, the code word for a political
agenda. We should really know what the hon. member means when she
says fair taxation so that it can be revealed for what it really
is.
Here is a grand opportunity for the member to expand on the NDP
version of what it means to have fair taxation.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.
The NDP policy on fair taxation is not a mantra or a code word,
it is a serious issue.
Over the last few decades we have seen a significant shift in
taxation policy from corporations to individuals. The tax burden
is being carried by working people and by middle income people.
There are tens of thousands of profitable businesses and
corporations that pay not a dime in taxes.
This is not a code word. It is a basic fundamental issue that
is the business of this House. We must ensure that we have a
fair and equitable taxation system.
I can say, looking at the record, that the Liberal government
has moved us further and further away from that. I would suggest
to the hon. member and other members of the Reform Party that it
would be to their credit if they would also take up the issue of
fair taxation for Canadians, instead of their code word
“cutbacks” which are hurting the poor people in Canada.
1240
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Nepean—Carleton.
As this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the
House, I wish to begin by thanking the people of Winnipeg South
who sent me here. I have been elected four times now, twice in
the provincial legislature and twice in this Chamber. I know of
no greater honour. I am proud to represent the people of
Winnipeg South. They take their politics seriously. They
consider the issues in depth and I have to convince them each
time that I will work on their behalf.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment, the Speaker
on his election and the other members who serve the House on
their appointments. It is going to be a fractious House. We see
some of that right now. We have been very well served by the
leadership in this Chamber. I congratulate the new members who
have been elected to the House and those who are returning. It
is an interesting place. Members who are here for the first time
will find it a very challenging yet a very productive place if
they approach it properly.
This was an interesting year for those of us who live in
Manitoba. As my colleague mentioned, we had two very significant
natural disasters in Canada although we had several others in
other parts of the country. We had the very severe flood in the
Saguenay region and we had the very different but equally severe
inundation of southern Manitoba.
One of the things that gratified me in the first instance,
during the Saguenay flood, was how Manitobans and westerners—I
am a western Canadian—rallied. Mr. Hubert Kleysen, who lives in
my riding, has a trucking firm. He went throughout western
Canada organizing truckloads of furniture and supplies which were
sent from western Canadians into the Saguenay.
I can tell the House from personal experience that the reverse
happened during the flood in Manitoba. The number of people from
all across Canada who phoned, who travelled to Manitoba to help
out, who came in to volunteer was really quite overwhelming.
Members of this Chamber phoned regularly to offer support,
donated money, equipment and supplies. To this day I am
approached by people who offer to help out.
There is a movie that was popular about eight to twelve years
ago called Starman in which the alien makes the following
comment about humans: “You are at your best when things are
worst”. That was really demonstrated during the flood in
Manitoba.
It hit right at the time of the election. What was the defining
moment for me was when the Reform candidate, Greg Yost, a friend
of mine and a very decent man, was going door to door during an
election distributing literature with my name in it. He was
referring people to the flood centre we had set up for
assistance. The Conservative candidate was working out of my
office, having given his office as a storage space for people who
had to move out of their homes. The NDP candidate was regularly
sandbagging on teams deployed from the office. The two
Conservative members of the provincial legislature that bracket
the river on the south end of my riding formed a team with myself
and the local city councillor.
It was truly a non-partisan effort that shows what we can do
regardless of our political position and philosophy when we come
together to work on issues.
There were Conservative and NDP members present in the House in
the last Parliament but I want to welcome them both back to
official party status. I personally am delighted to see both of
them back because they will add a dimension to the debate that
was sadly lacking in the last Parliament. If I have a concern
about the debate that took place in this Chamber, it is that it
was badly divided between two opposition parties that I believe
fundamentally support the separation of this country. I welcome
the emergence of two other parties that have a national view and
a sense of what Canada can become if we can get the regions
working together.
1245
I am also delighted, I confess with a particular bias, to see
the NDP back in some number. I do not want to see too many of
them in the House, but enough of them to participate in the
debate.
In the last House we had extremely significant social policy
issues that crossed the floor of this House, pieces of
legislation that were debated in this House without ever a
question from the other side, such as the affects of changes to
health care, unemployment and homelessness.
These issues were debated fiercely on this side of the House in
this caucus. I chaired the social policy committee and there were
terrible fights. But when we came into the House expecting to
hear debate, occasionally if a New Democrat could get to his or
her feet there might be a question come across. But that
happened very rarely because of their lack of numbers in the
House. From our friends in the Reform Party there was never a
question, never a concern, never an expression of interest in
what was happening with the unemployed, the homeless or the sick.
There was some interest in health corporations and privatizing
the system so they could make some money out of it, but never the
kind of question that was raised by the member from Vancouver
East about what happens when thousands of people are sick or
dying.
I am interested to see the return of the Conservative Party. I
will be very interested in what it will have to say given the
base of its support. We have one member from Manitoba who
carries a rather onerous responsibility of representing western
Canada for that party. I must confess I do not have a good sense
of exactly where they sit on some of these issues. I will look
forward to what will happen in the debates to come.
My experience in the relatively short time I have been here has
been that this place is fascinating and can be very important and
productive. There is an enormous amount of work that goes on in
committees when members put aside some of their partisanship and
focus on how to build an excellent health care system, on how to
build a good research and development program and how to deal
with issues of equity when you are looking at issues of debt
reduction. Some profoundly important work gets done.
I invite members for all parties to participate in that work.
We have a very active agenda and an enormous challenge put
forward to us by the prime minister when he starts talking about
what is going to happen a few years out. The finances are coming
together but I think we have a little further to go. We have to
be a little cautious. We do not want to find ourselves slipping
back into the position we were in which robbed us of any
flexibility in this last decade or so.
There are some opportunities. There is an opportunity now to
challenge ourselves with the task of building a truly profoundly
important future for ourselves and our kids. I appreciate the
criticism that comes across the floor, it is important to the
debate and I invite more of it. I hope it will be more focused
on substance. I was very disappointed to see the member from
Burnaby do what he did yesterday because I think this debases the
debate in the House. I do not think that contributes to a
discussion on how we do things better for the people we
represent. Rather, it diminishes the view of this House. I feel
much the same way when a Reform member stands up.
To my friends in the Bloc I want to offer one comment. It
must be very difficult for members of the Bloc right now. I
have some sense compassion for them. I know a number of the
members of the Bloc as we worked closely together on the HRD
committee and the transport committee.
I have great respect for most of their positions. I differ
very strongly on the issues sovereignty and I cannot help but
think what it must be like sitting in opposition looking across
at a government that has been re-elected with a majority, a
considerable accomplishment in this country. It has increased its
representation in the province of Quebec. It has managed to
wrestle the finances of the country into some sense of control.
We have begun to see a significant drop in the unemployment rate.
We are not where we want to be but we are heading in the right
direction.
1250
I notice that a significant majority of Quebeckers are now
saying they feel they would be better off within a united
Canada. I enjoy the participation of the members of the Bloc in
the debate and in committee. I invite them to participate and
perhaps we will find some ways to make Canada better so that they
can step aside from the one policy that we find so difficult.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
find it very offensive for this member to speak on one hand about
co-operation in this House and raising the level of debate and
making Canada work, and then to make accusations of the Reform
Party that we are not a party that wants the country to keep
together.
It is as if he is trying to say to me, coming from 200 years of
United Empire Loyalists stock, someone who has lived in three
provinces of this country, who lived 32 years in this province
before moving west, that I am not dedicated to keeping this
country together.
We are a party that wants to keep this country together. It is
hypocritical for the member to say on the one hand that he wants
to have a great debate and yet to raise such provocative issues
like this when he knows that this party is a federalist party.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment
from the member. I also note that the member is new in this
House. This is his first term here.
If he goes back to my remarks he will realize that I was talking
about my experiences with his party in the last session of
Parliament. I hope he brings to the floor of this Chamber
exactly the kind of debate that he is talking about.
Let me pose a question to him. If that is the kind of debate he
is interested in, why did he campaign under a slogan that said no
more prime ministers from Quebec? What does that do for the
unity of this country? What does that do to bring us together?
That is the slogan that member campaigned on. So when he wants
to talk about the unity in this country, he should go back to his
party bosses and do a little work within his own caucus to see
that his message supports unity in this country.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the hon. Liberal member for his throne speech. I
am very pleased to hear him talk about non-partisan issues.
I am hoping that he, along with a lot of members of his party,
will help me to see that the infrastructure program, which has
been implemented by this government, will be done in a
non-partisan way.
We have real problems in the province of New Brunswick with
political interference from the premier of the province of New
Brunswick and those little communities that were supposed to get
part of that infrastructure program.
They were all cancelled by the premier. He took all the money
out of the Tobique—Mactaquac area and put it into the riding of
his previous minister, who is still in this government.
He did that also in the other part of the northern part of the
province. Now he has interfered in my area. We did it in a
non-political way. I would like the hon. member to tell me is
he going to help us to take the politics out of infrastructure.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the
member for Saint John for that question. I will commit to her
today that I will do everything I can to assist in ensuring that
is the case if she will give me the same assistance with the
premier in Manitoba.
I have exactly the same problem with the Conservative premier of
Manitoba who takes a program which we designed and operated and
pulls it into his riding and presents it as his own. Maybe we can
find a way to work together to ensure that does not happen in the
future.
1255
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first let me extend my sincere congratulations on your election.
It is with great humility and excitement that I rise today to
deliver my maiden speech in the House of Commons. I consider it a
great honour to stand in this House to represent the citizens of
Nepean—Carleton.
We are referred to in the House by the name of our riding. That
is an important reminder that the seat we occupy is not ours. It
belongs to the people of our riding, in my case the citizens of
Nepean—Carleton.
Nepean—Carleton has been blessed with some excellent members of
Parliament, both Liberals and Conservatives, people like Dick
Bell, Gordon Blair, Walter Baker and Beryl Gaffney. They were
people who cared deeply about their community and their country,
people for whom politics was not merely a job but an opportunity
to serve their fellow Canadians in one of our great national
institutions.
Let me say a few words about my immediate predecessor, Beryl
Gaffney. As many in the House know, Beryl represented the former
riding of Nepean over the course of two Parliaments. Beryl's
background in municipal government kept her firmly rooted in the
community. In the House she was a fierce defender of the
interests of the national capital region, a fervent advocate of
human rights, a committed spokesperson for women's health and an
active proponent for the municipal infrastructure program.
Beryl Gaffney remains a source of inspiration to those who
confront serious illness. Diagnosed with a serious brain tumour
part way through her term, she endured major surgery and battled
back to sit in the House and speak on behalf of her constituents.
She enjoys the respect and admiration of people across the
national capital region and across the country.
Over the course of this Parliament it is my intention to devote
myself to providing the people of Nepean—Carleton with the best
possible representation. Although my predecessors have set a very
high standard, I will do my utmost to give voice to the concerns
of my constituents in the House and its committees and I will
work to ensure that their problems and inquiries with government
programs and services are addressed with care and efficiency.
The constituency of Nepean—Carleton has been my lifelong home.
I am very proud to say my family traces its roots in this
community back to the 1820s and early 1830s. Nepean—Carleton is
a riding that has changed dramatically in my own lifetime. From a
quiet collection of farming communities it has been transformed
with suburbanization and technology.
Predominantly Anglo-Saxon 30 years ago, my riding has benefited
from the arrival of many new Canadians who have brought with them
not only their skills and their talents but their hopes and
dreams for a better life in the best country in the world.
The presence of the federal government in the national capital
region continues to be very important to Nepean—Carleton. Many
of my constituents are federal public servants.
There is a new kid on the block that is making its presence felt
in a big way. Companies which are part of the Ottawa—Carleton
region's thriving high technology industry can be found in the
northern part of my riding which is part of the city of Nepean.
Many of the residents of Nepean—Carleton work for companies like
Computing Devices, Nortel, Newbridge, Corel, Mitel and Digital,
to name a few. They are engaged in information technology,
environmental technologies, biotechnologies, aerospace and
telecommunications technology. They are part of the knowledge
based economy which has transformed Ottawa from a predominantly
government town to Canada's high technology capital.
These high tech companies are selling Canadian products to every
corner of the globe. They are competing with the world's best and
they are winning.
The southern portion of my riding contains the largely rural
townships of Osgoode, Rideau and Goulbourn. Many of the
residents of these areas also work in government and high tech
industries, but many work in the agricultural industry, dairy,
beef and cash crops, which has itself been transformed by new
technologies.
In many respects Nepean—Carleton offers the best of both
worlds, urban and rural. We are close enough to the country to
uphold the rural values of community, self-reliance and hard
work, but we are also close enough to the city to understand the
importance of innovation, the entrepreneurial spirit and Canada's
place in a wider world.
My constituents understand and appreciate the past but they also
have an eye on the future. That is why this Speech from the
Throne is important to them. Those who have read the throne
speech will know that it builds on the tremendous accomplishments
of the last Parliament. The future of every Canadian is brighter
because of the achievements of the last four years. I am
thinking of things like deficit reduction, taking the deficit
from $42 billion down to a balanced budget which is now within
sight.
Interest rates are at their lowest levels in 30 years. Almost
one million jobs have been created since 1993. Our economic
growth is expected to be the best of the G-7 countries this year.
We continue to record huge increases in our trade surpluses. As
we all know, the United Nations continues to rank Canada as the
number one country in the world according to the human
development index.
1300
Anyone who has read the throne speech knows that it follows up
on the commitments made by the prime minister and the Liberal
Party during the election. It continues the important work of
prudent financial management while, at the same time, directing
resources to strengthen the social and economic fabric of this
great country.
Let me address just a few of the themes on which the throne
speech touches. One area which has not received much attention
but which is important to my constituents is the reference to the
public service. There is no doubt that there have been some
tough times for the public service with the downsizing and
restructuring of recent years.
It is extremely important to ensure that steps are taken to
enhance the morale and the esprit de corps of our public
servants. They provide Canadians with important services and
programs from search and rescue to meat inspection to trade
promotion. We must ensure that we maintain a well-motivated,
professional, non-partisan and efficient public service. I am
pleased that the throne speech contains a reference to the people
who day after day carry out the work of the Government of Canada.
I can tell the House that I was also very pleased to see the
reference in the throne speech to investing in knowledge and
creativity. This is vitally important to high technology
companies in Nepean—Carleton, the national capital region and,
indeed, the entire country.
Let me quote directly from the throne speech, “The government
is determined to do more to support innovation and risk-taking in
Canada and to attract more foreign investment in knowledge based
industries to Canada. We will build creative partnerships
between the private and public sectors to accelerate the adoption
of innovative technologies in all sectors of the economy”.
The government believes that through small and medium size
businesses we can develop and improve new technologies. That is
why we are increasing the industrial research assistance program,
or IRAP, to promote the diffusion of technology throughout
Canada. We have already made a good start in this direction in
the government's last mandate. Through programs like SchoolNet,
Technology Partnerships Canada and the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation we are making tremendous progress.
SchoolNet, which Microsoft's Bill Gates said was “the leading
program in the world in terms of getting kids to use computers”,
will have every school and library in Canada connected by 1998.
Technology Partnerships Canada, an investment fund with more
than $250 million a year, will work with business to keep the
development, marketing and production of new technologies in
Canada where it will create jobs and foster new growth. There is
also the business development bank which is providing start-up
capital to new enterprises.
The throne speech touches on many areas of importance to my
constituents. The sections of the throne speech which refer to
investing in children are particularly important. Again I would
like to quote briefly from the throne speech. “One of our
objectives as a country should be to ensure that all Canadian
children have the best possible opportunity to develop their full
potential. We must equip our children with the capacities they
need to be ready to learn and participate fully in our society”.
However, the throne speech is not just about idle rhetoric. The
government is committed to increasing its contributions to the
Canada child tax benefit by $850 million a year with higher
payments to families beginning in July 1998.
I would like to indicate my strong support for some of the other
priorities in the throne speech, especially creating
opportunities for young Canadians. We all heard during the last
election about the problem with youth unemployment. It is
unacceptably high. We have to address that issue in this
Parliament and I think we have had a good start with some of the
recent statistics and job creation figures that we have had in
that area.
However, we also have to reduce barriers to post-secondary
education and ensure, as well, that young people are able to get
that all important first job.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for his speech and I understand his wanting to express
his pride. However, I wonder how he can be proud since, although
the Speech from the Throne focuses on young people, it is the
policies of this government since 1993 that have forced a
significant number of young people into poverty.
1305
The OECD's human development index, as mentioned in the
document, indicates that, here in Canada, 50 percent of the
children in single parent families live below the poverty line.
This index could change, because some of the criteria are being
reviewed. With the 20 top countries in a somewhat similar
situation, the index was not made for wealthy countries, as we
all know.
Is the hon. member proud of the cuts to education, the regular
hikes in tuition fees, which led not to increased access to
education, but to increased difficulty obtaining an education in
the case of those who have little money?
Perhaps the announcement of a fund, which the Prime Minister had to
make outside the throne speech, will in some way resolve what is
felt generally—that as far as young people are concerned, the
speech rings hollow.
Is the member proud that, for reasons of efficiency, the
federal government, after so many years, has decided to leave job
training with the provinces, where it is most efficient—and I
repeat efficient, because that was what was decided—when in the
name of the same objective of efficiency, it is refusing to do the
same for young people? Why would it be effective for everyone but
young people? Why should the great federal mind be dealing with
these problems, when they are local problems, and jurisdiction is
clear, for good reason.
Is the member proud that the government is announcing $850
million for young people, $250 million of which was already
provided for in the last budget, while the remaining $600 had been
promised in 1993 for a national child care program that never saw
the light of day?
I have no doubt my colleague wants to be proud, but he should
have reason to be proud.
[English]
Mr. David Pratt: Madam Speaker, in the context of the
government's overall program I do not think there is any question
that over the last four years the government would have liked to
have spent money on areas related to children and youth and
aboriginals and other areas of society that in many respects have
been neglected.
Certainly one of its primary concerns over the last four years
has been the deficit and the impact that the huge deficit and
increasing debt would have had on the future of young people. If
we had entered the next century with a debt of $700 billion or
$800 billion, what sort of a future would that provide for our
young people? I can answer that question. It would have
provided no future at all because they would have been ground
down by excessive debt. The opportunities for government to do
creative things in our society would have been reduced
significantly.
The government's achievement in addressing the deficit was
certainly a first step toward securing the future of young
people, children and youth.
A number of important programs and initiatives were announced in
the throne speech. I referred earlier to the Canada child tax
benefit which I think is extremely important and the government's
focus on the need to create strong families so that the family
unit can be strengthened as a fundamental component of our
society. That is in the process of being done.
When we look for instance at the initiatives related to the
centres of excellence to deepen our understanding of children's
development and well-being and to improve our ability to respond
to their needs, these are good programs which will contribute
significantly to the well-being of young Canadians.
The aboriginal head start program is another one that I think is
certainly very important to the children of aboriginal parents to
ensure that they get the best possible start in their lives.
1310
With respect to youth unemployment, certainly Canada's level of
youth unemployment is extremely high. It is higher than anyone
in the House would like to see it. As I mentioned earlier—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for St. John's East.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to stand in the chamber today as the new member of
Parliament for St. John's East. It is a great honour and
privilege to be here.
With my first words in Parliament I want to extend my thanks and
deep appreciation to the people of St. John's East for having
sent me here. Obviously I could not be here without their
approval and support. I am very grateful for the opportunity to
serve in such a distinguished setting as the House of Commons of
Canada.
As previous members have done, I would like to extend to you,
Madam Speaker, my congratulations on your appointment. I would
also extend to the Speaker my sincere congratulations on his
election. I look forward to serving over the next few years
under Madam Speaker's watchful gaze.
The riding of St. John's East is no stranger to this debating
floor. One of my predecessors was the Hon. Jim McGrath, an
individual for whom I had a great deal of respect and admiration.
He was a long serving, articulate member of the House. I believe
he was here for 20-odd years. Over that time he earned the
reputation of being a true parliamentarian.
If I had one goal to set for myself in this chamber it would be
that I could contribute to my province, contribute to my nation,
in much the same way that Jim McGrath did. I know that is a very
difficult task, given the fact that one has to make a lot of
sacrifices to be in public life. However, I do know that the
sacrifice is worth making if one wants to live in the greatest
nation on earth. The privilege which we in this country have is
to live in the greatest nation on earth.
I have somewhat of an advantage over some of my colleagues, as I
have a bit of experience in political life. I spent about 13
years in the Newfoundland House of Assembly. During that time I
ran across many occasions on which I found myself being
frustrated with the system. One could be very frustrated in his
day to day duties.
I can also inform hon. members that there are many difficulties
involved in this job. One of the difficulties happens to be that
we may not always find ourselves on the same side of an issue as
our constituents. I believe that when we have that kind of
experience we feel a sense of alienation from the very people who
elected us, simply because we have a great regard for them.
However, they may not necessarily agree with our views on how
this world should unfold.
During my 13 years in the Newfoundland House of Assembly there
were a couple of occasions on which I found myself in that kind
of spot. One issue which stands out in my memory happened in
1990 when we were involved in the Meech Lake debate. I found
myself on the opposite side of the issue. I recall speaking
publicly in the Newfoundland House of Assembly in support of
Meech. I felt strongly about that particular issue.
I had been listening to people like Peter Lougheed, Grant
Devine, Joe Ghiz, David Peterson and Bill Bennett, people whom we
all respect and admire. I had been convinced by these people
that it was in the greater public good for us to vote for Meech
Lake. I think if we had shown a little tolerance, a little
respect for the people with whom we share a common border we
might not be involved in the national unity debate in which we
are involved today.
1315
I remember well feeling the wrath of many people in the
provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador because I voted in that
way. Many of them had been persuaded by former Premier Wells
that if we voted for Meech Lake it might put the nation on a road
we would soon regret.
Meech lake is gone and so is Premier Wells. I guess history
will have to judge, make a pronouncement in due course on the
validity of the arguments he presented. I happen to feel that
the people who stood in the way of Meech Lake back in 1990 will
be judged very harshly by history.
My colleague, the member for Burin—St. George's, was in the
house of assembly with me at that time. I take a great deal of
satisfaction from knowing I voted in a way I felt was right for
my province and for the nation. I have no regrets about that,
even though the people of the province may not have felt that way
on the issue. That is all history.
The strange thing about history is that the more things change,
the more they stay the same. I am only a couple of months into
my term of office and I find myself on the opposite side of
another important issue in my province, the education debate.
Hon. members are fully aware that a few months ago there was a
referendum in Newfoundland. The premier of the province received
a mandate and 38 percent of the eligible voters in the province
gave complete support to the premier to exercise a mandate to
change the denominational educational system in Newfoundland to a
full blown public secular system.
Last evening we had the Quebec amendment before us. Very
shortly the new term 17 will come to the Chamber. That will mean
a constitutional amendment which will wipe out, not adjust, the
rights of certain classes of people in Newfoundland to education
in their particular school system.
Given the tolerant nature of the people of Newfoundland and of
people across the country, I find that to be a little
disappointing, to say the least. I have very grave difficulty
with the wiping out the rights of these classes of people. There
were those who had these rights since 1949 and those since 1980.
Two separate groups of people were given rights under the
Constitution of Canada.
Why do they feel that way? Christian based religion has always
played a very important part in the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and in Newfoundland society in general. The churches
started schools and hospitals in Newfoundland. Denominational
education has been very important to the people. Denominational
education was front and centre in another debate long before you
and I came to the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. It was front and centre
in 1949 when we joined Confederation with Canada.
It was a very important part of the debate. We became a
province of Canada under the umbrella of a negotiated set of
rules call the terms of union. One of those terms happened to be
term 17 which gave rights to certain classes of people to their
own religious school system. It gave rights to certain classes
of people by religious affiliation. Term 17 has been amended
twice.
1320
It was amended back in the 1980s when I was part of the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a province we
extended to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and
Labrador rights under the Constitution of Canada that they would
be able to have their own particular school system. That was not
a long time ago, just back in 1980.
Now here we are. We are going for a third amendment to the
Constitution of Canada, a new term 17 that will wipe out or
completely extinguish the long held rights of these people to
their own educational system.
I have been very vocal and very upset about the issue over the
last couple of months. How did we ever get to this point? Hon.
members know more about the last amendment we had before the
House. They were here and I was not. It called for a
diminishing of rights in education. To his credit Clyde Wells at
least made some provision for those classes of people who wanted
to retain their rights in education.
The provision was fair for those people. The amendment came to
the House of Commons. All schools were to be declared
interdenominational schools but where numbers warranted people
would have the right to retain their rights in the educational
system of the province.
There was a stormy debate in the House of Commons. It went to
the Senate. There was a veto in the Senate but it passed. I
cannot say the churches were completely happy with that, but as
we say in Newfoundland a half a loaf is better than none. They
still retained their rights in the educational system of our
province, including the right to teach their children in their
particular faith beliefs.
We are back at it again in this Chamber even though over the
last number of months in my province approximately 54,000 or
55,000 people voted to retain their rights in education and to
keep their 28,000 children in their particular school systems.
The amendment that came to the House of Commons and was passed
had to be implemented in Newfoundland. As with any new amendment
there is bound to be a bumpy start. It had a bumpy start in
Newfoundland as well. The rights of these people were affected
even after that constitutional amendment.
On the west coast of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador
some disagreement came about which had to go to court. The judge
happened to say to those people that their rights had been
affected, trampled upon. Therefore the judge granted an
injunction to make sure their rights got back on track again.
Something totally unbelievable happened after that. Premier
Tobin seized upon the public frustration and called a referendum.
It was a 30 day referendum in which he decided the court case was
over. They were never going to be able to do that again, so he
ensured their rights were wiped out totally and completely,
totally extinguished. I find that to be totally intolerable.
I know one is not allowed to say an individual in the House
committed a cowardly act. I know that is an unparliamentary term,
but I will say that Mr. Tobin seized upon an opportunity that he
should not have seized upon. As a result he has less intestinal
fortitude than a model leader of a province should have. I find
that to be terribly disappointing.
1325
He called a 30 day referendum, whipped up public sentiment, went
to the polls and won. How did he win? I think it is necessary
to tell members of the House how he won. When he decided to call
his referendum, term 17, a new term to be enshrined in the
Constitution of Canada, was released to the public 16 hours
before the advanced polls opened.
A new term 17 to amend the Constitution of Canada is something
that is very important to the people of my province. They had 16
hours notice to examine that term before the advanced polls
opened. I find that to be totally intolerable.
On top of that, the premier of the province spent $350,000 on a
campaign and never advanced one penny to the opponents of the
cause. I find that to be intolerable as well.
It is in that kind of highly charged atmosphere that Premier
Tobin will bring forth his version of term 17 to this honourable
House. He will wipe out forever and a day the long held rights
of these groups of people, people who have held those rights
since 1949 and others who have held them since 1980.
I hold that to be a very sacred right but it is not a popular
view to hold right now in my province. I think it is a sacred
right. It is a sacred right that these parents hold as well, a
constitutional right protected under term 17.
That right will be wiped out by parliament in association with
the house of assembly of Newfoundland. I have problems with what
we will be doing here. I have problems with what we will be
doing to those people who want to exercise that right, and there
are many who want to do so. I have very serious concerns about
the tolerance lacking in all of us when we use this Chamber to
take away a religious right that is sacred and protected by the
Constitution of Canada. That is what we are about to do.
I have problems when we submit the rights of a minority to the
judgment of the majority. The minority by definition is the
loser so how can the minority win?
There is a school of thought in the country that says a
referendum is a very blunt instrument with which to adjust or
take away the rights of minority groups. There is also the
school of thought that says we should not amend the same
constitutional clause of the Constitution of Canada twice in
rapid succession. Constitutional provisions need time to settle
into the social order. We are changing the same clause of the
Constitution of Canada twice in the space of one year. What time
did it have to settle into the social order? None.
I sometimes wonder what it means to have a constitutional right
if it can be made subject to the ebb and flow of public
sentiment. That is very serious. When we as a nation or as a
province decide to do that we do a grave disservice to the people
not only of my province but everywhere else.
To pass this kind of constitutional amendment twice in one year
will send a very bad signal to other minority groups throughout
the country.
1330
That right of these parents to educate their children in the way
they want to educate their children in my view is a sacred right
and it should not be interfered with. We should never, under any
circumstances—perhaps that is too far to go. Perhaps there are
circumstances under which we can take away minority rights but I
do not think it should ever be done without the consent of those
people who are directly affected by that.
We have not sought to get any kind of permission from the people
who hold those sacred rights. There are 52,000 of those people
who hold those rights, who have already registered their
children.
I remember the Pentecostal Assemblies a week before the
referendum took place had a poll conducted of that 7 percent
population that is represented as Pentecostal and 95 percent of
those people said “no, we do not want that”. But we are
ignoring their rights. That is not the popular view for me to
take in my province right now, but I feel very strongly that
ignoring the rights of those people will set a very bad precedent
for other minority groups in this country.
I realize that Madam Speaker is about to cut me off so I will
just say I appreciate the opportunity to say these few words.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I really
appreciated and enjoyed the speech just given by the member. I
suppose the reason I appreciated it is because he expressed
sentiments which I and which members of the Reform Party hold
very strongly. That is the necessity to live by the rule of law
and that the law should not be just slightly changed because of
the whims of certain individuals.
I was very pleased that the leader of our party in talking about
the motion that was before the House yesterday tried in his
amendment to preserve those rights. The amendment he proposed in
essence gave legs to this principle which this member has been
talking about today. That is the principle that the rights of
minorities in this country if they are entrenched in the
Constitution ought not to be taken away without the specific
consent of that minority group that is involved in that decision.
I agree with this member 100 percent on that.
We need to ask that question with respect to a very broad range
of issues that are now before this government, before this House,
before us as members all the way from the question of Quebec
separation to these issues of schools and the constitutional
amendments which are being challenged by it.
I really like the clause which my leader quoted yesterday from
the Manitoba Act which states “Nothing in any such law shall
prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or
practice in the province at the union”. That is a very good
solid principle. It is a shame that in this Parliament we are
running roughshod over those very strong principles.
In view of that, my question for this member is, how is it then
that he was reluctant to support the amendment that we put
forward on the issue that was before us yesterday since the
principle is identical? I think it is an important comparison. I
am not asking him to defend his decision but I would like his
views on that, please.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, I could almost support
that amendment yesterday except for one thing. It mentioned a
referendum and I was under the impression that again we would be
subjecting the rights of these people, especially minority groups
as we have in Newfoundland and Labrador on this particular issue,
and condoning the referendum to take these rights away.
1335
Maybe there are times when we should have a referendum to adjust
the Constitution of Canada. However, when there is a minority
group, then I do not believe that without its consent we should
take away those rights. That group would be the loser by
definition.
The very fact that those people belong to a minority group
should keep them outside of that particular process. Seeing the
word referendum to me was an indication that if we had a minority
rights issue, we would holus-bolus take it to a referendum to
remove those rights. I have a great concern about that.
Other than that I thought the leader of the Reform Party made an
excellent speech yesterday. There were many points in his speech
which I agreed with. As a matter of fact, I sent him a note
requesting a copy of his remarks because it was such a good
speech. However, with respect to the referendum process and the
taking away of rights of a minority group, that was of great
concern to me.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member for St.
John's East and I must say with a great deal less approbation
than has been expressed by the hon. member for Elk Island.
I was reminded as a result of his speech of the very clear
reason the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney was
destroyed in the election of 1993. It was very obvious in the
Charlottetown accord and in the Meech Lake accord that the
government and obviously this member who was a supporter of the
government at that time failed to listen to the people.
As he admits, in his area of St. John's the people spoke out
overwhelmingly against Meech Lake and I presume the Charlottetown
accord as they did in my region of Ontario. I was not a
politician then, I was just an ordinary citizen, but in my
village everyone was against Meech lake and everyone was against
the Charlottetown accord. What was so distressing and the reason
I got into politics was the fact that the politicians of the day,
especially the Conservative politicians, would not listen to the
people.
Now we have the irony of the member for St. John's East telling
us that he again is not listening to the people in his riding
when it comes to the amendments to term 17. He is saying he
acknowledges that the majority of people in Newfoundland agree
that a constitutional change must be brought forward to change
the school system in Newfoundland, but he is prepared yet again
to ignore the people because he knows better. He knows better,
like his predecessors in the Conservative Party and the previous
prime minister who I think now has a job in the United States.
Good luck to him.
Does the member not think it is about time he recognized that he
cannot ignore the majority? He speaks all this nonsense about
looking after the rights of the majority when in fact he is only
looking after his own party's platform. Does he not think it is
time he listened to the people? Maybe his judgment is not
correct.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, that is an interesting
comment.
Let me say to the hon. member that he has nothing to be proud
of. If he turned down Meech Lake, he has nothing to be proud of.
I think history will judge him very harshly. We would not be
involved in the national unity debate today had we had a little
common sense back in 1990.
It is a very interesting point that the hon. member makes. I
suppose it cuts right to the heart of whether a member of the
House of Assembly or a member of the House of Commons has to vote
in the same way that his constituents vote and whether we should
follow them on all occasions. I have to admit that I have done
that on more than one occasion, but I have to admit that I have
not done that on a couple of occasions as well. It is an issue
which we are not going to solve here. It has been ongoing for
the last couple of hundred years.
I want to make a couple of points on this particular issue. The
38 percent of the people who voted yes in the referendum in
Newfoundland are well represented on this particular issue. We
have all of the members of the Newfoundland House of Assembly who
are unanimous in their view on that. They are well represented.
However I worry sometimes about the minority groups which are not
well represented in the House. I think I have a duty and an
obligation as a parliamentarian to represent them as well. I
think that is a very important point.
1340
There are enough members over there to pass the thing, but I
certainly hope they will find a lot of reasons to reflect on this
over the coming weeks and probably come to another conclusion.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am a little bit curious about the hon. member's
comments about the referendum section of the amendment proposed
yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.
It was very clear in his amendment that he was talking about a
three-legged stool in which referendum was one leg. The amendment
proposed by the Leader of the Opposition was in fact not that a
referendum alone would determine constitutional amendment but
that there could not be a constitutional amendment without a
referendum in addition to the other clauses that he suggested.
I am wondering if the hon. member just did not understand what
was going on or if he merely voted the way the member for
Sherbrooke told him to.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, I do not operate that
way. I do not vote the way people want me to vote in this House.
I vote according to my conscience and I vote in what I feel are
the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
He talked about a three-legged system yesterday. I think one
part of it was the referendum process that these things would
have to go through. The other was the rule of law and the other
was determined to be within the national interest.
I do not think—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
First, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your
appointment to the position of Acting Speaker. The job that you
hold is of great importance as you preside over the most
important debating Chamber in our country. You must ensure that
we can discuss in this Chamber with civility the viewpoints of
Canadians from coast to coast to coast in helping to guide the
governance of this great country.
Second, I must thank the constituents of Kitchener—Waterloo for
the honour of re-electing me to serve as their representative in
the 36th Parliament of Canada. I promise them and I promise all
Canadians that I will do my very best to represent them in this
crucible of democracy. I also thank my many friends and
supporters for their tireless labours during the last election
campaign.
I want to thank my staff, Dianne, Mohammed, Dan, and Tanis for
their work in the constituency office and the Hill office prior
to, during and after the election to ensure that we serve our
constituency and our country well.
In rising to speak on the first throne speech of the 36th
Parliament, which will be the last parliament of this millennium
and the first of the next millennium, I do so with humility and
with tremendous optimism for the future of our country. We have
people from all parts of the world coming together in Canada and
building a nation characterized by tolerance, understanding,
generosity and prosperity.
Together we have built a country that has become a beacon of
hope in an often troubled world torn by strife, wars, poverty,
intolerance and lack of compassion. The fact that Canada has
invented peacekeeping is a reflection and a demonstration of the
ethnic diversity of our country.
Whenever there is a war or a disaster in the world, there are
Canadians among us who are hurting because of troubles in their
former homeland. Our diverse ethnic make-up must continue to be
our social strength that nurtures our tolerance and compassion
and does not serve the cause of disunity.
I vividly recall returning to the land of my birth, Hungary, for
the first time since leaving as a refugee in 1957. I was going
to Budapest as an adviser to the Prime Minister of Canada at the
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I was most
impressed with the prime minister's knowledge and interest in
these issues.
1345
When we landed at the airport it was a red carpet that greeted
our arrival. I descended from the plane at the side of the prime
minister as a parliamentarian of the best country on this planet.
It was very different in February 1957 when my family and I fled
the communist dictatorship through landmines.
Therefore, members can easily understand that the latest
contribution Canada has made in the area of banning landmines has
a very personal significance to me and to many other new
Canadians with similar or worse experiences.
During the course of our trip to Budapest, I met with a group of
family friends. They toasted me and said “Welcome home”. With
a great deal of emotion, I thanked them for their toast and
stated that Hungary is the place of my birth and that I will
always have a concern for its development and well-being.
However, my home, where my wife Nancy, of Irish and Scottish
background, and our 11-year-old daughter Erin are, is Canada. I
thank them for their love and support. They certainly are my
Rock of Gibraltar.
I salute my parents and all those immigrants to Canada who came
to help build this great country of ours with a commitment to
tolerance, understanding and a burning desire to give their
children an opportunity for a better life.
Many Canadians fail to realize how fortunate we really are in
comparison to other countries. The task of keeping together this
country of ours, Canada, has to be our greatest priority. To do
otherwise, to let this country fail due to mean-spiritedness,
intolerance and regionalism would be a crime against humanity.
The challenge for us as parliamentarians from across this great
land is to ensure that we continue to build a country that
celebrates the diversity which unites us in our resolve to
maintain our nation as a model for the rest of the world.
On Wednesday, the prime minister, in speaking on the throne
speech, pointed out to the House that individual parliamentarians
working together can make a difference. With the help of the
former minister of supply and services, I was able to leave my
mark in a modest way by securing for Canadians the right to
refuse ad-mail delivery by Canada Post.
Before I came to Parliament I was involved in community justice
and the building of a safer and more secure community through the
Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council of Waterloo region.
The fruits of our experience in this area are reflected in the
crime prevention, community safety effort contained in the throne
speech. This will challenge and assist communities right across
Canada to establish local crime prevention efforts that will
address the root causes of crime and so build safer communities
and a safer nation.
I am also passionate about higher education, affording our youth
an opportunity to compete successfully with the best in the world
and building on the knowledge based industries that will define
our economic well-being as a nation.
The Waterloo region is blessed with three excellent
post-secondary institutions. I am proud to have served those
institutions, the University of Waterloo, Conestoga College and
Wilfrid Laurier University. I salute the pioneers who built
these institutions. Wilfrid Laurier opened its doors as a
Lutheran seminary in 1911. The University of Waterloo was
started in 1957, the same year that my family and I came to
Canada and it has been a very important part of my life. In its
40 years it has gone from mud and dreams to an institution of
excellence and world renown. Conestoga College has 30 years of
service to the community and a graduate job placement rate close
to 90 percent.
More than 250,000 Canadians have attended these institutions.
If one multiplies that by the $50,000 a year of wealth generated
by each of those individuals, we have a figure of $12.5 billion
that Waterloo region adds to the Canadian economy each year by
the virtue of higher education.
Let us continue to follow the wisdom of the pioneers who built
our post-secondary institutions. Let us be bold enough and
forward-looking enough to uphold their vision by continuing the
investment in our children's future and our nation's future.
David Crane, in the Toronto Star on September 16 of this
year, wrote:
Kitchener-Waterloo, along with Cambridge and Guelph, provide one
example of how people at the local level—in business,
government, social agencies and unions—helped this region make
the transition from old industrial Ontario—what the Americans
call rust-belt economy—to a new knowledge based one.
1350
In 1993, for the first time, three graduates of the University
of Waterloo were elected as members of Parliament. I am proud to
have been one of those three. Other alumnus was Dr. John
English, the former member of Parliament for Kitchener who has
now returned to the University of Waterloo but while he was here
in Ottawa made a tremendous contribution in initiating the
post-secondary education caucus of the Liberal caucus, along with
the member for Peterborough and myself. Also involved was the
member for Port Moody—Coquitlan, Sharon Hayes, who resigned her
position as a member of the House yesterday.
As I reflect on both my colleague John English and Sharon Hayes,
I can say that there is very much a sense of family values in the
Chamber. In the case of the former member for Kitchener, his
wife is experiencing some medical challenges, as is the case with
the husband of Ms. Hayes.
The post-secondary caucus helped to ensure the future of
post-secondary institutions and the hundreds of thousands of
students were given high priority.
The innovation foundation announced in the last Parliament, this
throne speech and the prime minister's announcement of
scholarships as a millennium project illustrates dramatically
that as Canadians we have embraced our knowledge based future.
I challenge all Canadians and Canadian businesses as well as
Bill Gates of Microsoft to join the prime minister in making sure
that the millennium scholarship endowment fund becomes a national
crusade. As a nation we must pledge to our young people that
post-secondary education is a right of every Canadian. This right
is based on merit rather than financial circumstances.
My time is short and I am unable to elaborate on all the points
of the throne speech. However, I embrace the balanced approach
of the government's program and I thank the Canadian people for
having supported through many sacrifices our efforts to regain
the economic sovereignty of our country. As a result, Canadians
can be the masters of their own destiny. Together we can
continue on the path of nation building with tolerance,
compassion and generosity as pillars of our Canada.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to applaud the hon. member's comments. I certainly respect
his Hungarian heritage. I have had the pleasure of working
alongside many people from Hungary. I can usually keep up with
them for the first hour and then I have to resign myself that I
cannot quite keep up.
I was interested to hear that when he spoke to a group in
Hungary he had the conviction to say that Canada was his home,
but his place of birth was Hungary.
Does the hon. member endorse the money spent by his government
to fund multicultural activities that celebrate the place of
birth somewhat more than the accomplishments of Canadians?
I also ask the hon. member would he support the option of
marking Canadian citizen on our census forms? This is the kind
of initiative that I think is consistent with his comments and
which serves to strengthen our nation and celebrate our Canadian
citizenship.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
Before coming to this place I was the president of the
Kitchener-Waterloo multicultural group. With limited financial
resources we assisted the settlement of new Canadians, making
sure they had a chance to acquire the language, the customs and
gave assistance with job searches.
1355
Canadians come from many different parts of the world. It is
important to understand that those roots exist and also to
utilize them. Canada is a trading nation. One of the reasons
why we are successful is because it does not matter which part of
the world we are going to trade with, we are going to have
Canadians coming from those backgrounds who can open doors that
would not be possible otherwise.
By nature, Canadians are very much an inclusive society. The
member talked about not reinforcing those heritages. I can only
say that is what Canada is.
Also, during the last Parliament when we were facing the issue
of the referendum, Canadians, in particular those who were not
born in this country, which is one out of six Canadians, were
very strong within the province of Quebec on the whole issue of
the referendum to make sure that we maintain Canada. They took
great offence at Lucien Bouchard's comments saying that the rest
of Canada is not a nation, not a people.
In my case, as I mentioned, my wife is of Irish-Scottish
background and my daughter is 11 years old. Surely to goodness
she is part of a people and that people is Canada.
The Speaker: This just about brings to a close the question
and comment period. I see it is almost 2 p.m. We will pass to
the statements by members, but I want to recognize that the
member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore will have the floor when we
return to the debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ASIA CONNECTS YOUTH CONFERENCE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, later today I will have the honour to attend the Asia
Connects Youth Conference being held in Winnipeg this week to
mark Canada's Year of Asia-Pacific.
This national multimedia conference has attracted 200 delegates
in addition to hundreds more participants at 11 provincial and
territorial sites via the Internet.
Delegates will gain invaluable opportunities to learn more about
Asia-Pacific, the world's fastest growing region, and meet
visiting youth from the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand,
Cambodia, Vietnam as well Asian youth studying in Canada. Like
the government's youth international internship program, this
conference will help youth gain the skills and contacts they need
to enter the global marketplace.
Indeed, the Asia Connects Youth Conference is one more measure
of the government's commitment to our youth. I salute the
government.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Michael
Campbell, host of the Saturday morning radio show Money Talks
recently presented his listeners with a startling example of the
effect of compound interest.
Invest $3,400 per year for 35 years in an RRSP at 10 percent and
receive almost $1.2 million on retirement, enough to fund an
annuity of $98,000 a year. But workers who pay $3,400 per year
for 35 years into the Liberal CPP plan will receive $88,000 less
per year, a paltry $9,000 per year.
If there are members in the House who still think they can
justify a CPP pension of $9,000 per year after 35 years of
payments, they had better give their heads a shake. We should be
acting now to turn the CPP into something worth having instead of
leaving it as a massive tax grab which promises only poverty
after 35 years of payments.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased the government will further strengthen and
improve the Young Offenders Act.
Several incidents of vandalism and theft in one night in the
small rural town of Melbourne in my riding have given law-abiding
citizens cause for concern. In frustration and fear my
constituents are pressing politicians for change and I hear them.
1400
The crimes show a need for greater responsibility on the parts
of both parents and young people. Judgments must be severe
enough to deter youth from following a life of crime while
making personal responsibility a priority.
To my constituents in Melbourne and Mount Brydges and all other
areas who are dealing with the reality of crime at home and in
their businesses, I pledge to work on their behalf for an
improved and strengthened Young Offenders Act.
* * *
[Translation]
LEADER OF THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Montreal
daily The Gazette reported yesterday that the Conservative leader had
decided that his colleagues would exercise a free vote on the amendment
to section 93 of the Constitution Act requested by the Quebec
government, since a moral issue is involved.
Why does the hon. member for Sherbrooke not recognize the
legitimacy of Quebec's approach and the general consensus over this
issue in the province? Why is he ignoring the National Assembly's
unanimous vote? Why is he not asking his party to support Quebec?
The reason is the Conservative leader failed to convince his 15
colleagues from outside Quebec. This failure clearly shows that the will
of Quebeckers means nothing to the Conservatives, that their leader
would rather speak for the rest of Canada than for his constituents and
the Quebec people.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the government for its promise to invest in a national
children's agenda. One of the most crucial investments we can
make for our children is through the protection of the natural
environment. We have altered biosystems, changed the chemistry
of the planet, its topography and geological structures. We have
altered hydrological cycles and changed the earth's climate. We
are threatening the major life systems of this planet.
[Translation]
When we stop respecting the environment—
[English]
—we demonstrate a profound disrespect for our children.
* * *
KINSMEN CLUB OF ERIN MILLS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to bring to
your attention that the Kinsmen Club of Erin Mills, a community
that forms an integral part of my riding, will be celebrating its
20th anniversary this weekend on October 4.
A visionary group of young men started the local Kinsmen Club 20
years ago. Since then they have made a positive contribution to
the quality of life in Erin Mills and throughout Mississauga. In
its 20-year history the club has organized many local events and
raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit non-profit
community organizations. Some of the beneficiaries include the
Erinoak Treatment Centre for Children, the Credit Valley
Hospital, the local Boy Scout troop and the Heart and Stroke
Foundation, among many others.
Thousands of our residents have benefited directly from the
activities of the Kinsmen. On behalf of the House I would like
to congratulate the Erin Mills Kinsmen Club on 20 years of hard
work and dedicated service to our community.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Namaste,
Sasri-Kal, Ram-Ram, Ya Ali Madat and Jambo.
These greetings emphasize that Canada is a multicultural
society. Our multicultural policy was intended to build bridges
but it has been manipulated in the past and therefore faces
growing criticism today.
Canadians are looking to strengthen their roots in this country.
They want to be Canadian first, especially when the very
existence of our country is in question. Often people ask “am I
a Canadian or am I a hyphenated Canadian?” I can attest to the
fact that today culture and multiculturalism are thriving not
because of government funding but because people choose to do so
on their own.
The multicultural community can play a very important role in
the unity of our country. I urge the government to make positive
changes to this policy. Let us ensure there is no
discrimination, no barriers to their advancement and that they
enjoy full freedom as defined in the charter.
* * *
[Translation]
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate Justice Michel Bastarache on his appointment to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Justice Bastarache is not only an eminent jurist but also a
champion of francophones' rights across Canada. His contribution to the
advancement of the Francophonie was acknowledged even by the government
of Quebec which, in 1991, inducted him into the Ordre des francophones
d'Amérique.
I deplore that the Bloc Quebecois chose to use Justice Bastarache's
appointment as an excuse to launch into another unwarranted attack
against Canadian federalists.
1405
It is very inappropriate for the separatists from the Bloc
Quebecois and the PQ to question the integrity and legitimacy of an
institution like the Supreme Court of Canada, because they never
hesitate to reward their separatist friends, including some who are not
even competent to sit.
* * *
BILINGUALISM
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce accused Lucien Bouchard of being against
bilingualism.
In fact, Quebec could be a role model for second language
teaching. Second language classes are compulsory from the fourth
grade to the end of college. It is in Quebec that second language
teaching is the most rigorous. It is therefore not surprising
that Quebec is the most bilingual province in Canada, with 35
percent of the population speaking both English and French.
However, the Bloc Quebecois denounces the fact that, in Canada, the
onus of bilingualism is on the francophones. Forty percent of
francophones in Quebec and Canada are bilingual, compared to only 8
percent for anglophones.
In English Canada, bilingualism is too often the last step to
assimilation for francophones, which is just what the English provinces
want.
Denying this fact amounts to refusing to fight against it.
* * *
[English]
COMMUNITY ACCESS
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this week I was honoured to announce, on behalf of the Ministry
of Industry, 10 new public access sites to the information
highway in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.
The access sites will be located in Cardinal, Spencerville,
Prescott, Maitland, Algonquin, Kemptville, Oxford-on-Rideau,
South Gower, Oxford Mills and Burritts Rapids. This is a
tremendous undertaking and will go a long way to hooking these
communities to the information highway. The federal government
was instrumental in this initiative by implementing the community
access program.
I am proud to say that Leeds—Grenville is now one of the most
populated ridings of CAP sites in the country.
The success of our government's efforts with this project is
very dependent on partnerships which involve industry, educators,
governments, individuals and communities. This announcement is
certainly a tribute to the community leaders who have pursued a
shared vision of Grenville County's future in the knowledge
economy.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week in this House the Minister of Finance castigated the
former Conservative government for attempting to save the Canada
pension plan on the backs of those who are unable to pay, our
senior citizens. “We would never do that” stated the minister.
It seems as though the minister and the prime minister are quite
content to put the burden of trying to fix decades of
mismanagement on the backs of another group unable to pay, young
workers.
Young workers are starting their families and careers,
undertaking the major financial commitments of their lives while
trying to make ends meet. For many Canadians this will be the
straw which breaks their financial back.
The 73 percent increase over the next six years is simply
another example of an oppressive tax by the Liberals. Not only
will individuals pay up to $700 more per year through this tax,
but employers will do the same. This is a sure fire way to
discourage the youth of today, stifle job creation and stifle
economic growth.
My colleagues and I stand opposed to such a meanspirited attack
on young people and on all Canadians who contribute to this fund.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lucien
Bouchard's economic mission is drawing to a close. Is it an economic
mission or a partitionist mission? Did he talk about Quebeckers'
concerns? Did he talk about job creation and economic recovery?
If he did, he only paid lip service to it. The truth is that this
was no economic mission. Its objective is clearly to promote Canada's
partition.
Does he hear Quebeckers when they tell him that their priority is
the economy?
No. Mr. Bouchard, how will you justify to Quebeckers the high cost of
your trip to France if you do not talk about their priorities?
Mr. Bouchard, as you prepare to discuss partition among the splendor of
the palaces at Matignon and the Élysée, all Quebeckers demand that you
talk about job creation and economic recovery.
It is high time that you put your own interests aside to talk about
those of all Quebeckers.
* * *
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to bring to the attention of the House the importance to my
riding of a mining project that will create 210 much needed jobs in
northern New Brunswick.
1410
This summer, the Breakwater Resources project, evaluated at
$54.4 million, made it possible to resume operations at the Caribou
mine. New processes enable Breakwater to predict that it will be
able to extract more zinc, lead and silver ore from the mine than
it produced prior to its closure in 1990.
This mine will, therefore, be a source of ongoing employment
for my constituents of Acadie—Bathurst for the next eight years.
[English]
The Caribou project clearly highlights the new face of Canadian
mining, a high technology industry—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.
* * *
BOMBARDIER
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bombardier Inc. of Canada, an exporter of quality Canadian
technology throughout the world, employs thousands of Canadians.
The Bombardier plant in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan was
recently awarded an $81 million contract for 50 commuter cars for
New York.
Currently our plant employs 790 employees working on two
contracts. One is for 25 bi-level cars for southern California
while the other is for 208 subway cars for the Toronto Transit
Commission. The plant has even produced rail cars for places as
far away as Ankara, Turkey.
Canadians should be proud of Bombardier and of our country's
exporting prowess, something this government and all Canadians
should continue to support.
* * *
MEMBER FOR SAINT JOHN
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to offer a tribute to the member for Saint John.
Recently the international leader of the Salvation Army, General
Paul A. Rader, conferred on the member for Saint John the Order
of Distinguished Auxiliary Service. This is the highest
recognition the Salvation Army awards to a non-Salvationist.
The member's contribution to local and national public service
is well known, in particular her years as a very progressive
mayor of Saint John. The Salvation Army was pleased to recognize
her dedicated and practical service to mankind by awarding her
this distinction.
The member for Saint John is only the 57th Canadian to be
inducted into the Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service and
the first person in Saint John. The award is well deserved and
we are very proud of her.
Members of the Salvation Army are here with us today in the
gallery and I wish to welcome them to this Chamber.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been a full week since Canadian passports were
found on two men believed to be Israeli counterterrorist agents
operating in Jordan.
We agree that the world must be vigilant against terrorism but
Canadians want some answers on this affair and they want them
now. We do not even know who these men are.
My question for the government is are these two men Canadians?
Are the passports they were holding valid, forged or stolen?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it can be confirmed that the two
passports are forgeries. There are about six million Canadian
passports out at any given time.
The identity of the two individuals has not been determined
definitively. We categorically reject any notion that there was
collusion between the government of Canada and any other
government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has an obligation to protect
the good reputation of Canadians overseas. The maple leaf flag
is trusted and our passport is internationally respected.
Our concern is that any use of the Canadian passport to cloak
foreign operatives damages the reputation of Canadians abroad and
endangers their safety.
1415
Just to be absolutely clear, did the Canadian government know
anything at all about the mission in Jordan in which Canadian
passports were used? Were any Canadian agencies involved in any
way, shape or form in that mission?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government shares the
concern of the hon. Leader of the Opposition about the reputation
of Canada and Canadian difficulties.
We know nothing about any involvement by any Canadian in the
matter. We can confirm that the Canadian ambassador to Israel is
being brought back to Canada for consultation.
The matter is being treated very seriously. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs has met with the crown prince of Jordan today in
New York and he will meet with Israeli officials.
As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, it is a Jewish
holiday and it is very difficult to find people today.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said it would be
unacceptable for foreign operatives to use the Canadian passport.
Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs even threatened diplomatic
retaliation.
All of these are fine words, but where are the actions to
prevent the illegal use of Canadian passports no matter how or by
whom they are used?
Since the government has done little in the past to quell the
illegal use of Canadian passports, what concrete steps will it
take to ensure that Canadian passports will not be used illegally
in this manner in the future?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the
Opposition will know that the Canadian passports require less
visas than perhaps any other passport in the world. It is a very
desirable passport for people to have. They may have been
forged. They may have been stolen. As I say, there are six
million of them out there.
The hon. member knows that the government is taking this matter
very seriously.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have travelled
extensively and I know the value of the integrity of the Canadian
passport.
We are told that there are boxes of these passports being used
by other countries. I have just been contacted by a frightened
Canadian in Jordan who says that all Canadians are in danger of
repercussion. He was told by the Canadian embassy in Jordan to
stay indoors for his own safety.
What is the Canadian government doing to protect Canadians
travelling abroad?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's point is a
very good one. It is a concern to Canadians when anything like
this happens.
The member knows that it had nothing to do with the Government
of Canada. They could have been stolen. They could have been
forged.
We are doing our best and the matter is being taken very
seriously.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the very
competence of our foreign affairs department is being called into
question.
A week after a major incident takes place the government is
telling Canadians that it does not really know what is happening.
Either that is true or our foreign affairs department is inept.
Which of those two options is true?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ambassador from Israel was
called in, I believe this morning, to speak to the Department of
Foreign Affairs.
We share the member's concern. It is a situation that everyone
regrets enormously.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated that
he had warned the RCMP and the Prime Minister's Office last spring
of serious allegations concerning a Liberal Party of Canada fund
raiser.
I am asking the minister whether he informed the solicitor
general at that time.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very day I learned of, or
heard of, certain allegations of misappropriation of funds in the
matter of which we speak, I immediately informed the RCMP of them,
requesting it to investigate, but I did not inform the solicitor
general of the day.
1420
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the solicitor general told us that he had not been
informed of the RCMP investigation, but we know since yesterday
what the Minister of Human Resources Development has repeated
today, that he informed the RCMP and the PMO that an investigation
relating to a fund raiser was under way.
I am asking the solicitor general for an explanation of how
the Prime Minister knew, the RCMP knew, his colleague the Minister
of Human Resources Development knew, but he in his capacity as
solicitor general did not know what the RCMP was doing, when he is
the one responsible for it.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very simple. It is not appropriate for the
Solicitor General of Canada to be involved in an investigation by
the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few months ago,
the former solicitor general explained in this House, in relation to the
Airbus affair, that the way the system works, the first thing that
happens when there is an investigation is that the RCMP informs the
solicitor general, who then decides whether it is appropriate to advise
the Prime Minister's office.
Since the system provides for the RCMP to inform the solicitor
general, how can he stand up and tell us, as he did yesterday, that he
was not informed?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can say it very clearly because I was not informed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is an
investigation that implicates the Liberal Party of Canada, implicates
ministers and goes right to the heart of the matter of government
integrity.
Does the solicitor general still contend that he was not
informed by the RCMP because they did not feel it was appropriate
to let him know about an investigation into the government's
integrity?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was not that it was felt unnecessary. It was felt
inappropriate.
* * *
[Translation]
JOB CREATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised job
creation would be a priority. In February, the Minister of Finance said
interest rates had to be lower to promote job creation, but yesterday
the same minister supported the Bank of Canada's decision to increase
interest rates.
How many young people will be forced into unemployment before this
government realizes that the real cause of the crisis is not inflation
but the lack of jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): As you know, Mr.
Speaker, job creation has been quite strong in the past five or six
months, but it now has to be maintained, which means sustained and
sustainable growth.
To this end, yesterday, the Bank of Canada took its foot off the
gas every so slightly so it would not have to hit the brakes too hard
down the road.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
unemployment is 9 percent, where it has been for seven lean
years, and inflation is 1.8 percent. Before the election when
inflation was 2.2 percent the finance minister said there were no
inflationary pressures in Canada. Now the finance minister wants
to choke off the bit of hope the unemployed have.
How can the minister justify a policy that condemns 1.4 million
Canadians to continuing unemployment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
anybody who follows the economy knows full well that the major
problem of large industrial countries has been a perpetuation of
the boom and the bust cycle. In order to avoid that, it is very
clear the central banks have to act with a certain degree of lag
time. That is what has happened.
If one wants to talk about government policies, let us take a
look at the private sector. Since this government has taken
office it has created over one million jobs. In this year alone
there have been 260,000 jobs, the majority of them in the private
sector.
* * *
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House the solicitor general denied any
knowledge of an RCMP criminal investigation into the Liberal
Party of Canada fund raising practices, despite the fact that his
cabinet colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development,
brought the matter to the attention of the RCMP six months prior.
1425
Will the solicitor general now confirm that Pierre Corbeil was a
paid employee of the Liberal Party of Canada, contrary to the
press release from the Liberal Party yesterday, and the duration
of Mr. Corbeil's employment?
The Speaker: On the question as put, I do not know
that a minister of the crown would necessarily know a member of a
political party is involved one way or another. That is the way
the question was formed.
If the question could be rephrased I would permit the solicitor
general to answer it. Could the member rephrase the question.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of
an individual under investigation by the RCMP, who is under his
purview as solicitor general, by the name of Pierre Corbeil?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware that there is an investigation. Surely the
hon. member knows that because there is an investigation it would
be inappropriate for me to speak specifically to that
investigation.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that being the fact, it is imperative Canadians have
confidence in the integrity of the prime minister and the
cabinet. The current RCMP investigation puts that confidence in
question.
Has the clerk of the privy council been formally advised of this
investigation by the RCMP? If so, what steps have been taken to
maintain the integrity of the cabinet's deliberation.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member no doubts knows, given that there is
an ongoing investigation it would be inappropriate for me to
identify people being investigated whether they be on this side
of the House, whether they be on that side of the House or
anywhere in Canada.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister just said a few minutes ago that these Canadian
passports were forged. I would like to know if an official from
his department has actually seen these passports to determine
whether or not they are forged.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, no.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if they have not seen the passports, I am wondering how the
minister can determine that they are forged, make that assumption
and say it in the House.
If they have not actually seen these passports, how in the world
does anyone from the government know they are forged?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton knows
that other people have seen the passports and that is why I have
said we have not seen the passports.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development told me a few minutes ago, in
answer to my question, that he had warned the RCMP of an investigation
with respect to a Liberal Party fundraiser last spring.
The newspapers also reported this morning that he had warned the
Prime Minister's office last spring.
I would like him to rise in the House and confirm that he did
indeed inform the Office of the Prime Minister that an investigation was
under way into the allegedly illegal actions of a Liberal Party
fundraiser.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was my responsibility, as
soon as I got wind of these allegations, to inform the RCMP, and
not my cabinet colleague, which would have been completely
inappropriate. This was to be sure that the RCMP could do its
job without political interference.
As I said yesterday, I can confirm in the House that, having made
my decision and informed the RCMP, I wrote my March 5 letter to Philip
Murray, in which I told him:
[English]
“Allegations have come to my attention that at least five
different proposals were approached by individuals”.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question was whether the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke
about the matter, not to his colleague the solicitor general, but to the
Prime Minister or any other of his colleagues, because yesterday we saw
him hold a very rapid caucus with senior ministers from Quebec, as soon
as a Conservative Party colleague had begun to ask the question and
before the solicitor general had even begun to address it.
We have the impression that other ministers besides the Minister of
Human Resources Development were aware of this investigation and we also
have the impression that the Prime Minister was warned by the Minister
of Human Resources Development that such an investigation was under way.
Will he answer the question directly?
1430
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is rare in fact for the
opposition to see a government that has acted with speed and
integrity in the hours following the allegations about which I
was informed.
I wrote RCMP Commissioner, Phil Murray, and asked him to do his
job. Once I had made my decision and taken action in the form of the
letter I sent him March 5, I so advised the chief of staff of the Prime
Minister of Canada.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question on the passports. The minister just
said a couple of minutes ago the words “other people have seen
the passports”. Who are the other people?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
raising that question. My understanding, and I have just been
passed a note to this effect, is that Canadian officials have
seen the passports and they have been asked to establish that
they are forged.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister again.
Canadian passports belong to the Canadian government. Do we
have those passports in our control now and when are you going to
have them back in this country?
The Speaker: The question should be posed always through
the Chair. The hon. secretary of state.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Unfortunately, I do not have a specific
answer to that question. I will find out and I will report back
to the hon. member.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Public Works.
Was the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the Quebec
wing of the Liberal Party, informed by his—
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
[English]
It is not the official responsibility in a portfolio for the
minister to answer that on a political basis.
[Translation]
That is just the way it is. The hon. member for Roberval may put
his question.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Human Resources Development.
Did the minister inform his colleague, the Minister of Public
Works, who is responsible for the Quebec wing of the Liberal
Party, of this problem within the Liberal Party?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I definitely had a duty to do so.
Indeed, after making inquiries and asking the RCMP to do so, I of
course told the leader of the Quebec wing, the President of the Treasury
Board and the Minister of Public Works, because when such allegations
are made, it is extremely important that those who are in a position of
authority be informed, so they can act as quickly as I did.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we want to get to the bottom of this passport affair.
Let us get this straight. We asked if these passports were
forged or stolen or valid and the minister said they were forged.
Then we asked had any Canadian officials actually seen the
passports to determine that they were forged and he said no,
other people had seen the passports. Then he got a note from
somewhere and said no, it was not other people and Canadian
officials actually were investigating that they were forged.
We want to know what is the correct story. Are these—
The Speaker: The hon. secretary of state, if you would
like to answer that question, go ahead.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whereabouts of the passports
at this point are not known at least to myself. I am going to
find that out and report back to the member.
Canadians have seen them and I understand that it is clear that
they are forged but we have been asked to make certain that they
are forged.
I appreciate that the member's question is otherwise a good one.
1435
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister does not know where these passports are,
how can he be determining that they are forged?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the member from the
Conservative Party, I was a crown attorney for many years and we
were trained to be very precise in our answers.
The whereabouts of the passports at this moment are not known to
myself. It is being determined beyond a reasonable doubt to my
knowledge that they are forged passports. It does not take a
rocket scientist to figure out who had the passports. I am sure
that members know. When I find out where the passports are I will
let the hon. member from B.C. know as quickly as I can.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have learned out today that, on the issue of the fundraiser, the
Minister of Human Resources Development knew, the RCMP knew, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services knew, the Prime
Minister knew and the President of the Treasury Board knew.
My question is for the solicitor general. First, does he not find
it strange to be about the only cabinet member who did not know? And
second, is he absolutely sure he is indeed the solicitor general?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware that there were other people and the RCMP
were aware. But most important, I am aware of the need to
preserve the integrity of the position of the solicitor general.
* * *
CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The best way to fight crime is to engage communities across
Canada in crime prevention at the community level and to attack
the root causes of crime. During the last election campaign and
in the Speech from the Throne the government talked about crime
prevention programs, a most laudable goal. Can the minister
assure this House and the people of Canada that this program will
be driven by the local communities as it should be and not by
bureaucrats from Ottawa?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can indeed reassure the hon.
member that our new crime prevention initiative is going to be
driven by local communities all over this country. As a
government we were very proud that one of the major new
initiatives of this government as it relates to creating safe
communities and safe homes is in the area of crime prevention.
I look forward to working with all members of this House and I
look forward to working with local communities all over this
country to ensure that we have in place the strategies and
policies to help Canadians feel safer in their local communities.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is being completely evasive on this issue
and we are wondering why. I think Canadians are wondering why.
This has been in the news now for a week. Foreign Affairs has
had ample opportunity to investigate.
Either the government simply does not know what is going on, or
the government does know what is going on and is reluctant to
tell this House. We ask which is it. Is it simply that the
government does not know what is going on, or is there something
about this that makes the government reluctant to share what it
knows with this House?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing about this that
makes the government reluctant to share with other Canadians what
is going on. The government as I said takes the matter very
seriously.
1440
The whereabouts at the moment of the passports is not a key
issue. The issue is that we are asking our ambassador to come
back from Israel to discuss the matter. We have called in the
Israeli ambassador here. We are taking the matter very
seriously. The physical whereabouts of these two passports at the
moment is not a big issue.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when will the minister tell the House where these passports are?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about three minutes after I find
out, which I will attempt to do right after question period, I
will let the opposition know where the passports are.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I received a disturbing phone call this week regarding a
seasonal worker who worked his hours in a 12-week period,
qualified for EI, but because of the new legislation having
included a 26-week period for calculation of the claim, this man
is asked to live on a $39 a week paycheque.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Does the minister recognize that there are unjust laws in the EI
legislation and that it discriminates against seasonal workers
and part time workers, taking away their dignity?
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the case of seasonal
workers is a concern to us and we are closely monitoring the employment
insurance reform we undertook. I have said it on a number of occasions
in this House.
The unemployment insurance system that was in place until our
government showed the courage to change it and to adjust it to the new
labour market situation was simply no longer adequate and no longer
serving the best interests of Canadians. We had to undertake a major and
comprehensive reform to replace passive measures with active ones and
help the unemployed find work.
But we are closely monitoring the situation.
* * *
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, after the initial shock, the Minister of Human Resources
Development confirmed that he had indeed informed the RCMP of
allegations of dubious fundraising practices.
Today, we have learned that in fact the minister spoke to several
cabinet colleagues, including ministers from Quebec.
Could the minister tell this House when exactly he informed these
other cabinet members, including the ministers from Quebec? When did he
do it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House and the opposition member
that I informed my colleagues only after acting on the allegations which
I had heard about that same day.
It is only after writing to Commissioner Murray, on March 5, that
later in the evening I informed my colleagues of the decision and action
I had taken, so they would be aware that some allegations affecting
organizations for which they were also responsible were circulating.
Obviously, this was the least I could do. It stands to reason.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister just gave us confirmation of the fact that cabinet
ministers were aware of the allegations; some of them probably knew the
individual being investigated. Could he tell this House if he or other
ministers toured businesses with this individual in Quebec, and in the
Drummondville—Trois-Rivières area in particular, to raise funds for the
Liberal Party of Canada?
The Speaker: The question, as worded, is out of order. I now
recognize the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
while the deficit is under control and there is in excess of $7.5
billion sitting in the employment insurance fund, there are still
unemployed workers struggling to survive on a meagre $39 a week.
Will the minister commit today to making the necessary changes to
the Employment Insurance Act to put an end to the unfair treatment of
seasonal and part time workers in the Atlantic region, in Quebec and
across Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition should commend the government for
having had the courage to undertake a difficult but necessary reform to
make our employment system responsive to modern market conditions.
1445
We now have a more equitable system, a fairer system that takes
people off a certain unfortunate form of dependency to help them get
back into the labour market. We are putting very substantial amounts
into the transitional job fund and, as several of my colleagues from the
Atlantic region know full well, this fund is in the best interests of
those who live in Atlantic Canada.
* * *
[English]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Since the premiers so-called Calgary declaration in
mid-September, the minister must have heard from many Canadians
with their reactions. Can the minister tell us how Canadians are
reacting to the principles in the Calgary declaration?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all parties in the House with one exception have
never been as united for Canadian unity than they are now with
nine of the premiers.
They are united for principles that Canadians support from
British Columbia to Newfoundland. An Angus Reid poll yesterday
showed strong support for a federation that respects the equality
of provinces while recognizing that one of them is obviously
unique in an anglophone North America.
* * *
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the justice minister implied that the system used to select our
federal court justices has worked well for 130 years.
Well, an Angus Reid poll last summer indicated that 52 percent of
Canadians had lost faith in the courts and today the Globe and
Mail stated “We have a judicial appointment system that is
out of control, devoid of accountability and free of public
scrutiny.”
Will the justice minister move immediately to establish an
independent and open appointment process to restore Canadians'
faith in our court system?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous
occasions in the House already, I believe that the appointment
process for Supreme Court of Canada justices has provided us with
some of the most distinguished jurists serving in the highest
court of the land.
I have to tell the hon. member that the government does not
determine its policies on the basis of Globe and Mail
editorials. However, I have made it very clear that I see merit
in ensuring that there is a wider consultation process in
relation to the appointment of supreme court justices.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask the justice minister if she would be prepared to share with
the House her plans for when she is going to do this, who is
going to be involved and the form it is going to take?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I am
open to considering how we can ensure greater consultation as I
go about making recommendations for appointments to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
I encourage the hon. member and any other member in the House
that if they have suggestions how I may hear from a greater
number of Canadians, I would be happy to hear from them.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when pressed
just now, the solicitor general told us that he knew that people in
cabinet, people around him, the RCMP, were aware of the serious
allegations against a Liberal party organizer.
Will the solicitor general confirm that he indeed stated that
he was aware that some of his colleagues knew?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I became aware that other people were involved in this
today in the House. I was not aware of an investigation. I was
not advised of an investigation. The investigation is ongoing
independently by the RCMP as it should be.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister knew, the Minister of Human Resources Development knew,
the Quebec ministers knew, the Prime Minister's lieutenant knew,
the organizers knew, the RCMP knew. Everybody knew, just not their
boss.
What is the solicitor general's problem? Either he is
frighteningly incompetent, or he is trying to mislead this House.
1450
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand very well the need to protect the integrity
of the position of the solicitor general. The RCMP is conducting
an arm's length investigation, as it should.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
On September 3 a VIA Rail train crashed near Biggar,
Saskatchewan injuring 64 and killing one. Yesterday in releasing
an interim report on the accident, the Transportation Safety
Board noted that its recommendations are the same ones it made
three years ago following a crash at Brighton, Ontario.
The recommendations do not address the cuts to VIA maintenance
in the last three years which have led to the closure of
maintenance centres in Halifax and Toronto, the originating point
of the train at Biggar.
Will the minister request VIA Rail to cancel any further cuts
and layoffs to VIA maintenance until the final report of the
investigation is completed?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to say how grateful we are that the
Transportation Safety Board has given a preliminary report on the
unfortunate crash at Biggar.
This is an incident that we are all concerned about. We are
also concerned that some of the original recommendations for
safety were not followed. Immediately the Department of
Transport took regulatory action against VIA and VIA is
complying.
We will do the best to ensure that all the recommendations made
by the board will be adhered to very quickly.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
passes as more than being an incident. It is an absolute tragedy
that someone had to die before we saw recommendations from the
Transportation Safety Board being put into place.
Why did the government not ensure that the minimum
recommendations from that previous accident were enforced?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to the contrary, the Department of Transport is very
vigorous in applying safety standards. Safety is the number one
priority for the government in whatever mode of transport.
It appears that VIA did not undertake to make certain changes
throughout its system. It did on some services and we are trying
to find out why. We have asked VIA to come back and let us know
what other actions it is going to take to comply with the board's
request.
* * *
VETERANS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The government has cut the last post fund for veterans from
$26,000 to $12,060. This has made it very difficult for
veterans.
Will the minister assure the House that he will have his
department review the cuts it made to the last post fund and deal
with the difficulties and injustices it has caused to the spouses
of those families?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. I
know that she has worked hard, like all of us in the House, in
support of veterans.
I have been asked to assure the House that this situation will
be reviewed. Veterans affairs are always reviewed to see what
can be done for veterans. We recently overhauled the review
board and that basically cuts the time in half. We continue to
review items of interest.
The hon. member knows that a few years ago we introduced a bill
that looked after merchant seamen. We will continue to do this
on a regular basis.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
has been $182 million cut from the Department of Veterans
Affairs' budget. This has made it most difficult for the
veterans and their families.
Cuts to the last post fund have made it more difficult than some
of the other cuts because it costs a lot more today to bury a
veteran than it did 10 years ago.
Once again I ask the minister to please take a look at the last
post fund to see if there is not some way we can bring back
dignity for the veterans.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the dignity of
veterans will be utmost and top priority for the government.
* * *
CUSTOMS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of National Revenue dismissed allegations
made by a 25-year customs official, Dennis Coffey, allegations of
fraud, nepotism and abuse rampant in the Department of National
Revenue.
1455
Today we have obtained a sworn affidavit from Mr. Coffey which I
am prepared to table in the House confirming his allegations and
contradicting the minister.
Given that Revenue Canada has not denied Mr. Coffey's
allegations, is the minister prepared to investigate this matter
and if not, why not?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member asked this question yesterday
and I responded. I want to repeat that response so that it is
clear to him.
I said yesterday that no preferential treatment is given to
FedEx. Let me repeat it again. No preferential treatment is
given to FedEx.
If the member has any evidence to the contrary other than
allegations, he should table them in the House. We have not seen
one iota of evidence from this member other than the
unsubstantiated allegations that he has put forward.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
offered just a moment ago to table a sworn affidavit from a
25-year veteran of this minister's department.
That is evidence introduced before a quasi-judicial body of the
government. One of the minister's top customs officers has
threatened to muzzle and fire this officer of the minister's
department for making these allegations.
Is that how the minister treats employees who try to expose
fraud, waste and corruption in his department?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be very careful of
the words that he uses.
I know this hon. member wants to pretend he is a rat packer, but
he is certainly no Brian Tobin.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general stated earlier with a totally straight face
that he had discovered in this House that the Minister of Human
Resources Development, other colleagues and the RCMP too all knew
about this investigation.
Could he confirm, following all the questions he had in the
House yesterday and the statements he made in the papers, that at
no time and in no way did he discuss this matter since yesterday
either with the RCMP, or—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. minister
has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can confirm in answering the question from the hon.
member that in fact I did not speak to the RCMP about this case.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there are two parts to the question. He answered the part
concerning the RCMP.
I ask him again: Did he, in the time between question period
yesterday and today, discuss this matter with not some but many of
his colleagues, since almost everyone in cabinet knew about it but
him?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no. As I said yesterday in response to the question,
the first I was aware of this was yesterday when the question was
put.
* * *
INTEREST RATES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Finance who, I guess like everyone
else, was surprised yesterday to learn that interest rates are
now on the way up again.
We have acknowledged that inflation, at 1.8 percent, is well
within the parameters of the Bank of Canada's monetary policy.
The minister says he has to take action because the inflation
rate is at 1.8 percent.
How high do unemployment levels have to go before the minister
also takes action on interest rates?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure the hon. member knows that interest rates are at almost a
30-year low. Our interest rates are substantially lower than
those in the United States.
We are not dealing with monetary tightening. The governor of the
bank has simply eased off on the accelerator a little in order to
maintain the tremendous economic recovery and the very strong job
creation we are seeing.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian children represent our country's future. Canadians are
looking to their governments to help low income families and
children and give children a good start so that they can realize
their full potential as adults.
Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tell us what
the federal government is doing to combat child poverty?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that child poverty is a
major issue and that it is a priority for all governments.
1500
We are working with our territorial and provincial partners on a
major reinvestment plan. We are increasing the national child
benefit by $850 million starting in July and an additional $850
million. There are many projects and services that we offer for
children, too many to mention, but I know that our hon.
colleagues support us in our work on these programs for the
children of Canada.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Dr. Zoltan Gal, my brother Speaker
of the National Assembly of Hungary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the government House leader to advise this House as
to the nature of the government's business for the remainder of
this week and business for next week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we shall continue for the rest
of today and tomorrow the conclusion of the address debate.
On Monday we will commence second reading of Bill C-2, the
Canada pension plan investment board legislation. This will be
followed by Bill C-4 concerning the Canadian Wheat Board. When
these items have been disposed of we would propose returning to
Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act which was introduced earlier
today.
Members will have noted that there are now a number of bills on
the Order Paper. As the week progresses I will be in
communication with members opposite in regard to adding
additional business. Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
The Speaker: I have notice of a question of privilege. I
will hear that before I hear any points of order.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of privilege. I would like to say to other
members of this House that I take points of privilege very
seriously and have only decided to pursue this course of action
after giving it a great deal of thought.
On Tuesday, September 30 the first draw for Private Members'
Business in the 36th Parliament was held. A bill that I wished
to have in that draw was not eligible because it has not gone
through first reading yet. There were very few changes to be
made to this bill as it had been submitted in the last
Parliament. However two and a half months after I requested it,
the bill has not materialized.
My ability to discharge my parliamentary duties has been
severely hampered due to the reduction in House staff responsible
for the production of private members' bills. Private Members'
Business is a means by which public matters the government is not
dealing with can be brought forward by private members of this
Chamber.
There are 301 members in this House most of whom may wish to
have bills drafted, but there are only two legislative counsel on
staff plus one on contract to do all the necessary drafting. The
support staff who translate, edit and format the bills are not
dedicated only to the production of private members' bills. Other
House business can take precedence, including for example
amendments to government legislation in committee. It is possible
that most of their time could be taken up on other business and
Private Members' Business would literally grind to a halt.
On July 9 I notified the House that I wished to reintroduce two
bills from the last Parliament with minor or no modifications.
Because House staff worked a great deal of overtime while the
House was sitting, they were on holidays over the summer. This
means no one was available to work on these requests for two
months. During that time numerous other members also submitted
requests for the drafting of private members' bills creating an
enormous backlog. At the time of the draw there were around 170
private members' bills in the system with only 23 of them having
reached the stage where they could be introduced in the House to
be eligible for the draw. That means that there were almost 150
bills tied up in the backlog.
1505
I wish to stress that I am in no way finding fault with the
existing staff. To the contrary, they have done an extremely
exemplary job under the circumstances and deserve to be commended
in the highest manner possible. However despite their best
efforts this happens every year and even more so at the beginning
of a new Parliament or a new session. The House knows it is going
to happen, yet this dire state of Private Members' Business has
not been addressed. The inadequate resources devoted to private
members' bills especially at peak periods adversely affects the
ability of all members of this House to perform their
parliamentary duties.
I would request that the House immediately allocate additional
resources so this backlog of Private Members' Business can be
cleared up as quickly as possible.
I conclude that this is not a point of privilege only for me. It
is for all private members in this House.
The Speaker: This is not a problem which is absolutely
new to the House. I would find at this point that this is not a
question of privilege. However might I suggest that the hon.
member speak with his representative on the Board of Internal
Economy because this could probably more properly be discussed
there. I would respectfully make that suggestion.
As to whether it is a question of privilege or not, my judgment
is that it is not.
Is this on another point of privilege?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): On the same
point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I would take it that there is probably new
information because this is not a point of privilege. Do you
wish to raise a point of privilege?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I would like to convince
you that it is a point of privilege and support my colleague in
that manner.
The Speaker: I think, my colleague, that this could more
properly be discussed in the Board of Internal Economy. Might I
request that his intervention be put off perhaps to another time.
Are you agreed?
Mr. Randy White: Agreed.
The Speaker: I am now going to deal with points of order.
The member for Calgary Southeast.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
CUSTOMS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House the Minister
of National Revenue challenged me during question period at page
330 of Hansard to produce in the House facts and table them
here regarding the question I asked both yesterday and today. He
repeated that request today.
Therefore I seek the unanimous leave of the House to table a
sworn affidavit from senior customs officer Dennis Coffey with
respect to his appeal to the Public Service Employment Commission
Appeal Board which substantiates the allegations which he has
made.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission of the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: You have heard the terms of the request. Is
the House agreed that this affidavit be deposited here with the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order today flowing out of question period
dealing with the Minister of Human Resources Development when in
answering a question he referred to and quoted from a letter in
response to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister
should be required through you to table the letter that he quoted
from and referred to. While it is most unlikely that any member
in this House of Commons or in any legislature or jurisdiction
would stand in his place with a piece of paper and quote from a
piece of paper on which there is nothing written, it has happened
in the past.
Therefore, I would like to say to you, Your Honour, that the
Minister of Human Resources Development should be required to
table the letter that he referred to and quoted from in question
period.
1510
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, someone has gone to get the
document in question. We will arrange to have it tabled as soon
as possible because of course that is what the standing orders
call for.
As to the allegation that the minister might have been reading
from a blank piece of paper, the minister is a man of integrity
and would not participate in any such activity.
The Speaker: We are getting into debate now.
The hon. member's point is well taken. The minister will be
asked to table the document which he quoted from in the House. I
believe that is the point which the hon. member wanted to make.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to our standing
orders, I am pleased to table the letter which was referred to
earlier today. It is a letter signed by the Minister of Human
Resources Development and is dated March 5, 1997.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your
appointment as Acting Speaker of the House of Commons. I am
confident that you will assume your responsibility with great
skill, integrity and competence as you have shown so far in your
time in the House. You can be assured of my personal support. I
wish you well.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
prime minister and all members of the House on their election and
re-election to this Parliament. As parliamentarians we have a
tremendous task ahead of us to steer our nation into the 21st
century.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the people of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I want my constituents to know that I am
determined to work hard in voicing their concerns. I am proud
and deeply honoured to be their elected representative for a
second time. I will always be grateful for the trust and
confidence they have placed in me over the years. It is my
pleasure to continue to be of service to them.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank my constituency
staff who served me well in the last Parliament and who continue
to provide the support I need; my Hill staff, Carole and Donald,
my constituency staff, Anne Simone and Phil Sbrocchi, and all who
worked to support me in my duties.
Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a beautiful place, a home to peoples of
diverse backgrounds, a rich tapestry of multicultural unique
neighbourhoods. Etobicoke—Lakeshore is well situated in the
greater Toronto area and is in close proximity to the major
transportation routes, to Pearson airport, the Toronto Island
airport and the Toronto harbour. It is well served by major
highways such as the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 427 and Highway
401.
The riding is as economically diverse as the people in it.
Industries in the riding cut across many sectors. A diverse
combination of small and medium size businesses provides services
in key industrial areas such as manufacturing, retail and
wholesale trade, business and health and social services.
1515
In the late eighties and early nineties the economy of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore suffered as companies felt the impact of the
recession and the economic policies of the past government. I
remember a time when storefronts were littered with for lease,
power of sale and going out of business signs. But today we
witness a fair degree of economic activity especially in the key
sectors of Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
The Liberal government's strong commitment to fiscal
responsibility as articulated in successive budgets, the red book
and the throne speech has provided a stable political and a
strong economic environment to allow these businesses to rebuild
and strengthen their positions in Canada and in world markets.
The federal infrastructure program brought under $12 million to
Etobicoke—Lakeshore with an estimated 178 direct construction
jobs. This resulted in improvements to roads, sewers and other
infrastructure of the riding. The federal job strategy program
has also had some positive impact on commercial activity and some
of the social institutions in the community. I commend these
economic initiatives by the government. However, there is still
room for greater economic growth in Etobicoke—Lakeshore. The
need is still there for job creation opportunities for older
workers and for young people.
In last week's Speech from the Throne the government noted that
it will continue to take further action to encourage new
investments, to create new jobs and to generate the national
wealth necessary to assure Canadians a stable and secure future.
I am very pleased that the government has made this commitment.
There is hope and optimism for the industries and for my
constituents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
In a consultation meeting with my constituents which I held
fairly recently with a mixture of small and medium size
businesses in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, I heard that the people of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore want a country that is fiscally strong, safe
and tolerant. They want a country where youth and adults can
find gainful decent employment, a country where young people can
realize their dreams. The commitment to invest 50 percent of the
budgetary process to these social and economic initiatives shows
the government's willingness to practise fiscal responsibility
while it addresses these pressing problems.
I can assure the prime minister and the finance minister they
will have my support and my constituents' support to stay the
course of fiscal prudence and to find opportunities for young
people. Our young people are the future of this country. As we
head into the new millennium we must ensure that our youth have
the opportunity to develop their abilities through education and
adequate job training.
In the Speech from the Throne the government placed strong
emphasis on these critical issues of concern to young people.
Partner initiatives such as the youth internship program with the
YMCA and career edge are steps in the right direction in assuring
the youth of this nation get on track and stay on track.
I am equally proud that this Liberal government will establish a
Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund and will work to
reduce barriers to post-secondary education for young people by
making further changes to Canada student loans programs. Our
commitment to invest in knowledge and creativity must begin with
the youth of this nation. Youth in my riding and across the
country must be prepared to meet the challenges that lie ahead in
a globally competitive economy.
A safe and just society is valued by my constituents and by all
Canadians. I have heard from my constituents of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore that they want to feel secure in their homes
and in their communities.
1520
There are a couple of local newspapers that publish weekly and
bi-weekly which contain columns where the crimes committed on a
weekly basis are listed. Those listings do cause concern and do
give individuals a sense that their communities are unsafe.
We have to ensure that every citizen and every member of the
constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore feels safe in their home and
in their community.
I know many of my constituents are still apprehensive about
their personal safety and their concerns are being addressed
through crime prevention programs. They have taken the time to
organize community based crime prevention initiatives through
federal government funding of $30 million. My constituents will
benefit from this initiative and I am proud to be part of the
team that believes that our criminal justice system and the
safety of Canadians deserve attention and action.
I will continue to work for the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore
who want to see a united Canada. I know they look to me to work
with my colleagues here in the House to ensure the future
direction of Canada. I challenge all members, irrespective of
party affiliation, to help in moulding a nation of which we can
all be proud citizens.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to a
person who is just an ordinary citizen, not particularly
interested in politics, who turns on the TV to find our colleague
across the way on the screen, praising the youth program being
developed by the Minister of Human Resources Development, as I
heard him doing—the minister seems to be confirming my
words—that it is important for people to understand that the
youth programs, the Human Resources Development programs, must
reflect youth problems as much as possible.
What must be understood is that the problems very often differ
from one region to the next. When the federal government comes up
with programs, very often the problem is that it bases them on a
single reality.
I do not know if it is the reality as perceived by public servants
or by politicians, but it is the reality of people with a view of
the country that is very—
An hon. member: Outdated.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Outdated, perhaps, but a very global and
very uniform view of the country.
I will ask one question of the hon. member across the way.
Does she not consider that all of the youth initiatives taken by
the government are merely interference in areas of provincial
jurisdiction?
[English]
Mrs. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, until the member's last
statement I thought he was asking for some way in which we could
have uniform programs across the country that would address the
needs of young people. I was really applauding him for this.
I represent a constituency which has young people who attend
colleges and universities right across this great land from one
province to another. They must have their credits transferred.
They need the programs of uniformity of credentials. I
understood he was referring to the fact that our young people
must be given opportunities in all parts of the country to reach
their full potential.
It is important to separate out the kinds of squabbles that are
occurring right now which do not benefit our young people. While
we are involved in these kinds of squabbles our young people are
finding it difficult to have their own issues addressed.
I want to compliment the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
1525
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate you on your appointment. You look very
regal today and I am sure you will rule the House with a fair
hand.
I was listening to the member from across the way. She mentioned
she has many manufacturing businesses, many retail businesses,
small businesses and large businesses in her constituency, as I
have. She mentioned that at a recent meeting they were quite
happy with what is going on. They are thriving.
This is what I heard when I was campaigning and talking to these
people in businesses in Lethbridge. They would really appreciate
a tax break. I have been told that if we could give businesses a
tax break, they would hire more people, they would reinvest in
their businesses, they would expand and they would start new
enterprises.
I would like to ask the member if this type of comment has come
to her and if there is any plan by this government to do just
that.
Mrs. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the
kind of discussion that takes place once small business and
business people are brought together.
What help do we need from the federal government to ensure that
we have job creation in business? What can we do to help our own
businesses to grow and what can we do to help communities so that
we could employ more individuals?
Reinvestment, the issue of not having so much red tape, cutting
out the bureaucracy, ensuring there are incentives within
programs that would assist us are always on the table and those
are the issues that I bring to the fore, that I share with my
colleagues in the various forums and that the ministers use in
their programs.
Their programs are good examples of what we need to do and more
voices speaking for the businesses in my riding would ensure that
we address some of those concerns.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in
this new Parliament.
I would like to extend my very best congratulations and good
wishes to you on your appointment to this important post. As you
have heard from many other members, you enjoy the confidence of
this House and we look forward to having you preside over some of
these debates.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my
constituents of Calgary—Nose Hill for their confidence in me and
for returning me to this position as their elected representative
in the Parliament of Canada.
I take my duties to them very seriously and want to do a good
job of representing their interests and of being their voice in
these debates.
To my constituents in Calgary—Nose Hill, a profound thank you
and a commitment to them to act in their interests over the next
term of Parliament.
I am the opposition critic for Human Resources Development,
a very large portfolio of government which handles and
administers the social programs of this country.
Because social issues are extremely important to Canadians, we
have a very important job as official opposition in this House to
hold the government accountable for what it is doing on behalf of
Canadians and for the administration of their security and their
futures.
Canadians take very great pride in our country's social
stability and in the security that we enjoy. When we are sick we
feel we can be looked after. When we are old we have hope that
we will have enough income to have our needs met and to have a
comfortable life.
These are only two of many areas where Canadians are proud that
there is not the want and the disadvantage and the need as in
other countries of the world that are not as fortunate as we have
been.
1530
The Reform Party places a very great emphasis on the social
safety net for Canadians. Reformers have children to educate.
Reformers get sick. Reformers have disasters happen where we
become disabled and need additional assistance. Reformers get
old and want to have pensions. We are vitally concerned as a
party and as Canadians about this important area of Canadian
society and Canadian life.
Part of what we have been doing over the last 10 years in trying
to emphasize and push Canadian governments into getting our
economic affairs under some sort of rational control is targeted
to sustain the social security we have enjoyed in the past and
enjoy now. Many Canadians see this security slipping away as we
are crippled by debt, deficit, runaway programs, and waste and
abuse of the resources of the country.
The focus or end target of our strong fiscal message is security
and sustaining of the social safety net we enjoy. Sometimes as
Reformers we talk a lot about the means but not so much about the
end which is vitally important to all of us.
Canadians have a history of hard work, thrift, saving part of
our income for a rainy day and investing for the future. These
characteristics were essential to the settlement, development and
enrichment of this great country. These characteristics are
exhibited today by new Canadians, people who continue to come to
this country from all over the world to become citizens of Canada
in order to build strong futures for themselves and for their
children.
Canadians also have a sense of fairness. We like to see those
who are disabled, disadvantaged or have experienced unexpected
hardships succeed. We like to see the young given a fair start.
We like to see those who work, who contribute and who save be
rewarded.
Canadians dislike waste. They dislike seeing our tax dollars
foolishly spent or abused. Canadians dislike seeing those in
greatest need receive too little from the rest of society while
some with substantial means receive too much.
I speak for a party committed to a political process which
reflects the views and interests of regular Canadians rather than
the political elites, a party whose principles and policies are
formulated at the constituency level and must be approved by the
membership, a party that publishes its principles and policies
called the blue book for all to read and to consider.
They know what they are buying when they vote Reform. Often our
policies and principles are distorted and misrepresented by
opponents, but as we grow in maturity and in strength as a party
more and more Canadians know the common sense and the solid
policy underlying what we are doing as a party.
I also speak for a party whose leader consults with real people,
not imaginary ones, about their interests and needs and has a
long term vision for the country based on openness and
compassion.
Reform Party principles and policies support a secure and
sustainable social safety net including secure retirement
incomes, insurance against unexpected job loss, and promotion of
research and educational excellence. They ensure that families
have the resources to care for their children. Reformers
strongly believe that social benefits must be focused on those
who truly need them and must be delivered in a compassionate
manner.
Reformers also stress that programs must be soundly designed and
managed. They must be financially sustainable and administered
as much as possible without huge bureaucracies, masses of rules
and regulations such as supposed universal benefits which are
then followed by complex clawback rules.
1535
All these traditional Liberal practices need to be reduced or
eliminated. Co-operative arrangements with provinces,
communities and the private sector need to be encouraged and
expanded.
Canadians and Reformers are realistic. New realities emerge and
Canadians see and understand them. The Liberal Party and the
government are slow to recognize new things and even slower to
act.
As Canada's opposition party, Reform has a duty and a
responsibility to point out areas where the government is not
adequately serving the interests of Canadians and to urge
government to take corrective action.
The Liberal government is failing to grapple successfully with
at least three emerging realities.
The first is that Canadians increasingly understand personal
income taxes in Canada are unjustly high. The after tax income
of Canadian families has declined by 7 percent since 1989. This
translates to a drop in the income of the average Canadian family
since the Liberals were elected in 1993 of $3,000. Yet the
government continues to waste money and to think up additional
non-essential programs while Canadian families increasingly must
go without.
The federal government has failed to be specific or to
demonstrate convincing determination about cutting taxes for
Canadians, allowing them to keep their own resources to care for
their families.
A second reality is the consequences of Canada's federal debt.
Liberal and Tory governments have gleefully borrowed everything
they could get their hands on for the past 25 years. Borrowed
money outstanding now stands at $600 billion, with an annual
interest bill of $46 billion. This is the largest single item in
the government's budget and it looms as a long term threat to
Canadian social security. It is a mortgage on our children's
future.
A third reality is that Canada's social programs need reform.
Many of them are badly designed, unsustainable and even
dysfunctional. The traditional Liberal, NDP and Tory approaches
of throwing additional billions at problems is no longer a
realistic solution, even though we see the government continuing
to attempt to do that.
Canadians are concerned by what they see happening. How did we
get into this fix? Who was asleep at the switch? How will our
social programs be repaired? Who will pay for the errors of the
past? What is reasonable and fair? These are important
questions.
Let us talk about fairness for a moment. Government revenues to
pay for social programs such as educating the young or paying for
non-contributory benefits for the elderly come largely from taxes
levied on those who are working. Canadians have always been
willing to support the transfer of funds between generations.
Intergenerational transfers, however, must be seen to be fair.
Are the excessive EI premiums levied on workers and businesses
today fair? The answer in the minds of many Canadians is no.
Is the excessive tax hike and the resulting burden placed on
generations x and even y fair? Again the answer
coming back is no.
Government can be evaluated on many things including on how well
it looks after the interests of all our citizens and how well it
designs and manages programs, especially social programs.
The throne speech led us to expect government legislation during
the 36th Parliament on proposed changes to the Canada pension
plan, the new seniors benefit, a national child benefit system,
the Canadian Labour Code, as well as new programs for people with
disabilities, youth training, education and employment, expanding
opportunities for aboriginals and health care.
One of the key blocks in our social safety net affecting every
working Canadian is the Canada pension plan, so I would like to
talk about it for a moment. The Canada pension plan has been
with us since January 1, 1966 or almost 32 years.
1540
Canadians are in favour of a contributory public pension plan.
That is assuming that such a plan is well designed and managed.
Unfortunately the CPP is neither. It is neither well designed
nor has it been well managed.
The combined contribution rate for CPP was just 3.6 percent of earnings
for the first 20 years of the plan, moved up to 5.6 percent by the 30th
year, and will be 9.9 percent prior to its 40th birthday.
The architects of the plan promised Canadians that contributions
would never exceed 5.5 percent. Already we see a margin of error
of 80 percent in the forecast of the contribution rate. The
inevitable conclusion is that the plan has been either badly
designed or poorly managed, and in fact it is both.
Designers made huge errors in their projections of birth rate,
numbers of contributors and rates of economic growth. The
managers, subsequent Liberal and Tory governments, enriched
benefits, added new benefits and invested the fund at low yields
without adjusting contribution rates.
The first beneficiaries of the CPP received benefits averaging
over 11 times greater than the value of their contributions,
while those entering the plan today will receive a return of less
than one-half of the value of their contributions. One
generation receives a return over 20 times greater than another
generation, and we have a difficult situation because of that.
Reform introduced a modern new redesign of this important plan
which would provide good and fair pensions for all contributors
at retirement. Our plan calls for individualized accounts which
means that individuals own all the assets in their account and
can leave them to their survivors, while still protecting the
benefits of retired and near retired Canadians.
If young Canadians knew that each dollar they put into CPP would
go into their own personal account and that they would receive it
all back, including a fair market return on their investment,
they would gladly support the plan. Our plan reduces
intergenerational transfers which will become a major source of
social stress. We see that already beginning with the current
debate on changes to the plan.
Our plan would be open and transparent. Thus each individual
would know the value of their assets in the plan at all times.
The transition from the present CPP to our super RRSP, which is
what we have called our Reform plan, would take some time.
Middle aged Canadians would have to be given options to stay in
their present arrangements or transfer to the new plan. Several
countries have already made this transition and we believe Canada
can do so as well.
What I am suggesting to the government is not to just keep going
down the same old road of poor plan design and eventual failure
and crisis but to look around, look at new ideas and adopt a plan
that would deliver fairness to future generations of Canadians.
This whole matter of the Canada pension plan will be debated in
the House starting on Monday. I urge Canadians who are watching
the debate today, if they do not watch any other debate the rest
of the year—and some of us wonder why they would—to watch the
one on Monday. It will affect every working Canadian, especially
our children and our grandchildren. It will be a very important
debate.
The latest product of the Liberal spin doctors is the seniors
benefit which we understand will be introduced in this
parliament. Apparently the program is designed partly by
officials in the Department of Human Resources Development and
partly by a number of focus groups under the direction of a
political consulting firm. The political consulting firm
essentially gave the government advice on what was politically
saleable, but it appears that no one provided advice on what
makes sense for Canadian seniors, for Canadian taxpayers or for
future generations.
Among other things, in order to deliver extra dollars to the
finance department so it could claim great success in its deficit
fighting measures, some believe the tax back rates on this new
federal seniors benefit will be irrational but certainly
excessive. It will force Canadians to change their economic
behaviour in other ways to avoid this penalty.
When people change their economic behaviour and hide retirement
income, it simply increases the load on government with more
demand for social programs.
1545
The measure will be debated in the House and I urge Canadians to
be alert to these changes. We believe there are many flaws in
this proposed seniors benefit. For example, the provinces will
lose a fairly large source of future tax revenue because the
present old age security is taxable and the new seniors benefit
is not taxable by the provinces.
We in the Reform Party will work hard in the committee and in
the House to ensure that the seniors benefit legislation is right
for seniors, taxpayers and for all Canadians.
Canadians are seeking a fresh new vision and plan to replace the
failed directions of the past. The Reform Party was formed
because the old parties no longer serve our interests. I am sad
to say that includes four of the parties in the House.
The Reform Party was formed because the people want good jobs
with good incomes as their best social security. They want
generous help to be there for the disabled and those in need.
However, they are fed up with programs that reward not need, but
greed.
Younger Canadians want affordable education and fairness in
their tax load. All of us want prompt, caring medical help when
illness or accidents strike. We want a safety net if disaster
befalls us, but believe we could better protect ourselves and our
families against that if there was less government meddling in
our lives, however well intentioned.
The Reform Party is finding new and better ways to deliver these
results for Canadians. We are seeking out the best thinking and
creative alternatives, both here and internationally, to preserve
the security and well-being Canadians want and deserve. We will
be a positive voice of new ideas and fresh directions as our
country moves into the next century.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while there is much on which I would like
to comment, I will make a comment and then pose a question and
ask for further expansion from the member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Earlier today we heard a member from the NDP talk about fairness
in taxation. I call their use of the phrase tax fairness a
buzzword. We know the buzzword of fair taxation from that party
brings with it a political agenda that somewhat represents the
politics of envy, taxing the rich and what they used to call the
corporate welfare bums and all the philosophy that goes with it.
However, now there is a Reformer talking about fairness in tax
load. I would like the member to explain and expand on the
difference between the Reform approach to tax fairness versus the
typical NDP approach.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, that is what is called
hardball. There is an important point of debate here that
Canadians are considering, which is the whole notion of transfers
between different groups of people.
As the member just pointed out, the former debate was on what
would be a fair transfer from people who have more resources to
people who have fewer resources. There is now a shift on the axis
of the debate because the transfers increasingly have been coming
to Canadians who are older from Canadians who are younger and who
are just entering the workforce.
The simple fact is that Canadians are an aging population right
now. Being one of them I hesitate to belabour the point, however
it does need to be made. By the year 2030 I understand there
will be 40 percent more seniors than there are now. That means
that 40 percent more of the Canadian public will be looking for
publicly funded pensions and seniors benefits that have been
promised.
1550
Forty percent more Canadians will be making increased demands
on our health system. I have already noticed that as you get
older a few rust spots appear and you need more body work. This
is one of the new realities we have been talking about. There
will be some real tension if we do not realize there has been a
paradigm shift.
Because of the generous social programs, older Canadians have
had a lot of advantages that younger Canadians cannot even hope
to have. I urge the government to be very clear. We need to
sort this out and to balance it out quickly before there is some
real social stress that will cause difficulty in our country.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, does
the hon. member really believe that we have tax fairness in this
country, that the Conrad Blacks and other wealthy people pay
their fair share of taxes?
Mr. Jason Kenney: They pay more than their fair share.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Now they are saying they pay more than
their fair share.
Does the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill agree that the
millionaires pay more than their fair share in taxes? Does she
agree with that position? Is that the official position of the
Reform Party, that the millionaires in Canada pay more than they
should be paying? Is that the kind of party that is representing
people in this House? How can that relate to the ordinary people
in my riding that live in the inner core of the city, that are
suffering from day to day to put milk and food on the table?
Yet here is the Reform Party saying that millionaires pay too
much in taxes. Millionaires pay too much in taxes is what they
are saying. Does she agree with her fellow member that
millionaires pay too much in taxes, those poor Conrad Blacks,
those poor Frank Stronachs? Does she agree with that?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I think I got the gist
of the question in the first 30 seconds but I am sure with the
additional rhetoric that we really got it.
The NDP unfortunately is really out of touch with reality. NDP
members keep going on and on about the Conrad Blacks. The fact
of the matter is there is a bare handful of individuals like the
person referred to by the member. These entrepreneurs and risk
takers employ hundreds if not thousands of Canadians and pay
enormous amounts of taxes.
If the member cares to look at some of the figures from the
government he will see that the top 10 percent of income earners
in this country pay half of the taxes. Mr. Speaker, do you know
how much you have to earn to be in the top 10 percent of earners
in this country?
Mr. John Solomon: That's not true, Diane.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I hope the member is listening to
me. I hear some noise back there but I assume he does want to
hear this information.
To be in the top 10 percent of earners in this country you have
to earn $50,000. If the member thinks that is big money then
perhaps he should try to look at the cost of living. The people
in this country who earn $50,000 and more pay over half the taxes
and they are in the top 10 percent.
I think the NDP needs to be a little more realistic when it
comes out with some of this—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments, the hon. member for Provencher.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to join this debate. I have a two-part question for
the member from Calgary.
Recently it was reported in the Globe and Mail that the
good people of Alberta had been consulted on the proposed
spending changes by the Klein government. I know that on the
first round there were focus groups. The second round of
discussions occurred at a forum. I saw people such as the former
minister of finance, Don Mazankowski, as well as others, there.
Average people from Alberta were consulted in this three day
session. The conclusion was that they advised the Government of
Alberta not to go for tax cuts. They said that they wanted
instead more focus on health care and education.
Having gone through this exercise in Alberta and consulted with
the people of Alberta, does the member from Calgary agree with
the conclusions of this conference that the people of Alberta do
not want any more tax cuts, that they want expenditures in
health?
1555
Are people wrong in their evaluation and how does she sit with
that?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that
Albertans would be too flattered to be classed in with Don
Mazankowski as an average Albertan. I am happy to correct the
hon. member.
The consultation with Albertans did not lead to the results and
direction that he says they did. The majority of Albertans in
the consultation said that any surpluses in the Alberta
government coffers should go toward paying the debt of the
province. They do not want a mortgage on the province, on our
children and on our future.
The member may be referring to a particular group or interest
lobby that held a meeting and came out with those other
conclusions. There may be such groups, but the majority of
Albertans in the consultation done with every household in the
province came down four square for using that money to get rid of
the mortgage on our future and our children's future. This is
the way Canadians across the country would want the government to
act and I urge them to consider that.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the average income in the hon. member's riding of Calgary—Nose
Hill is about $63,000. In my riding in northern Saskatchewan the
average income is about half of that, but the high prices of
living in northern Saskatchewan is a reality.
Four litres of milk in some locations in northern Saskatchewan
cost $8.50. To try and supplement people's education and future
is sometimes out of touch. Any hard time that we feel, there is
always warmth and compassion with the New Democratic Party. We
will find this in history.
Would the minister consider a fair and equitable portion of a
tuition free education for all Canadians?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, warmth and compassion
are good commodities but they do not put milk on the table. What
puts milk on the table is money and money comes from having a
good job with a good income. It also comes from having a fair
tax burden so you can keep enough money to look after your
family.
The thing that will not put milk on the table is the emerging
multitude of government programs that take money away from
working Canadians and leave little for them and their families.
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. government
whip.
* * *
[Translation]
SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think you
will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Members of the House of Commons to sit on the Special
Joint Committee considering the various aspects of the draft
resolution concerning the proposed amendment to section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the school system in Quebec,
be the following: Reg Alcock, Peter Goldring, Mauril Bélanger,
Rahim Jaffer, Gerry Byrne, Marlene Jennings, Paul DeVillers, Réal
Ménard, Nick Discepola, Val Meredith, Sheila Finestone, Denis
Paradis, Christiane Gagnon, David Price, Yvon Godin, Paddy
Torsney.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1600
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an Address to
His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the
opening of the session.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me, as the
member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, to take part in this debate on
the throne speech that marks the beginning of our government's
second term in office.
I would like to thank my constituents in Saint-Michel, Villeray and
Parc Extension for their vote of confidence, and I can tell them today
in the House that I will make sure I represent them well and with the
respect they deserve.
A new wind of optimism is blowing across Canada. Canadians are
feeling renewed confidence. They are realizing that it is time to
accomplish many things when governments and citizens undertake together
to build a stronger Canada. I am proud to be a member of a Parliament
that, for the first time in 20 years, will see Canada achieve a balanced
budget, a zero deficit, and eventually a surplus.
This turnaround of the country's financial situation is the doing
of Canadians all the way from Saint John's to Victoria, who rolled up
their sleeves to regain their freedom to choose, which had been
threatened by increasingly higher deficits.
[English]
Together we progressed from what the international financial
community once called a basket case to one of the most robust
economies in the industrialized world. We are poised to have the
strongest growth among the world's largest economies.
At the same time we have not lost sight of the human needs of
Canadians. Canada's population is among the healthiest in the
world and most Canadians enjoy a unparalleled quality of life.
Both of these achievements, one social and the other economic,
are testimony to the fact that we did not sacrifice our vision of
Canada, a country that is strong and united, a country that
values healthy children and strong families living in safe
communities, a country where everyone believes in the dignity of
work and the importance of self-reliance, a country in which
young people have hope for a better future, a country where we
share responsibility for each other, especially the most
vulnerable among us, and a country where diversity is seen as a
great source of strength.
It is a vision that inspires our government. It is the vision
captured in the Speech from the Throne.
[Translation]
We will continue to build a society that holds dear the
fundamental values of equity and equality. The pursuit of equity
and equality enables Canadians to strike a balance in our twofold
commitment to promote independence and responsibility to one
another.
In Canada, we do not believe a choice must be made between
independence and responsibility to one another. And as we
progress, we must never lessen our vigilance. We must never
neglect any individual or any region. This, to my mind, is the
thrust of the throne speech: Canada works for all Canadians and
continues to evolve in response to the increasingly changing needs
of Canadians.
As Minister of Human Resources Development, every day I see
the interdependence of social and economic policy.
They are in fact inseparable. Economic growth does not occur in a
vacuum. It is a human activity.
1605
[English]
The government has represented Canadians with an integration
plan of action, a measured and deliberate plan. It is a plan
that invests in the social and economic priorities of Canadians,
children and youth, health and knowledge, and it is a plan that
respects Canadians' determination to see governments live within
their means.
Our success depends on harnessing the energies of all Canadians,
of all governments, federal, provincial and territorial, of the
voluntary sector and of the private sector.
This is how we turn values into action. We can continue to
build a country of which we can all be proud. This is how this
government will continue to work to keep our country together.
Part of the new optimism is Canadians' renewed confidence in our
capacity as a society to expand opportunity. Young people are
looking for jobs with a future. Canadians with disabilities want
the opportunity to participate fully in the economic and social
life of this country.
Parents are trying to give their children what they need to
flourish. Older Canadians want secure income support in
retirement.
Businesses, large and small, are trying to secure a competitive
advantage in an increasingly global marketplace. Men and women
want an economy that creates jobs, not sheds them. Canadians in
all regions want to ensure that people in need are not forgotten.
In our last mandate we took action to deal with these issues. In
this mandate we will add the essential building blocks that are
already in place.
Building Canada is the work of every day and it is the
responsibility of all Canadians in every part of the country.
That is why the Speech from the Throne stresses partnership.
[Translation]
A society that invests in its children can look to the future
with confidence. Renowned experts in child development have
established a link between economic performance and investment in
human resources and children, in particular.
When we fail to invest sufficiently in the early years of
child development, the country's future economic prosperity may
suffer in two ways. First, economic growth may be frozen because
the necessary human resources cannot be counted on. Second,
society may have to assume higher costs later on as a direct
consequence of the failure to invest in the early years.
[English]
In 1996 the prime minister and provincial and territorial first
ministers made a commitment to improve the way governments work
together to help children in poverty. The 1997 budget announced
the first down payment of the Government of Canada toward a
better way of providing income tax benefits and services to
children in poor families.
The new Canada child tax benefit is the federal government's
contribution to a new and exciting partnership with provincial
and territorial governments.
The national child benefit system will provide more support to
low income families struggling to provide their children with a
good start in life.
Canadians want to work but our current support system produces
some strange results. Parents on social assistance can stand to
lose thousands of dollars in benefits for their children when
they make the decision to leave welfare for work.
This built-in disincentive is called the welfare wall. The new
national child benefit will help tear down this wall. Over time
it will help reduce child poverty, strengthen families and enable
governments to work further for Canada's children.
I am pleased to say that during the course of this mandate the
Government of Canada will at least double its initial investment
of $850 million in this innovative program.
By investing in the national child benefit, Canadians are
sharing the responsibility to get our children off to a good
start in life. They are helping parents get into the workforce.
1610
I will continue to work with provincial and territorial
governments as they redirect some of their social assistance
resources into complementary benefits and services to help
children in low income families, especially the working poor.
By working together we are tackling a problem which no one order
of government can solve alone. We have achieved a most
significant advance in joint federal, provincial and territorial
social policy in the last 30 years.
[Translation]
The throne speech stresses the importance of co-operation in
partnerships. The national child benefit represents the best that this
type of co-operation has to offer. It is not a mere example of
federal-provincial co-operation, but the result of efforts
by governments of all
political stripes, whether Liberal, New Democratic or Conservative,
working together to improve the well-being of our children and prepare
a better future for them.
When I look at this remarkable achievement, I realize why Canadians are
more optimistic.
[English]
Money is only part of the answer. Children need a large
investment of time and attention for healthy development. They
grow up not just in a household but in a society. They need
strong families and they need safe communities, good schools,
good health care and opportunities to develop.
We have begun working with provincial governments to develop a
national children's agenda to improve the well-being of Canada's
children. We will continue to do that with businesses, voluntary
groups and unions, with aboriginal groups and communities.
This exciting new agenda will make a difference to the lives of
hundreds of thousands of Canadian children, and by improving
their lives we are laying the foundation for a better future.
Another key element of our plan is addressing the needs of
youth. Canada's young people are the best educated, the most
literate and the most technologically adept in our history. Their
potential is as limitless as Canada itself. However, to succeed
in today's economy young people need more education, better
skills and relevant experience. They have to be prepared to
learn throughout their lives.
In light of this fact let me share with the House three trends
which have developed among young Canadians, as well as what the
Government of Canada is doing to help them along.
The first trend is that a large portion of young Canadians can
and will succeed on their own. They are staying in school. They
are getting varied part time and summer work experience. They
are starting their own businesses, or perhaps they are doing
voluntary community work.
The only assistance these young people will likely need is
access to information which will help them make wise decisions in
their education and career choices. Through the government's
youth employment strategy we can provide them with the
information, services and support they need.
The Government of Canada will create a Canada-wide mentorship
program. This program is based on the success of local
mentorship programs where a young person can get connected on
line or in person with a mentor who has professional experience
in the field the young person wishes to explore.
[Translation]
Second, there are young Canadians who, after completing their
studies, cannot find the work that would enable them to make a full
contribution to society. Experience shows that when young Canadians are
looking for that first job, they are confronted with a vicious circle:
no experience, no job; no job, no experience.
This is why, we are providing, through programs such as our
internship program and our summer student employment initiative, work
experience for over 100,000 young Canadians, to make it easier for them
to find permanent jobs. This is the boost they need to overcome this
lack of experience and thus meet employers' requirements.
1615
That is the hand up the Government of Canada and Human Resources
Development Canada are prepared to give them.
[English]
There is a third group of young Canadians whose prospect of
finding work in today's labour market has deteriorated
dramatically. These are young Canadians who have low levels of
education and skills. They need an opportunity to learn new
skills such as literacy. These young people require social
supports that can best be provided by their communities.
The first step is equipping them with these basic skills. Then
they need their first job break. The Government of Canada can
help them by bringing together those who can best provide these
services.
The goal of many of our programs such as youth service Canada is
to work with community and voluntary organizations in assisting
young Canadians who had previously lost hope to become
self-reliant members of society, and we are doing our very best.
Education is the key to success and we will work hard on
post-secondary education to reduce barriers for so many of them
with further changes to the Canada student loans program with
increased assistance for students with dependants and new
scholarships such as the Canada millennium scholarship endowment
fund as announced by the prime minister.
We have also made a commitment to do more to see that Canadians
with disabilities play a larger role in our economy. I want to
tap into the enormous potential of people who can and want to
contribute to our economy and society but who do need some
support to do so. That is why we have committed to work with
the provinces to redesign the vocational rehabilitation of
disabled persons program so that it does what it is supposed to
do, give Canadians with disabilities a greater opportunity
to participate in the workforce.
We have also introduced the opportunities fund to further
the economic integration of persons with disabilities.
We believe very much in investing in Canada's human capital.
These initiatives are tied together by a common thread. They are
about getting the best we can from Canadians and they are about
giving the best we can to Canadians. They are about balancing
our commitment to self-reliance and our belief in mutual
responsibility.
[Translation]
Before concluding, I would like to add a few words concerning how
well the issue of the renewal of the Canadian social union is
progressing. Every day, Quebeckers tell me how satisfied they are with
the progress made in renewing Canada's social union, of which a few of
the main characteristics were mentioned earlier.
I am very pleased to hear these comments, as they show that our
approach is successful in ensuring the best quality of life possible for
all our fellow citizens.
The social union is an essential feature of Canada. It has
contributed greatly to making Canada the best country in the world in
which to live.
A vast majority of Quebeckers would really like—as polls indicate
time and time again—Canada to work efficiently and harmoniously,
would like co-operation and partnership to replace unproductive fights
and what I call federal-provincial turf wars, and so on.
The social union is the ideal testing ground for our ability to
work in partnership, modernize our programs, clarify the various roles
played by the Government of Canada, share equitably our country's
resources and strengthen our economic union. The various levels of
government are also capable of reaching agreement when they are
motivated by a clear desire to succeed.
Quebeckers are fully aware of the fact that no economic union is
possible without a social union to give it harmony, structure and
strength. In fact, true economic union and social union go hand in hand.
That is why the modernization of Canada's social union is in the
immediate best interests of Quebeckers and Canadians alike.
In this context, I find the Quebec premier's attitude toward the
renewal of the social union deplorable. It is a marked departure from
Quebec's traditional approach, from the grand tradition of Jean Lesage
and Robert Bourassa, an approach traditionally characterized by a
pragmatic approach, co-operation and striving toward results that will
great benefit Quebeckers.
1620
[English]
The Speech from the Throne does chart a course for entering the
21st century. It calls on all governments and all Canadians to
work together. It provides a plan for investing in our future, a
future that reflects Canadians' determination to build a society
based on fairness and equality. The cost of exclusion is far
greater than the amounts we have committed to these programs.
[Translation]
I hope all the hon. members of this House will continue working
with us for their own constituents and for all Canadians to ensure that
our society remains not only one of the most prosperous in the world,
but also one of the most progressive, most generous and most responsive
to the needs of all its members, and the most vulnerable in particular.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
Minister of Human Resources Development, and I noticed the tone he used.
It was so melodious, it could almost be compared to a symphony
orchestra. But it was not melodious enough to lull me, because it rang
false all the way through.
Any observer of the Quebec reality can see that the Minister of
Human Resources Development does not visit certain parts of Quebec very
often. He carefully avoids those ridings he used to visit with his
predecessor at HRDC. We all remember Minister Young—whom I can name
since he is no longer a minister. There was also Minister Dingwall.
Liberal members from the maritimes were all voted out of office, or
almost. Poof, they disappeared just like that.
In Quebec, the member for Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who
played a leadership role in this House in the last Parliament and who
backed the Employment Insurance Act, did not get re-elected either.
It takes some gall to come and talk about the future and how
Canadian society is the best in the world when there are now 500,000
more children living in poverty than there were when the Liberals took
office. It takes some gall on the part of a minister who is from Quebec
to talk about the youth strategy and job creation. It takes some gall to
talk about an even tighter social union and education, when, like this
minister, one has sat in the National Assembly as an assistant to a
former education minister.
But knowing all that, he discourses melodiously in both official
languages, expecting us to applaud.
I will end on a question that is still topical. In light of the
questions that the House heard today on the subject of party
fundraising, as a Quebecker, would the minister agree, yes or no, that
the federal government should take Quebec's lead and pass legislation
limiting the funding of political parties to that provided by
individuals? That would save the Liberal Party's skin.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting
that my colleague opposite, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, is telling
us what to make of the election results.
I would like to point out to him that our political party made
gains in Quebec, while his lost 11 seats, dropping from 49 to 38, is in
disarray, is rejected by our fellow Quebeckers, and now represents only
a part of the province. I think the member should be a great deal more
modest in his analysis of the election results.
I must, however, thank him for his very kind comments about my
speech. He found that it was harmonious and elevated and had vision.
I must tell him I am deeply touched by his kind words.
I am very happy that my work follows in the great footsteps of the
likes of Lesage and Bourassa.
I draw his attention to the magnificent passage written by Claude
Castonguay recently, taking Quebec's premier to task for breaking with
Quebeckers' great tradition of pragmatism in matters of social union,
for not following in the steps of people like Jean Lesage and Robert
Bourassa, who worked for the well-being of Quebeckers.
But I can reassure the member that, when it comes to current
events, he has before him a minister who did his duty by informing the
RCMP minutes after learning of certain allegations.
1625
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the minister on his remarks. This
minister is a very accomplished and distinguished minister who
has set a tone of constructiveness in his government. While I
disagree with much of what he said, I believe that he is a
constructive force for federalism in this country and I commend
him on that.
This minister does talk a great deal about children and
families, which is nice to hear. Liberals do like to talk about
those issues but the unfortunate thing is they do not like
to act very much on them. In particular, this minister talked
about the child tax credit, a commendable albeit very
modest effort on the part of this government.
I would like to ask this minister if he thinks it would not be a
laudable public policy for the government to pursue tax fairness
for families, that is to say to remove the intrinsic penalty that
exists in the current code against single income families,
families that choose to keep one parent at home to raise their
children. There are millions of such Canadian families penalized
by the fact that the child care deduction is limited to double
income families.
Would the minister support measures such as converting the child
care deduction into a refundable credit available to all
families? Would he also agree in principle to raising the basic
spousal exemption in the tax code to a level equivalent to the
basic personal exemption so that stay at home parents are no
longer penalized by this government's tax code?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for his very generous words about the work I am trying to do in
favour of renewing Canadian federalism. It is very generous of
him.
My job in the government is to provide programs and services to a
number of people who are most vulnerable. The Department of
Human Resources Development has about six million Canadian
clients to whom we are trying to give a break which will allow
them to have a better quality of life.
There could be a number of other measures that he can certainly
discuss with the finance minister but my job in the government is
to provide certain programs and services. I am glad that the
member does actually recognize the benefit of the Canada child
tax benefit. I was extremely sensitive to his remark about this
maybe not being enough. Maybe we could get the support of the
Reform Party in order to do more with the Canada child tax
benefit.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was rather taken by the hon. minister's comments about
the revenue departments of the provinces and the federal
government working together. That sounds like a partnership
between John Dillinger and Lucky Luciano.
He was talking about how literate Canadian youth are. This is a
bit of a contradiction because he also remarked about the
programs to increase literacy in the population. If he thinks
Canadian youth now are more literate than they were in the past,
I would say he is betraying his academic origins. He is not
aware of what is out there. He has not tried to hire anybody
lately, to try to find somebody who can write a coherent
paragraph, who can spell and who knows a thing about grammar.
That is not his department, that is for the provincial
departments of education. However, I wish he would not make
statements about the high degree of literacy of our population.
With respect to the Canada millennium endowment fund, I
understand that access to these funds is not going to be based on
merit but on something called need which will be defined by the
bureaucrats in whatever way they choose.
Now if that is wrong I would like to be corrected. If it is not
based on merit then this thing is going to be a very useful
educational tool because it means the young people will be taught
at a very early age how to work the system the Canadian way.
1630
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask hon.
members to remember they should address each other through the
Chair.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I will take great
pleasure in addressing you. You are a gentleman and I should
have congratulated you on your appointment to the Chair when we
began. You know that I was very pleased by your nomination. I
must congratulate you.
I would like to clarify one thing that I said. The gentleman
does see a contradiction between two of my paragraphs. I did say
that this generation of Canadians is the best educated one. It
is the one that has developed the most skills in computers, in so
many other technical aspects that were not available to us and
they are doing well. I am extremely proud of Canadian youth.
They are doing well.
That does not stop us from recognizing across the land that some
youth unfortunately have not been well served in school or did
not find in their families or in their societies the support that
allowed them to go far enough in school. Indeed there are
problems related to illiteracy. The government is committed to
giving these youth a second chance.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière and,
following that, all Bloc Quebecois speakers will do the same with a
colleague from our party.
Although I have already criticized the government since the June 2
election, this is my first formal speech in this new Parliament. While
taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the throne speech,
I want to thank my organizers, my supporters and especially the voters
of Berthier—Montcalm, who have renewed their trust in me in a
proportion almost identical to that of 1993. Thanks to them and to a
wonderful team I have the honour of representing them once again in this
House.
They can count on my undivided attention, on my availability and on my
friendship.
I must also thank my wife and my children for their support and for
allowing me to be here to represent the Bloc Quebecois of course, but
more importantly to look out for the interests of the Quebec people. In
my way, I want to contribute, in this House, to the creation of a
country that we can call our own.
As for the throne speech, the Prime Minister said it would probably
be the last one before the celebrations marking the new millennium.
I will tell the Prime Minister—and I hope he will also make sure of
it—that we will do our utmost to ensure that this is indeed the last
throne speech before the next millennium. Because what we Bloc Quebecois
members want first and foremost is to have a country by the year 2000.
What does the throne speech tell us? Many things were said, but I
can think of two essential points: first, all the allusions made in the
two previous throne speeches of the Liberals to devolution, change,
respect and realignment of federal-provincial powers have disappeared.
These words are no longer used by the government.
When it started making cuts to transfers, to social programs, to
health, to education and to social assistance, the government talked
about devolution and about respecting the powers of the provinces.
1635
But today, because we are seeing that there may possibly be a
budget surplus, because of the slashes the Liberal government has
made in these programs and because the taxpayers are in the process
of getting this government out of the red, now the Liberals are
back to their old bad habits.
With the expected budget surplus, they are paying out big
bucks for the right to trample over provincial jurisdictions. I
will not go into all of the examples there are in the Speech from
the Throne, because my ten minutes would not be enough, but I will
list three of them.
First, they want to measure the academic readiness of our
children. Today is not the first time they are being told that
education is none of their business.
Mr. Duplessis did battle on this in 1950. This is not yesterday's
news. It is not just those wicked separatists, that awful Bloc,
who are demanding this. It dates back to the fifties.
They also make no bones about wanting to get back into
manpower training. Yet I thought they had just handed that over to
the provinces. Now they want to make resources available to help
young people get back in the work force. That has no concern of
theirs. If they have money left over in their budget, let them
give it back to the provinces from whom they stole it in the last
budget.
They also want to set up some ten or twelve programs with a
national slant, what they call Canada-wide programs. They have
been told for more than 30 years that we in Quebec want nothing
more to do with Canada-wide programs. Programs from sea to sea do
not apply to Quebec. But they persist.
Where I come from, in my country of Quebec, we call that
provocation. This federalist propaganda whose aim is visibility
over efficiency has caused the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to say
justifiably in his response to the throne speech that the speech
was nothing more than big federalist talk. Unfortunately, that is
the sad reality.
After bringing misery to the families of seasonal workers,
after cutting payments to provinces and scuttling their budgets,
the hangman becomes the generous lord of the manor distributing
money over the heads of the provinces. It is disgusting and
hypocritical.
Now the Liberal government is realizing that it cut too much
and too quickly. Why not analyze the situation seriously?
Why, with the expected budget surplus, does it not mend its ways by
returning the money it took from the provinces in the area of
health care, social assistance and education; why does it not lower
taxes, lower employment insurance contributions and reform personal
and corporate income tax as proposed in the 35th Parliament, as the
Bloc put forward in its proposal, which was well received?
Why not go after poverty with a vengeance, improve the
employment insurance plan and reverse all the cuts that were made?
The repayment of the debt should be debated. I agree with
some members who have proposed a debate on the repayment of the
debt. I think we should have a very serious debate on the matter.
For the time being, however, the focus should be on health,
education, employment and the eradication of child poverty during this
36th Parliament. However, for this to be successful, the federal
government should not meddle in these areas. It should give the money
back to the provinces, as they know much better how to use this money
where it is needed.
The second element of the throne speech that stands out in my mind,
and it is of particular concern to me as justice critic, is the federal
government's willingness to score political points by taking the hard
line with Quebec. Why do I say hard line? Because the federal government
intends to continue with its reference to the Supreme Court. It will
carry on with its strategy of instilling fear about what might happen
following a yes victory in Quebec.
On the one hand, the Liberals praise the merits of Canada, while on
the other hand, they are trying to deny one of the most fundamental
principles of democracy: the right to decide.
There is worse yet, and this took place after the Speech from the
Throne was read. At his swearing-in ceremony, responding to journalists
who asked him if there were plans for the Canadian armed forces to take
action in Quebec following a majority vote in favour of sovereignty, the
new chief of defence staff, General Maurice Baril, did not reject the
idea out of hand.
The general said neither yes nor no, but that the political question
does not arise. He should have said, in a democratic country such as
Canada: “There is no question of it, it is a purely political
question”. This is very disappointing in a country that considers
itself a frontrunner when it comes to democracy.
1640
There are all the strong-arm tactics that are still going on with
respect to the issue of Quebec's sovereignty, and to possible
consequences for them as well as for us. We never say that, the day
after a yes vote, the first people interested in sitting down with
Quebec would be my friends across the way.
I will not say “my friends” because I do not want my constituents to
hate me, but the government opposite would be the first, following
telephone calls, probably from all the financiers in the world, to want
to negotiate with a sovereign Quebec.
Another thing that upsets me about this throne speech is that the
Liberals take credit for the entire Calgary declaration that Quebec is
a unique society. We are more than that, and have been for some time.
This is not just nasty separatists, or nasty members of the Bloc
Quebecois saying so. I will run through a short list of premiers of
Quebec who, over the years, have said more than once that we were more
than the Liberals wanted us to be, that we were a people.
In 1950, during the opening speech at the federal-provincial
constitutional conference—because that is the second national sport in
Canada—Maurice Duplessis said: “Canadian confederation is a pact of
union between two great nations”. That was in 1950.
In 1960, Jean Lesage said that “provincial sovereignty must not be
a negative concept incompatible with progress. Quebec is not defending
the principle of provincial autonomy because a principle is involved,
but for the more important reason that it views autonomy as the concrete
condition not for its survival, which is henceforth assured, but for its
affirmation as a people”. So said Jean Lesage in 1963.
In 1968, Daniel Johnson senior said that “a new Constitution should
be so devised that Canada is not just a federation of 10 provinces, but
a federation of two nations equal in law and in fact”.
I will conclude with one last quote from Mr. Johnson, again at a
federal-provincial constitutional conference, in 1968: “The
Constitution should not have as its sole purpose to federate
territories, but also to associate in equality two linguistic and
cultural communities, two founding peoples, two societies, two nations,
in the sociological meaning of the term”.
You will understand that, in Quebec, we say no, no, no and no, as
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would say, to the Calgary
declaration.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member who has just finished speaking.
This afternoon, in this House, the Reform member for Calgary
Southwest said that he believed millionaires in this country paid
too much in taxes. Is the hon. member in agreement with this
statement by the Reform member?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as you know, this afternoon in the House the member
for Calgary Southwest of the Reform Party expressed the point of
view that millionaires were overtaxed in this country.
What I want to know is whether the Bloc Quebecois agrees with
the Reform Party that millionaires are overtaxed, that Conrad
Black pays too much in taxes. That is the position of the member
for Calgary Southwest of the Reform Party. Is my friend from the
Bloc in agreement with that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member should produce a precise quote
to show that any member of the Reform Party said that Conrad
Black was overtaxed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair finds it
difficult to believe that that is a point of order. The hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform
members, I find this an excellent question.
Unlike the Reform, I believe that it is not true that the rich
in Canada pay too much income tax. On the contrary. The rich in
Canada do not pay enough income tax.
There is all manner of tax evasion. Even more than that, when it
comes to such extremely important aspects as money laundering, who
gains from it? Those with money. Canada is recognized world wide
as the world capital for money laundering. What are the Liberals
doing about it? Nothing at all.
1645
It is almost as if they had both hands in the till themselves.
The Liberals may need to wake up, and one day I will be asking them
to co-operate with me—because I will be introducing a private
member's bill on money laundering.
As for the hon. member's excellent question, I disagree
totally with that, if the Reform indeed said it. I hope that they
are not that out of touch with reality.
If they did say it, however, I totally disagree with their
position.
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always interested in the comments of the hon.
member, having worked with him in the last parliament on the
justice committee. I know the hon. member to be a lawyer.
Therefore I am particularly interested in a couple of the
comments he made pertaining to the position of the Bloc
Quebecois.
One thing I believe he said—and he can correct me if I
misunderstood him—was that somehow the Liberal Party was denying
the democratic rights of the people of Quebec. I wonder if the
hon. member even recognizes what democracy is, in view of the
fact that the people of Quebec have very clearly expressed in two
referenda that they wish to remain in Canada.
It seems to me it is the Bloc Quebecois that refuses to accept
the democratic will of the people of Quebec by continually
ignoring the results of two referenda, going back and going back
until it hopes it will eventually get the answer it would like to
get. It seems to me that is ignoring the democratic rights of
the people of Quebec.
As a lawyer I would like the member to explain why he thinks it
is inappropriate and incorrect to seek the opinion of the Supreme
Court of Canada on matters of international law.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I too have worked with
the member on a number of occasions and I can confirm that he is
highly intelligent. I do not understand why he is asking such
questions today.
Two things. First, I did not discuss the subject of democracy
in the matter of the two referendums in response to the throne
speech, but I am pleased to answer. As regards democracy, yes
there were indeed two referendums: one in 1980 and the other in
1995.
In 1980, and here I will give a little course in history for
those opposite who so quickly forget, the Prime Minister was Pierre
Elliott Trudeau. He told Quebecers to vote no for change.
Quebecers voted no for change. What change was there in Quebec?
There was a constitution, which we rejected, which the National
Assembly unanimously rejected, and which was jammed down our
throats. It was shoved down our throats with the words “Shut your
trap, you Quebeckers”.
That is why there was another referendum in 1995. In between,
they had their referendum on Charlottetown, which he forgot to
mention, in which English Canada said no to Quebec because it was
too much, and Quebec said no because it was not enough. They
forgot that across the way.
In 1995, there was another referendum where—let me finish,
I will not be long—there was no winner. It was 50:50. Here
again there were promises from the Liberals, which never led
anywhere and never will, because the federal system cannot be
reformed. Quebec's only option is to vote yes in the next
referendum, it is to become sovereign.
To answer his second question, neither the justices of the
supreme court nor the government opposite can stop a people on the
march toward its own country.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, Trade.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first allow me
to thank the residents of the new riding of Lotbinière for electing me
to represent them in the House of Commons.
1650
This new riding is the result of major changes brought on by the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
The riding is now made up of some 50 municipalities grouped in five RCMs
which I would like to salute. There is the RCM of l'Érable, whose main
municipalities are Plessisville and Princeville which, incidentally, is
celebrating the 150th anniversary of its founding; the rural section of
the RCM of Bécancour, which includes the municipalities of Sainte-Sophie
de Lévrard and Les Becquets; the RCM of Arthabaska, which includes the
municipality of Daveluyville; and the RCM of Lotbinière, with its scenic
municipalities located along the St. Lawrence River, namely Leclerville,
Lotbinière, Sainte-Croix and Saint-Antoine de Tilly, and a municipality
of the RCM of Chutes de la Chaudière, Saint-Lambert.
I would also like to salute the small community of Joly, where I
come from.
Even though it only has a population of 1000, on June 2, I became the
second citizen of that municipality to get elected as a member of
Parliament. The first one was Adrien Lambert, who sat in the House of
Commons from 1968 to 1979.
I would now like to comment on the throne speech, a document which
includes no firm commitment, except for the sad fact that the federal
government intends to become a very centralizing entity.
This piece of federalist propaganda clearly shows the intentions of
the current Liberal government: an unprecedented invasion of areas
under provincial jurisdiction.
Instead of redistributing the surplus to the provinces, which were
hit hard with cuts during the Liberal government's first term of office,
this government is getting ready to ignore completely its so-called
partners, the provinces, and hand this money over to citizens directly,
with no regard for real needs in health and education, particularly in
Quebec.
No, Quebec does not want a return to the era of Trudeau, who, it
will be remembered, created a Ministry of Fitness and even a Ministry of
Urban Affairs; all to hamstring the Lévesque government.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are going to fight to put a stop to this
sinister plan by the Liberal government.
The financial decisions of this government have even been felt
directly in my riding.
On August 25, 1,000 people marched through the streets in support of
keeping open a seniors' residence in Saint-Flavien. The demonstrators
did not understand why they were being forced to make this difficult
choice.
The reason is very simple: the federal government's cuts in turn
reduce the amounts earmarked by the Government of Quebec for health care
in Quebec. We have here another Liberal government ploy: do everything
possible to discredit the Government of Quebec, but Quebeckers are proud
and will continue to support Quebec's sovereignty proposal.
I now draw your attention to employment insurance. With all the
changes introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development, what
used to be unemployment insurance has now become poverty insurance.
Right now, in both my riding offices, in Laurier-Station and
Plessisville, I am getting calls from people.
They are worried, anxious about the approaching winter. They
do not know whether they will still be eligible for employment
insurance; fathers, single mothers, young people who have worked
hard to get off welfare will find themselves forced back on to it.
The present government supports this policy. That is unacceptable.
In recent years, the Liberals and Conservatives have literally
emptied the riding of Lotbinière of all federal services. In
Plessiville the Employment Canada office was closed, over local
protests. Now unemployed people, students, have to travel up to
100 km to get services. Another unacceptable situation.
I am asking the Liberal government to correct this error and
to restore to my riding the services to which my constituents are
entitled.
I am asking it to correct the errors of the past.
Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power makes
no difference.
1655
Moreover, we saw last week where the interests of the
Conservatives lie, when their MPs and their leader, when the
Conservative MPs from Quebec voted against the existence of the
Quebec people. This is the party that wanted to win over Quebeckers
during the last campaign by pretending to be there to defend our
interests. The Conservatives shed their disguises this past week.
Now we know their true colours.
I am surprised, moreover, to see how the Liberal government is
copying from Quebec: partnership, drug insurance, youth employment
strategy—copied from Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. Let me tell you,
the day is not far off when the Liberals are going to start talking
about the sovereignty of Canada.
I understand them. Try to find two federalist who agree on what
federalism means. It is impossible. They are still looking for a
definition, which as years go by is becoming increasingly ambiguous.
We in the Bloc Quebecois, we Quebeckers, know what we want and
where we are going. Year after year, René Lévesque's plan is gaining
ground. Between 1980 and 1995, the yes vote in Lobtbinière went from 37 percent
to 50 percent, and in the next referendum the sovereignist vote will be even
stronger both in Lotbinière and across the province of Quebec.
The minister of provincial meddling will have to find a factor
other than 50 percent in order not to recognize the next referendum in Quebec
because there will be an overwhelming majority in favour of the yes
side.
I would like to tell you that we have hope on this side. We know we
will enter the third millennium as a country, Quebec.
We will get out of this centralizing government which is shackling us.
Quebeckers are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, they know that
soon they will be free from the federal yoke.
To conclude, let me tell you what the Bloc's priorities will be for
the years to come: Quebec, Quebec, Quebec, and Quebec.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
just a brief comment. I listened with great interest to the
points made by the previous speaker from the Bloc. Those members
often use, as did this member, notions of democracy.
I noticed with great interest only a few days ago that the hon.
member from the Bloc spoke about cuts to government funding and
services. He used great emotion and passion to make speeches
that a sovereign Quebec would not have these kinds of problems.
The poor would be taken care of. The students who he talked
about would have free education. The thousand people who rallied
in the streets would never occur in the promised land of the
separatists.
The hon. member would be aware that only a few days ago the
rural municipalities of Quebec marched publicly to demonstrate
against the premier. In a very undemocratic fashion he was
imposing, in an authoritarian way, cuts to the municipalities of
Quebec and forcing them to make these changes.
When the Quebec media asked him whether he would relent on it
because it was a crushing blow, notwithstanding the marching in
the streets he said “Absolutely not. I won't be deterred. I am
pushing forward”.
If the hon. member wants that gentleman to be the first
president of Quebec, is that what the people of rural Quebec can
expect from him and from the premier of Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I am stunned to hear my
colleague opposite talk about this kind of imposition when, since 1993,
the Liberal government has unilaterally and savagely cut transfers to
the provinces, which means that if Quebec wants to balance its own
budget, it is forced to unload part of its fiscal responsibilities onto
the municipalities.
1700
I would like to say to him that if the federal government paid its
dues, including the $2 billion for the harmonization of the GST and the
billions of dollars we have been deprived of because of the cuts, not
only would we not be short of funds, but we would not be doing any
unloading onto the municipalities and the Quebec government would
already have a balanced budget, even before you did, a budget that would
be a lot stronger than yours.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether to laugh or cry this afternoon. The “It's the fault
of the federal government” tape is playing once again.
I would just make one correction to what my colleague said,
and I will be doing this often. There should be no talk of “we the
people of Quebec”, because I am one of the people of Quebec and
because 62 percent of the people of Quebec voted for a federalist party in
the last election.
So, it is nice for the people of Lotbinière to have you here,
but one thing is sure, you cannot talk on behalf of “we the
people of Quebec”. If you want to say “we the separatists” or
“we the people of the Bloc Quebecois”, that is all right, that
is your problem. But we—myself and the people in my riding of
Bourassa—are federalist and very proud to be Canadian and we
voted over 66 percent for the no side. The community is over 80
percent francophone, and we too are “we the people of Quebec”.
I have a question for the member. I would like to know
whether he agrees with his friends Guy Bouthillier of the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste—another extremist—and Raymond Villeneuve,
a former FLQ member who beats up people in Ville LaSalle in the
name of an independent Quebec, when they said at a recent press
conference: “We have to prepare, we have to raise an army in Quebec
and be ready for any eventuality, we have to have our guns ready if
need be”. Does he agree with that? Then, we can talk about
democracy and decent things.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleage,
the hon. member for Bourassa, by asking him a question. Is he in
favour of partition? It is the whole debate about partition that
is firing up passions in Quebec.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by
congratulating you on your appointment as our Deputy Speaker. I
say to you how much I am going to enjoy working with you knowing
that you will preside with a firm and fair hand over the workings
of this Chamber. I would also like to thank you for giving me
the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne.
I would begin by saying how proud I am of the vision and the
commitment to Canadians that we find outlined in the Speech from
the Throne. I would like to say how proud I am to be part of a
government that has found a way to at once reflect the priorities
of Canadians but in a fiscally responsible way. I would like to
say how proud I am to be part of a country Canada that is
proceeding toward the 21st century with a renewed optimism, with
a sense of hope and a sense of direction.
It was only four years ago when we could not say these things,
when that hope and that optimism was not part of the Canadian
psyche. It behoves us to reflect on how indeed we have come to
the point of optimism at which we find ourselves.
I would suggest it has a lot to do with the way in which our
government has partnered with Canadians. I think of the work of
my colleague the Minister of Finance and his decision to include
Canadians in the budgetary process, to have them sit at the table
in prebudget consultations to debate the issues that have faced
us as we have come to be able to manage our difficult fiscal
circumstances.
Engaging Canadians in their governance, including them, has
allowed us to make the right decisions and has now brought us to
a point where for the first time in 30 years our government can
begin to think about the choices that we want to make to build a
stronger Canada for the 21st century.
1705
As we have identified the priorities of Canadians, we know
indeed that what they want is to be able to continue to live in
what is one of the greatest countries in the world, to find ways
and means of increasing the democracy that has become renowned
around the world.
What are the priorities that Canadians are asking us to address?
They want the government to focus on children and youth. They
want the government to focus on our health care system, a system
that has come to define us as a nation. Canadians want us to
understand work and innovation and how changes in work, and
knowledge and new technologies are impacting our economy and our
relationship with it.
But members can imagine how proud I am as the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development that in the Speech from the
Throne we also identify the priorities that Canadians put on
aboriginal peoples. Canadians want us to address aboriginal
children and youth. They want us to understand aboriginal health
and the impact it is having on their communities. Canadians want
us to understand the relationship that aboriginal people have
with work and innovation.
Canadians understand and 80 percent have told us in a 1996 Angus Reid
poll that they want aboriginal issues to be high or medium
priority for their federal government. They believe that the
status quo, our approach and our relationship with aboriginal
people is not good enough and it must change.
Canadians understand when we talk about aboriginal children and
youth that the demographics of indigenous communities are such
that the populations are growing at twice the rate of
non-aboriginal communities. They understand that fully 60
percent of
the population in aboriginal communities is under the age of 25.
The circumstances that present themselves to indigenous people
are like those that we faced as non-aboriginal Canadians in the
fifties and sixties, but the hopes and the dreams that we had in
the fifties and sixties are not the hopes and the dreams that
aboriginal people have.
When we think about aboriginal health, Canadians know that the
suicide rate for young aboriginals is upwards of five times as
great as it is for myself and for members. They know that the
life expectancy for them is six or seven years less than it is
for us. They know that for aboriginal people the incidence of TB
and diabetes is two to three times higher than it is for other
Canadians and they do not accept this. Canadians believe that we
can and must do better.
When we look at work and innovation and consider the
circumstances facing indigenous communities, we know that the
unemployment levels are upwards of 83 percent. We know that the average
income is somewhere around $8,800 and falling. The circumstances
are not good and the status quo, our approach is not good enough
either.
As I have had the opportunity to cross the country and engage in
conversations with other partners, other members of Canadian
society who want to be part of a new relationship, I am
optimistic about the strategies that our provinces and
territories are focusing on. They believe that by supportive
methods, encouraging economic development and partnering with
aboriginal people we can make progress. They look at the changes
they have made for example to their social assistance programs
that have reduced the dependency and focused on building
trampolines so that Canadians can be partners and participate in
the economy. They are saying we need to do the same for
aboriginal people.
Provinces and territories are understanding there is a role for
them to play as we try to make life better for aboriginal
Canadians. The private sector has also been most encouraging.
I think of B.C. Hydro and some of the strategies that the
leadership and management of that company are engaging in to
encourage a changed relationship, a stronger partnership with
aboriginal people.
I think of the BHP mining company. We have diamonds in the
north. The company that is opening that new resource understands
it can build new resource models, new mining models that
recognize that aboriginal people who are there on the land need
to have access to the resources and benefit from these new riches
that are now going to be part and parcel of this Canada we know
and love.
1710
Aboriginal people themselves believe that we need a new
relationship. They believe that the structural relationship the
federal government has had with them is not good enough. Their
commitment to this change is probably no clearer anywhere than in
the royal commission's report on aboriginal peoples.
I have not had a chance to publicly congratulate the
commissioners of that report and I am glad to have the
opportunity to do so now. There are different interpretations of
the royal commission's report on aboriginal peoples. For me
having read it and understood it, the underlying message that
comes out of that impressive piece of research and documentation
is that there needs to be structural change in our relationship
with indigenous people here in Canada.
The commissioners identify that it is no longer acceptable for
us to continue in a paternalistic way, to provide only programs
that create dependency. They provide for us a model of a new
relationship. It is very important. It says we must begin by
mutually recognizing the existence of each other. We must add to
that a mutual respect for our similarities and our differences.
But very much a part of that model are the words responsibility
and sharing. The fiduciary responsibility that we have as the
crown with aboriginal people must be reflective of responsibility
and sharing.
These are very important initiatives. The work of the royal
commission can serve to guide us as we flesh out and build a new
framework for the relationship.
We are not starting from ground zero. At this point I would
like to reflect on some of the very important initiatives that
were introduced to this House and in our relationship by the
former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the
Hon. Ron Irwin. That minister identified that we did have to
change our relationship. One of the most fundamental initiatives
he undertook was to push us toward understanding the inherent
right to self-government that aboriginal people have.
This belief is founded on an understanding of the treaty
relationship, this very sacred relationship that the crown has
with First Nations. When people ask me what it means to be
Canadian, I can tell them to look to our very beginning, to look
to the early days when the British and the French landed on the
shores of our country and met the First Nations, the indigenous
people.
What was our approach? It was not an approach that took us to
war. It was an approach of peace. It was an understanding that
through treaties, through a partnership we could all live in this
great land and benefit and be productive. That treaty
relationship is fundamental because it recognizes that when my
ancestors came here there were governments that were working
effectively and providing for their people. We agreed to write a
treaty.
In understanding that, and in reading the report of the royal
commission and in understanding how we are going to make life
better for aboriginal Canadians we know they have to have
concrete autonomy. We have to return jurisdiction so that as
they find solutions for education, as they find solutions for
housing, they will be reflective of tradition, of the aboriginal
tradition, the beliefs, the attachment to the land.
We have increasing numbers of indications that this approach is
working. Not only are we restoring the treaty relationship in
provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta but in provinces like
British Columbia where we did not get around to writing treaties
we are now writing modern treaties. I look to the Nisga'a
agreement and the strategies that are in place there to build a
strong relationship between the people of that First Nation and
this country Canada. We go to the Yukon where we have indeed
signed self-government agreements.
First Nations are joining together in appropriate ways to build
communities that are large enough to have the capacity to
structure important models of governance that will help build a
strong future for their people.
1715
There are other initiatives which were implemented by the
government reflective of the structural change. We have to
target and improve the capability of aboriginal communities to
support themselves. The models we build have to be reflective of
that responsibility.
In our new housing strategy that issue of responsibility is
clear. In partnership with the CMHC money is available. The
aboriginal people make contributions to the development and
building of these homes.
We focus on economic development. We recognize that the old
model of social assistance, a tool of dependency, is not good
enough. The modern tools of economic development are ones which
we have to focus on and to ensure that aboriginal people have
access to the resources that have made this country great.
I think of the relationship of building strong aboriginal
government with a focus on developing the capacity for a
transparent and accountable aboriginal government. The
importance of this is to ensure that improvement in First Nations
communities will be seen, will be tangible and will reflect the
needs of the members of those First Nations.
We also have to understand that we need to build a new fiscal
relationship structurally different from the one we have now and
more reflective of the need for predictable funding in an ocean
of fiscal transfers. We have to explore the strategies of own
source of revenues and taxation. We have to challenge ourselves
to include aboriginal people's access to resources, mining and
forestry so they something with which to develop and grow.
I am encouraged by what I see, by the comments and the
directions of the leadership of our First Nations and aboriginal
people. I am optimistic of the strength of partnerships that we
can build between the federal government and the aboriginal
people, including other partners such as the provinces, the
territories, the private sector and individual Canadians.
I do not believe there has ever been a time such as now for us
to find solutions, modern solutions, to a circumstance that none
of us is particularly proud of, a history and a relationship that
must change.
As the minister I am but a facilitator. I am one partner. Our
challenge as members of this House will be to understand the
roles that we as individuals can play in bringing our communities
together, municipalities with First Nations. We can find
strategies that we can share and that will be effective and
responsible, knowing that this is the best country to live in not
only for non-aboriginal Canadians but for aboriginals as well.
I implore the members of the House to work with me as we
identify a new framework, a new capacity to work productively,
proactively and strategically together with First Nations
leadership, to build a new relationship and a strong future for
all Canadians.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for her very impassioned comments. They are
consistent with some of the comments we heard from the minister
earlier.
I find these people speak from their heart. They have the
ability to paint a picture which they believe in but which I do
not think it is quite accurate.
I ask that they consider allowing the Canadian people to be the
ones who paint the picture. The presentations which I heard this
afternoon, as a new member in this House, seem to imply that we
have arrived, we are there, as a Canadian people and it is now
time to move on to new government programs.
I point to the throne speech with 29 new spending initiatives
and very little reference to paying down the debt or relieving
Canadians from the tax burden they carry.
1720
I am concerned that they are talking about more government
investment. We have had years and years of government investment
and that has not done it for us. I am concerned when they talk
about partnerships, because government partnerships mean that
somebody is left out of the partnership. Usually the one left
out of the partnership is the struggling entrepreneur whose tax
dollars are paying for one who is allowed into the partnership.
This is not going to stimulate the innovation and entrepreneurial
drive that was referenced in the throne speech. It is
counterproductive.
I ask the Liberals to consider what the Canadian people are
saying and I refer them to one of their own recent polls done
by Earnscliffe that points out that 57 percent of Canadian people feel
the government has done a poor job in reducing government
waste.
I would also point out that the number one priority for
Canadians from the government's own survey is the reduction of
government spending. Yet we have a throne speech with 29 new
spending increases.
I want to encourage the minister and the people on that side of
the House to stop misleading the Canadian people with the picture
that we have arrived. I would be much more encouraged if I had
heard a much stronger commitment in the throne speech to
relieving my grandchildren of the burden of this national debt,
giving my children the opportunity that tax relief would allow
them in a more innovative and entrepreneurial environment.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, fundamental to the Speech
from the Throne is the underpinning that we have to build
strategies and programs that are reflective of our fiscal means
and which accommodate our resources. We have not gone through
four years of very difficult times to forget that everything we
do must be affordable and reflective of the fiscal reality.
I also remind the hon. member that the role of government is not
to balance the budget as an end in itself. The role of government
is to respond to the needs of Canadians, to make life better for
Canadians. I suggest to him that the approach and the strategy
we have provided allow us to take very serious account of our
fiscal reality, of the resources available to us to make sure we
do not ever again spend too much, but to reflect the needs of
Canadians and make choices that are reflective of Canadian
priorities.
A hallmark of the government has been our capacity to understand
and ensure ourselves of the priorities of Canadians and to show
that we can respond to those in a fiscally responsible way.
All the aspects the hon. member reflects are part of the Speech
from the Throne except for the understanding that the management
of the deficit and the debt is not an end in itself. Managing
those is instrumental and a requirement for us to continue to
build a great country and respond to the needs of the people of a
great country who want to continue to have the best country in
the world in which to live.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest to the remarks by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. The tone was excellent, the kind of tone that befits the
issues she intends to defend. I had the opportunity to hear her speak on
other occasions, outside this House, and she displayed on those
occasions the same attitude she is displaying today.
I do not know if it comes from being a woman, but her image is
completely different from that of the former Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, who came across as very aggressive. This makes
for a welcome change.
I agree with everything she said, for instance, about poverty among
aboriginal people in Canada, about health, suicide and so on.
1725
It is true. I know because, when I was sitting on the human
resources development committee in the early part of my former mandate,
I saw the problems she is talking about. However, the royal commission,
which tabled an extensive report, indicated huge amounts are involved.
I think she had better say whether or not she is prepared to go as far
as recommended by the royal commission on Indian affairs. Is she
prepared to act on the commission's recommendations?
Speaking of understanding and this understanding attitude I
welcome—we really need it in this House—is the minister prepared to
recognize, in the same positive and open manner, that we are a people?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my
comments, the work of the royal commission is a tremendous body
of knowledge which is valuable not only to me as the minister
responsible for Indian affairs but to other partners as well, the
provinces, First Nations and Canadians.
When we look at the over 440 recommendations that are a part of
that document, really only 89 are strictly under the purview of
the federal government. They are much more far reaching and
broad than saying that the federal government has this and this
to do.
As I said, while many people have different definitions of the
work of the royal commission, fundamental to that work is a clear
indication that the structural relationship has to change. The
way we have worked together in the past has not provided us with
the benefits one might expect.
Their message is that we have to be much broader. We have to
include more people in solving the difficulties which face our
aboriginal Canadians.
The sense is that if we partner together effectively, if we
build a relationship with First Nations and ask for their input
and advice on taking the recommendations of the royal commission
and building a plan of action together, engaging the provinces
and the private sector, including Canadians in that process, we
will find the solutions we need to ensure that aboriginal people
are able to benefit from the wealth and prosperity of Canada.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
the first opportunity I have had to stand in the House. It is a
bit of an intimidating experience. I congratulate you, Mr.
Speaker, on your appointment and the minister on her new
responsibilities.
The appointment as Conservative critic for Indian affairs and
northern development is an appointment I take very seriously. I
think we should all take a moment to reflect on the
responsibilities of a critic.
The responsibility of a critic is not just to jump to their feet
every time the government stands, or rather sits; the
responsibility of a critic, number one, is to be positive and,
number two, to look for defects in what the government is saying.
Certainly a critic has an innate responsibility to be responsible
in their comments. I am not sure that is always recognized in
the House. It is something we would all look forward to seeing a
bit more of.
There were a few comments made by the hon. minister about the
royal commission on aboriginal peoples. There were many good
points brought up by that commission. There were also some
negative points. The fact that we are individuals gives us the
ability to disagree with certain points and to agree with certain
points.
There are a few things the minister referred to which bear
reflecting on again.
We have a number of statistics. When we hear the word
statistics we quite often lose sight of the fact that those
statistics involve people, men, women and children. They are not
just numbers in somebody's book. We are dealing with human lives
and futures.
1730
When they understand that they are dealing with over 600 First
Nations' communities, that there are a lot of pressing problems,
that there is rampant child poverty, that 30 percent of the aboriginal
community is under the age of 15 years, as politicians, if they
do not understand anything else about that, they will understand
that many of them will vote in the next election. There is a
long journey.
There are a couple of points we should not forget. We have to
proceed on this and we have to proceed together. We have to keep
the principles of accountability and transparency, which were
mentioned in the throne speech.
We can do three things. We can stagnate. We can continue to do
what we have done. We can stand still and not move forward or we
can move forward together.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of
the critic of the Conservative Party and thank him for his
intervention.
He reflects precisely my point of view, that indeed we, as
members of Parliament, have a role to play in building with First
Nations the strategies for the future. I look forward to working
with him as we work together with First Nations to find that
framework.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me
congratulate you on your appointment to your new job. We actually
did not think this was going to happen until we occupied the
other side of the House. I am sure that you bring expertise and
fairness to the position. I look forward to a long tenure with
you.
While I am congratulating and thanking people, I would certainly
like to thank the people of the grand old constituency of
Wetaskiwin for returning me to the House of Commons for the
second time. This is a real endorsement of our party's policies,
our leader and our platform. If I may be so bold, it is probably
an endorsement of myself as the candidate.
That did not come about strictly by accident. It came about as
a result of a lot of hard work. I would like to thank those
people who spent so much time, effort and shoe leather getting me
elected. They did an exemplary job and I would like to recognize
them here in the House.
When I was going around in my constituency during the election
campaign, I talked to a lot of people in the coffee shops, on the
doorsteps and on the farms throughout the constituency. Their
concern was that they felt they had more government than they
could afford, that the debt was certainly a huge problem, that it
was a millstone around Canadians' necks. They told me that they
would like a fresh start. Coincidentally, that is exactly on
what we campaigned.
Therefore, it is incumbent on us to do our utmost to give
Canadians a fresh start and to ease the tax burden. As the
labour critic for the Reform Party, I noticed that the throne
speech was sadly lacking in the area of labour.
Being a farmer, labour as it relates to me most directly is in
the shipment of grain to port. Of course, a lot of other
products have to go to port. We discover that these shipments
can be interrupted either through work stoppage, that is a strike
or a lockout.
I was most disappointed that the government did not take an
opportunity to put into the throne speech some sort of final
offer selection dispute settlement mechanism. I think this is of
utmost importance. The loss of markets that we suffer each time
there is a work disruption is an immeasurable commodity.
Although we can measure certain amounts of lost markets, we
cannot measure the entire impact on the economy.
1735
Mr. Speaker, if it is not too late I wish to inform the House
that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary West.
What about the amendments to the Canada Labour Code? We expect
them to be tabled in the House very soon. Those amendments would
be an excellent opportunity to see a final offer selection
arbitration settlement mechanism take place.
This mechanism would affect about 700,000 federal workers,
people who do not necessarily work for the federal government but
who come under the jurisdiction of the federal labour code. That
represents about 10 percent of the Canadian workforce. These people are
mostly involved in the movement of goods, services or capital.
They are people who work in the airline industry, the banking
industry, the railroads and the post office.
We think it is of utmost importance that we have a mechanism to
settle these disputes and yet we are not getting any kind of
co-operation from the federal government. The federal government
will use final offer selection arbitration once they have
legislated either a locked out group or a struck group back to
work. If it is good enough to use after these people are
legislated back to work, then why not make it available to the
parties before the work stoppage starts?
How would that work? The parties involved would agree on who
their arbitrator was. They would present to the arbitrator the
matters that were agreed on, the matters that are outstanding and
their final position on those outstanding items. The arbitrator
then would choose all of one position or all of the other
position, no compromise position.
To me, this is a tool that can be equally used by labour or by
management. If it is used to its ultimate, as I have said in
this House many times before, it will not to be used at all.
Both parties know that they have to bargain in a most earnest
situation. They have to arrive at the best possible bottom line.
There would be no fudging, no hedging, just the bottom line. If
they do not, then an arbitrator can be imposed on them.
Some people have said this takes away the right to strike and
disrupts and interferes with the bargaining process. Quite the
contrary. Groups that are either locked out or on strike will
have their bargaining process far more compromised through back
to work legislation than they ever would with final offer
selection arbitration.
I was most disappointed that we did not hear any mention of this
during the Speech from the Throne. It is high time we adopted
this. As I mentioned, Bill C-66 as it was known in the last
Parliament, died in the Senate. Therefore I expect that the
minister will reintroduce it in the House in the coming weeks. I
am going to push very strongly to see that there are some changes
made along the lines of final offer selection arbitration.
Canada is in a global marketplace. We have to establish our
reputation as a reliable supplier of goods. Not only do we have
to supply the best possible commodities, which we do, there is no
problem with that, but we have to supply them on a regular,
consistent and reliable basis. If we do not, our customers are
certainly going to be looking elsewhere.
It is like being in the supermarket business, if it is not on the
shelf, it is pretty difficult to sell.
1740
I am looking forward to seeing the bill come back to the House
for debate, which I am sure will be any day now, at which time we
will be addressing it and making all sorts of improvements to it,
not the least of which is final offer selection arbitration.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was quite intrigued by the comments of the member opposite on the
approach of final offer selection arbitration.
I wonder if the member opposite has any data on the results of
final offer arbitration or arbitration awards generally. Do they
generally tilt in favour of the union or do they generally tilt
in favour of management?
The data that I have seen most recently indicated that
arbitration tends to tilt in favour of labour. That may be a very
good thing, but if one is looking at cost, if one is concerned
about the fiscal ramifications, I wonder if the hon. member has
any information which would indicate that arbitration tends to
tilt one way or the other.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that certainly opens up a
great debate. We could probably talk about that for some time. I
agree that I have seen some information which tends to indicate
that final offer selection arbitration tends to favour labour
slightly.
However, every work disruption and every strike results in
labour getting some improvements in its situation, either in
working conditions, benefits or wages. I think that while some
of the information does seem to tend to favour the unions, it
would at least settle a strike.
Having to take the drastic step of passing back to work
legislation, which, by the way, some government members have
already decided, and have said so in the newspapers, is the way
to handle the postal strike which has not happened yet, will have
a tremendous detrimental effect on the bargaining process.
We should have some apparatus in place that is an item that
either labour or management can put in its tool box and require
them to bargain this situation right down to the nitty-gritty.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I must
commend the member. The president of the United Food and
Commercial Workers Union president, local 832, would be pleased.
He was instrumental in bringing into law in Manitoba that
settlement process. It was immediately repealed by the
Conservative government because he was right. It kept parties
honest and the Conservative government and employers had a
problem with that. Without question, it was a process that did
keep people honest and it did favour labour because government
and employers were being dishonest in their negotiations.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question
there but in reply to my colleague's comments, I can only
underscore the need to have some sort of process in place to
encourage the parties to come to an agreement on their own. A
negotiated settlement is probably the best settlement. There is
no probably about it, it is the best settlement. Any time that
two parties can negotiate and settle their differences without
any interference from outside is the best way to go.
1745
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to rise to address the Speech from the Throne, this
being my first speech in the House. I wish to thank the voters
of Calgary West for choosing me to be their voice in Ottawa.
When one drives east along Bow Trail toward city centre one
cannot help but admire the concrete and steel of Calgary's new
downtown rising up toward the blue sky of Alberta. One has to
marvel at Calgary's energy, her productivity, and take note of
how the city has grown and prospered. No matter how many tax
dollars, government jobs or military bases Ottawa has deprived
Calgary of, we still have a low unemployment rate, low taxes and
a hunger for Canada's lowest income tax rate.
The meaner Ottawa gets, the leaner Calgary becomes. We now have
a city that thrives upon private industry, not the fat of the
federal government. I am proud to represent a city that still
exemplifies the pioneer spirit from the roughnecks who drill for
oil to the settlers who moved west in horse drawn carts made of
wood. Indeed my own family moved west around the turn of the
century to plough its section of land.
Speaking of my family, I would like to thank mom and dad along
with all the others who helped in my election. I have my father
to thank for my start in politics. He would let me stay up past
my scheduled bedtime, but only if I watched the evening news with
him and answered questions about what I had observed, to which he
often offered the right political spin.
Let me tell the House a story about when I was in diapers. A
mess began to develop. It got worse over time. Nearly $700
billion later we call it the accumulated national debt. The man
who started the mess was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. When I look
across to the Liberal benches I see some of his accomplices. The
current prime minister was Trudeau's minister of finance and
under Trudeau he learned to spend, indeed he liked to spend. He
taxed and he spent until his heart's content, so much so that he
still cannot wean himself from the nasty habits he developed
under the man who started the wave in Salmon Arm.
Then came the mandarin from Manitoba, the whiner from Winnipeg
who now lavishes upon himself as the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
He has begged for political pork, dined diplomats and grovelled
for government goodies. Who could forget the hyena from Hamilton
who shrieked and shrilled her way under the public's skin and who
is now eligible for her $2.8 million gold plated MP pension plan?
I would like to talk about the department that just grew and
grew. His bureaucrat parents named him manpower and immigration,
but their own rules made his first name politically incorrect so
they changed it to citizenship and immigration. The bureaucrats
kept on feeding him and tending to his every gurgle, burp and
expansion. They proudly watched as their pet department grew
into a strapping example of government largesse.
As a right of passage they named him employment and immigration,
a title that made the bureaucrats burst with pride, but even the
bureaucrats noticed that their fully grown program had developed
a nasty streak. Instead of solving the problems he was created
to solve he actually made them worse. Unemployment was
permanently doubling that of our neighbours to the south.
Multiple generations of families were beginning to get hooked on
the spiralling dependency that he was pushing. The bureaucrats
changed his name to human resources development, but they could
not hide what had happened. Their little pet had grown into a
$57 billion monster.
1750
Members are probably asking what went wrong when the monster
roamed unchecked across the land. The government renamed
unemployment insurance, employment insurance, but that did not
change the want for work or make good on its 1993 election
promises. The government tossed out band-aids, candies and
bromides, but it got a bad case of inaction when it came to
repairing the structural problems.
For example, UI charges repeat claimants the same premiums as
someone who works but has never collected. No actuarially sound
insurance plan would have high risk users pay the same or even
less than low risk users. Even more UI is distributed
disproportionately according to region. Nova Scotia alone has
five different regions of eligibility. People living and working
within an hour of one another have different eligibility
requirements. This begs a question. Does the government have
credibility on the jobs issue?
The Liberals have presided over the highest level of
unemployment in recent history. They are now into their 82nd
month of unemployment above 9 percent. UI has become a payroll
tax with overpayments now over $7 billion per year. For the
average Canadian worker that amounts to $400 a year in
overpayments.
A total of close to $14 billion has been hoarded by the Minister
of Finance so that he can gloat about deficit reduction. He even
brags about his 43 tax increases and how he has taken $26 billion
more from us.
How about an insurance program that is actuarially sound and
free from political interference? How about at least lowering
the payroll tax that kills jobs? Alas, there is more program
mismanagement.
Can we trust the Liberals with our pensions? Canadians under 35
years old do not believe we will have a pension. Why? Because
the government has dug an unfunded pension liability of over half
a trillion dollars. That is why the government is so gung ho
about RRSPs.
Even if the Canada pension plan survives Liberal mismanagement,
people my age will receive less than a 50 cents return on every dollar
they throw into it. The government is ripping off young people.
They want to take 10 percent of our wages for a program that will
not be around when we need it. If CPP did survive under Liberal
mismanagement it would only pay out $8,800 per year, even with
maximum contributions.
In contrast the same contributions invested at a 6 percent rate of
return, the numbers the government claims for the CPP, would
create their own pension yielding $26,000 per year. Please do not
ask us to trust the government. Let us opt out of its pyramid
scheme and wrest our money from its corrupting grasp.
Yet I fear there is even more. The Liberals pride themselves on
the political machine vote buying tactics. Why they even preened
about increasing the size of the bureaucracy by 3,000 temporary
bureaucrats with $90 million of taxpayer money.
Then there was the billion dollar student handout. For every
single student this handout is intended to help, the program
hurts nine more. Increasing debt or the size of government and
taxes only deprives young people of work. Young people want
structural repairs that will create real jobs, not promises that
result in less work and higher taxes.
Cut taxes to stimulate investment, growth and jobs. Stop the
pyramid scheme to burden young people with pension debt. Link
student loans to social insurance numbers. This would reduce
default problems and therefore increase the likelihood and dollar
value ceilings on private sector student loans.
This story of the department that grew and grew reminds me of
three questions that all politicians should ask before they start
feeding a program.
1755
First, how much should it cost? Second, does it benefit all
Canadians or cater to a special interest? In other words, is it
just a narrowly focused vote buying tactic? Third, would fellow
Canadians vote for the program if the question was put to them?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me congratulate the hon. member for Calgary West on
his maiden speech. Let me also disagree with the content of much
of his speech.
On the issue of reforming the Canada pension plan, there was an
accrued liability and we could not afford to continue on a pay as
you go basis. Reform of the Canada pension plan was put in place
by the federal government with agreement from the provincial
governments. It is important to note that.
I recognize that the Reform Party, in its policies, would get
rid of the Canada pension plan. It was to turn it into a super
RRSP. If the people happened to have Bre-X in their super RRSPs
they would retire with no pension.
It is very clear that Canadians on the whole want the Canada
pension plan. It was the subject of the election campaign. The
plan will be there for younger Canadians.
Earlier today I talked about spending some money, and I am proud
of it. One of the things I talked about spending money on was
students, universities, research and development. I think the
member, when talking about spending money, should focus on the
program. The University of Waterloo and Sir Wilfrid Laurier
University are in my riding, as well as Conestoga College.
Sure, that is spending money, but it is also investing in the
future of our young people and in the future of our country.
Hopefully the member can make the distinction. Most members of
the House were not here prior to 1993. I think he should also
acknowledge that.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite
admits that the CPP needs reform.
He also talked about how the plan was improperly set up in the
first place, in a sense, and admitted basically that it was a
pyramid scheme. At least with that I say he is beginning to
address the problem.
When he talks about investment does he really mean squandering?
With the money that has been put into the plan, he and his party
have run up a half trillion dollar debt. The Fraser Institute
puts the number at $1 trillion. His own government puts it at
over $500 billion.
Who am I to trust? Am I to trust the members across the way who
have done such a poor job with the money they have been entrusted
with, or am I to trust the people themselves to look after a
plan? I would trust myself and other Canadians far more than I
would trust the government with the money.
Once again I quote the statistic for those young people who are
watching and listening today. If they put full maximum
contributions into the CPP they will get only $8,800 a year. If
they collect from 65 until 75, should they live to 75, they will
only get $88,000 out of that plan. If they had their own plan
they would get $26,000 a year or $260,000 by the time they turn
75.
That is far different from what the Minister of Canadian
Heritage will get with the $2.8 million pension she will collect
by the time she turns 75, or the $3.4 million that Brian Tobin,
who is now collecting money as the Premier of Newfoundland, will
get. It is a travesty. They should be ashamed.
1800
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to congratulate you on your appointment as
Acting Speaker. I look forward to working within the rules of
this House and supporting you in your role.
[Translation]
It is an honour and a pleasure for me to be able to comment on
the recent throne speech. For the second time in fourteen
months, the people of Etobicoke North have given me the
opportunity to represent them in the House of Commons. I thank
them for their strong vote of confidence and I promise to do
everything I can to perform my duties with honesty during this
36th Parliament of Canada.
[English]
The throne speech sets the government's directional course and
lays out the priorities for this Parliament. I believe it has
done this very well. It has responded to the needs of Canadians
and to the needs of the constituents in Etobicoke North.
People in my riding frequently refer to three major concerns and
priorities: first, the need for the economy to generate more
jobs so that more Canadians, in particular young Canadians, can
re-enter the workforce; second, the need to resolve our national
unity problem so that we can move forward and remove the last
major impediment to economic growth in Ontario, Quebec and the
rest of Canada; and third, the need to restore confidence in our
health care system.
The throne speech addresses these key issues very completely but
before I expand on that, I would like to comment on the overall
context of the throne speech. That is where we are today and
where we have come from. When charting a course for the future,
we really need to know where we are today and where we have been.
Our journey to fiscal responsibility and economic renewal has
been a very difficult one. The road was rough and winding. We
had to make difficult choices about which way to go but I am
proud to say that our destination is in sight. If we stay on
this road, our children's future and Canada's future will be
secure.
We are seeing the very positive results today. Canadian
interest rates are at their lowest in decades. Inflation has
been beaten down and is firmly under control. We are more
competitive as a nation. Consumer spending is up and so is
business investment. Make no mistake, good jobs are here and
more are coming. In summary, the hard work of all Canadians is
beginning to pay off, but our job is not yet complete.
[Translation]
In my riding and in other regions of Canada, there are business
representatives that tell me they are unable to recruit people
with the necessary skills for new positions. The tragic irony of
all this is that this is happening at a time when many Canadians,
and particularly young Canadians, are unable to find quality
jobs.
[English]
I was delighted therefore to note that our throne speech
committed our government “to work with the provinces,
universities and colleges, the high tech industry and other
rapidly growing sectors of the economy to better forecast the
number and types of jobs that will be available and to develop a
plan for ensuring that young people are appropriately educated to
fill them”.
I was particularly pleased to see the reference to colleges. I
believe that there are many opportunities available for
technicians and people with trades in a number of our industrial
sectors.
That is why I am supporting the establishment of a
telecommunications learning institute in Etobicoke in association
with Humber College. Such an institute will focus on research
and training so that our workforce skills are leading edge and we
are prepared for the latest advancements in communications
technology.
While our colleges have a major role to play, clearly our
universities do as well. The jobs of the future will
increasingly be knowledge based jobs and our ability as a nation
to foster a culture of innovation through research, development
and entrepreneurship will determine our future economic growth.
That is why the formation of the $800 million Canada Foundation
for Innovation that our government established in the last budget
is so important. So too is the recent announcement in our
government's throne speech to establish a Canada millennium
scholarship endowment fund. These scholarships will make
post-secondary education more accessible and affordable and will
help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based society of
the next century.
There is another serious issue that in my view is still a threat
when it comes to job creation and unemployment. I refer to it as
structural unemployment.
1805
[Translation]
Gone are the days when the Canadian economy was expanding and
thousands of jobs were created automatically. Sure, our economy is
currently vibrant and it creates many jobs. However, the country and the
government are facing the challenge of bringing unemployment back to the
lowest possible level.
[English]
Perhaps we can never achieve an unemployment rate of 5 percent but
perhaps we can. We should look very carefully at those countries
that have achieved very low rates of unemployment without
triggering unwanted inflation, countries like the United States,
Holland, Great Britain and others. To be sure, because of our
unique Canadian society we cannot transplant these solutions here
but surely we can learn something from their experiences.
Changes in the global economy and changes in the workplace are
at the root of structural unemployment. Countries that
understand these developments are best positioned to create the
public policy environment to deal with them. There are certainly
many changes occurring.
Automation is replacing people with technology. We see it every
day of our lives whether it is at the supermarket, or when we do
computerized banking or whether it is robotics in the
manufacturing sector. Organizations throughout the western world
are making their organizations flatter by eliminating levels of
management and by redesigning, re-engineering and rightsizing, as
the term is used, their structure. There are changes occurring
in the workplace such as the use of overtime hours, the use of
part time versus full time workers, more contract employees and
there are many other trends.
Many of these changes are characterized as necessary because of
the increasingly competitive global economy. At the same time
however it is interesting to note that stock markets in Canada
and the United States and industry analysts are discounting the
positive impacts of downsizing initiatives. In fact the evidence
seems to point to the fact that companies that are focused more
on growing their business and not so much on cost cutting have
experienced better profitability performance over the last few
years.
I applaud Canadian business leaders like Courtney Pratt, the
president of Noranda, when they speak about business'
multi-stakeholder responsibilities and the need for business to
invest in people.
[Translation]
We know that in Europe, the exceptionally high unemployment rates
in countries such as Germany and France are due to what economists call,
and this is an understatement, the labour market's lack of flexibility.
The expression refers to social benefits, manpower mobility, the ability
to cope with flexible work patterns, etc.
[English]
We should learn something from these experiences.
There are a number of other initiatives that I believe would
spur employment in this country. For example in Canada we could
introduce tax incentives at minimal cost to the federal treasury
to encourage employees to own shares in their own company. In
the United States and elsewhere these schemes are referred to as
employee share ownership plans or ESOPs. There is a very
aggressive and well developed tax incentive program for ESOPs in
the United States and in the United Kingdom. In Canada at this
point in time we have no similar regime.
Studies in the United States and Canada comparing ESOP versus
non-ESOP companies have consistently shown ESOP companies to be
superior performers in profitability and job growth. ESOPs if
properly implemented across Canada would make good public policy
and would inspire and encourage Canadians to build a better and
more compassionate Canada for all Canadians. The results would
be both immediate and long term.
To conclude I must say that at the same time that we move
aggressively on the economic front we must work very hard on the
political front to ensure that we remain a united country from
sea to sea. Constituents in my riding are tired of this
continuing debate and they want to put the national unity issue
to rest. They see how the uncertainty about Quebec's future in
Canada is having a negative impact on the economic prospects in
Ontario, in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
At a public meeting I called in my riding a number of months ago
to coincide with the release of the health forum report, I was
made very aware of the concerns many Canadians have about the
responsiveness and the accessibility of our health care system.
Medicare is uniquely Canadian and very worthy of our support and
attention. We must initiate public policies to restore the
confidence of Canadians in our health care system and I pledge to
do my utmost to achieve that end.
Mr. Speaker, I have exhausted my time and I thank you and this
House for this opportunity.
1810
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned in his remarks the need to resolve the
national unity problem. I submit that the national unity problem
will never be resolved until we deal adequately and fairly with
our aboriginal people.
I was pleased to hear earlier that the government is committed
to working in partnership with our aboriginal people. I would
submit that there is a very practical opportunity for the
government to do this in a very real fashion.
The Pic River First Nation submitted a land claim and this claim
was rejected after a legal review by the Department of Justice.
The Pic River First Nation feels that this legal review was
seriously flawed and they are seeking an independent legal review
of their land claim. They have launched a court action but they
are quite willing to forgo court action if the government will
agree to work together with them in partnership to have an
independent legal review of their land claim.
I would submit that this is an opportunity for the government to
show and put meaning to the words in the throne speech, to work
realistically in partnership with the First Nations, to resolve
this outstanding land claim rather than force this First Nations
group to go through a lengthy court action. The deadline date
for this would be October 9. I would urge the government to move
in the direction of resolving this issue before that time.
I further feel that for Canada to resolve the national unity
issue we have to deal fairly with all peoples and that means
looking at the aboriginal situation in a fair and reasonable way.
A first step to admit that we want to obtain national unity would
be for Canada to issue an apology to the aboriginal people for
the manner in which we have historically treated aboriginal
people over the years.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune
in my experience in life to have visited and worked in the Yukon,
the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada. I have
developed a great respect for our native peoples and the
contribution they make to the overall culture of our country.
While I am not familiar with the specifics of the case in his
riding, I think he probably heard the comments earlier by our
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If it was
like the reaction of my own, I was moved by the compassion and
willingness to develop models and solutions that will be workable
into the next millennium. I know that will involve working very
closely and getting the co-operation of the provinces and
territories and other stakeholder groups to make that happen.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Etobicoke North mentioned that he is in
favour of tax incentives. It is a marvellous idea. It is one
that the Liberal government tried in the 1970s to generate
economic growth. Instead what it did was it helped to create a
$600 billion debt and stagnant unemployment today.
Instead of tax incentives, why does the member not encourage his
government to give Canadians tax relief? Instead of picking
winners and losers in the economy, why does the member not
encourage his government to let Canadians decide what to do with
their own money?
Does this minister believe that Canadian taxpayers, small
business people and homemakers know better how to spend an extra
dollar than do the Liberal politicians and bureaucrats?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Calgary
Southeast, I thank him for the promotion which I have taken note
of.
In terms of tax relief, let us look at the United States. I was
down there recently at a conference on employee share ownership.
The United States is probably the market economy of the world and
employee share ownership plans are absolutely taking off. It is
a huge movement. What it is saying is that the workers and
people in all levels of management have a piece of the action.
The result is there is better productivity and greater profits.
More profits mean more growth and more growth means more jobs.
Therefore with a tiny tweak in terms of a tax incentive which
would have very minimal cost to the treasury, we could actually
accomplish some great things and get a lot more Canadians back to
work.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost,
like others I want to congratulate you and welcome you to the
Chair.
1815
I want to thank the constituents of Malpeque for having the
confidence to re-elect me to this 36th Parliament.
As my constituents know very well, the last four years were not
easy in our thrust to put the country in a secure financial
position for the future. The reality is that in Atlantic Canada,
where there has been a greater dependency on government programs,
we have felt the pain of cuts and program changes more vividly
than in other areas of the country.
My constituents have shown their willingness to accept what had
to be done. However, they are also telling me that they are at
their limit in terms of program elimination and cost recovery.
Constituents of Malpeque want us in this term to ensure a balance
between our economic and social agenda. They maintain we need a
strong central government to carry out such initiatives. They
welcome and support the latest initiatives of the government on
the unity file.
Our plan during the election set out our values and priorities,
a growing economy, a modernized health care system and investing
in knowledge to equip Canadians to compete in a changing world.
We also offered during the election a workable plan for
enhancing the unity of our country and securing our future.
The throne speech begins the task of implementing those
commitments in quality care, increasing the cash floor which is
of particular importance in Prince Edward Island, education,
knowledge, innovation, the commitment of $2 billion for the youth
employment strategy and in trade where agriculture, fisheries,
tourism and aerospace production are of particular importance to
my riding and to Prince Edward Island.
The commitment of the Government of Canada to adopt its programs
to reflect the social economic realities of rural Canada is of
particular importance. Given these facts, I am still both
anxious and optimistic about the future. I am anxious because I
have seen the amount of pressure that those with economic power
can place on government. We saw that here the other day in the
debate on supply as the right-wingers from across the floor
argued for tax breaks for the wealthy when we should be investing
in programs that meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.
Before long we will have the ability to make decisions based on
our people's needs rather than those of the international bankers
and bond holders. That gives me optimism for the future. We
have regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians.
We did it with a fair bit of pain. We regained that ability, but
how will the ultimate decisions be made?
I believe we must recognize as parliamentarians what we are up
against in making such decisions. That is the pressure from the
economic right and the strategies it employs to undermine our
ability as parliamentarians to represent fairly the needs of
people. They some how manage to portray the needs of the economy
above the needs of people. We need a strong economy but it
cannot and should not be the absolute in and of itself.
In one sense I am speaking on the broader issue of democracy, of
politics and of the needs of people in society to support and
participate in our parliamentary democracy, not just those who
have economic power and sway.
In the last decade our various political institutions have come
under considerable attack, often very subtly, by those who have
much to gain if the political institutions of the land can be
undermined. Politicians are attacked as well and not just on
their ideas; sometimes the person and the business itself.
As move toward the next millennium both within Canada and
globally we are really in a battle of democracy versus the
market.
1820
Let me put this as concisely as I can. With all the trade
agreements, the linking of the markets in the financial sense, it
has caused power to shift. Let me put it this way and compare it
to space. The economic space has grown and the political space
has narrowed.
I believe if that space is out of balance between economics and
politics we are all in trouble in terms of meeting the needs of
the people in our nations. In other words, if the market has all
the power then all we can really be is a consumer.
This is summed up best by Arthur Shafer in Peter Newman's The
Canadian Revolution:
The values of the marketplace have infiltrated every institution
in Canada, the family, the church, the legal system. Anti-human,
commercial values are dominating every sphere of life. Now that
we're coming into economic hard times, the sense of each man for
himself, save your own skin, get whatever advantage you can is
going to sink public spiritedness and make it much more difficult
to preserve our sense of obligation to the community.
This pressure on the essence of government is also explained
appropriately by John Ralson Saul in his book The
Unconscious Civilization:
People become so obsessed by hating government that they forget
it is meant to be their government and is the only powerful
public force they have purchase on.
That is what makes the neo-conservative and market force
argument so disingenuous. Their remarkably successful
demonization of the public sector has turned much of the
citizenry against their own mechanism. They have been enrolled
in the cause of interests that have no particular concern for
citizen's welfare. Instead, the citizen is reduced to the status
of a subject at the foot of the throne of the marketplace.
My point is that the individual and the government are linked
together by an artery. If we act to sever that artery by
replacing or opposing a central role for government, we cease to
be individuals and revert to the status of subject.
I have outlined the foregoing to put into context the kind of
environment in which we will work in the House and this
Parliament. We have to recognize from where and why that pressure
comes. I certainly believe in a strong role for government. I
believe that the public sector actually creates value in our
society through its institutions, its programs, its public
services and its workforce.
Part of the reason we see this subtle attack on this institution
and government itself is that some in the private sector know
that if they can shift that responsibility then they can profit
by doing so.
It is the desire of some in the corporate sector to move back to
a time when individual problems, regardless of circumstances,
were an individual responsibility. We cannot allow that to
happen.
As Thomas Jefferson stated, the care of human life and happiness
and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object
of good government.
The corporate sector recognizes that if government can be moved
out of the way there is a profit to be made in the offering of
what is now a public service. One of the best ways to achieve
its goal is to substitute markets for those public programs now
authorized through democratic institutions.
I put these points on the table to show what I believe is one of
the greatest pressures on this institution. To protect ourselves
from being subverted by that pressure I refer members to page 140
of Hansard and the remarks of my colleague from Hillsborough
when he talked about more power being put to members of this
assembly. That would certainly lessen the power of the
bureaucracies within Ottawa and would also lessen the ability of
those with economic clout to pressure cabinet ministers to make
decisions. What we really need is real debate in this House and
for the decisions to be made here.
I believe we can better achieve our objectives as stated in the
throne speech by assuring, as the hon. member for Hillsborough
had argued in his remarks, that greater power is put in the hands
of the members of House of Commons. I think it is one of the
most fundamental things we must do.
1825
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was a
pleasure to listen to the speech by the hon. member who is a
dairy farmer. You get some good home farm advice. But I wonder
whether the Liberal members are redundant. Except for their
trained seal capacity to vote as told they have all been spewing
the same bland stuff that was in that throne speech, and there is
nothing there.
I especially take great exception to the fact that almost every
one of them has said, as we heard during the election campaign,
“we have our fiscal house in order”. We keep hearing that. I
do not know how to say this diplomatically or in a parliamentary
way but it ain't true. We do not have our fiscal house in order.
The debt has been increasing. I am a teacher and I would love
to have an overhead projector here. If we look at the size of
the debt, instead of going up one way on a graph as it did from
the previous government, it has now gone another way. The
Liberals take credit for this wee little turn in the graph.
The fact is under this government the debt still went up from
$500 billion to $600 billion. Instead of paying $40 billion a
year in interest we are now paying $47 billion a year in
interest. They keep on repeating this and it has worked. A lot
of people in Canada think it is true that our fiscal house is in
order.
I want to give them a mild applause for at least making that
little turn, but it is not good enough. I would like to ask this
member to respond specifically to my question. How can he keep
saying we are all okay when in fact they have been responsible
for adding yet another 20 percent, another $100 billion, to the debt
during their previous term?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. Maybe he needs some down home farm examples so
he can understand how annual deficit and accumulated debt
really work.
Let me compare it to a farm. In terms of my farm or the farm of
any member over there, we have had capital investment in terms of
our mortgages, equipment and so on. We pay our interest payments
as the year goes by. But what is very important is the operating
capital in terms of being able to use that capital to operate so
we can pay the interest on our mortgages and remain in business
in a very productive and progressive way.
What we have achieved in comparison to that is that we have paid
off our operating debt. We have the accumulated debt to pay in
the future. On an operating basis we have surpluses of moneys
with which we can gradually pay down that debt. As we said in
the election campaign we can split it 50:50, put some of it
toward debt reduction and tax reductions and with the other 50
percent we will make investments in terms of social and economic
programs. That is major progress.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and agreed with a
great deal of it except for the first bumpy part at the beginning
when he was doing the hail the government's throne speech
business about modernizing the health care system and all that
sort of stuff. Why on earth is he still a Liberal? Why on earth
did he ever become a Liberal?
Why on earth did someone who was once the president of the
National Farmers Union ever become a Liberal when the fact is
everything he said with the exception of the bumps at the
beginning is something that New Democrats have been saying day in
and day out in this Parliament for years? We are the only market
critical party in this Chamber. The government of which he is a
part has signed free trade agreement after free trade agreement
enshrining the very ethic that he just spoke against.
1830
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
has 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I could not answer that
charge fully in 30 seconds.
I recognize we cannot do as the NDP always wants to do, which is
to write cheques and never find any way of paying the bills. I
come from Prince Edward Island and trade is extremely important.
We have established some rules whereby we can trade and ensure
that our people are treated fairly.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will just pick up from where I left off.
I happen to be rising pursuant to a question I asked the
Minister for International Trade about the multilateral agreement
on investment, which has everything to do with what the hon.
member for Malpeque was just talking about, that is, restricting
the power of government even further than the power of national
governments have already been restricted by the various free
trade agreements which the government has already entered into.
The other day I asked the Minister for International Trade a
question about when and how and if the government was going to
permit the public to have some say in what the government's
stance would be in the negotiations with respect to the
multilateral agreement on investment. These negotiations have
been ongoing for two years in Paris, in the context of the OECD.
They started in April 1995. They were actually scheduled to end
in April 1997.
If the Liberals had had their way we would have had a negotiated
agreement—done, finished, fait accompli—by April 1997 and they
would never have even let us know it was happening.
We could not have relied on the official opposition or even the
third party in the last Parliament to have raised such matters
because they all bow down to the same altar of the multinational
corporations and the global economic order that was created for
the benefit of investors, and to hell with the workers and
everybody else.
We finally have a Parliament in which these kinds of issues can
and will be raised.
I want to hear from the government how it intends to involve the
Canadian public. What will the government's stance be at the
multilateral agreement on investment negotiations?
We know from the draft, as it stands, that the MAI intends to
drastically reduce the power of governments to intervene in the
economy on behalf of the common good, the public interest,
regional development, research and development and all the other
ways in which governments have sought to act in the interests of
the Canadian people.
The government has the ability to seek certain exemptions in
respect of social, educational, health, cultural and other areas
of concern, such as government procurement, et cetera.
We need to know what the government is going to do very quickly
because the negotiations are scheduled to end in April of 1998.
If the Canadian public is to be meaningfully involved, there
needs to be a process now. We do not want to be looking at an
agreement which has already been negotiated, where the government
has put the Canadian public in a take-it-or-leave-it position.
We want to be able to say now to the government, in various
public ways, what it is it should be insisting on in those
negotiations.
If the government continues to insist on being at those
negotiations, at the very least it should be doing what the
Canadian people insist it be doing, and that is making sure that
our ability as a people and our ability as a government to act in
our own interests is protected by the various exemptions which
the government should be seeking in the MAI negotiations.
I look forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary
exactly what the government's position on this will be. What
exemptions is the government seeking?
1835
What are the deal breakers? What are the things that they
absolutely have to have or there will be no deal in Paris?
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have already exceeded
my time. I hope not because I have the greatest respect for the
time limits put on me. I will sit down and look forward to what
the government member has to say.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, foreign direct
investment currently accounts for one in ten jobs in Canada. It
is estimated that each additional $1 billion in foreign direct
investment helps to create 45,000 new jobs over five years.
Encouraging more investment in Canada is one of the best ways to
create jobs. Is that not the goal of the NDP?
The government has in place a comprehensive, consultative
process and is committed to ensuring the opportunity for full
public discussion on the proposed MAI. The member opposite has
already been provided with a personal briefing on the MAI, as
were all critics. In addition to a general media briefing, all
members of Parliament and senators have been sent two copies of
an information package on the MAI.
The minister will also be writing to the chair of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to arrange
his appearance before the committee.
Provincial officials are consulted through conference calls and
negotiated debriefings. They have full access to working
documents.
The business groups that have been consulted to date include the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of
International Business and the Business Council for National
Issues. Consultations have also taken place with groups
representing specific sectors of the Canadian economy, including
culture, energy, mining, telecommunications and agrifood.
With respect to non-governmental organizations, the government
has to date, consulted with the Canadian Labour Congress, the
Canadian Auto Workers and has been in contact with the World
Wildlife Fund.
As the negotiations approach the deadline for completion in the
coming year, the scope of consultations will be broadened to
include additional NGOs, especially those concerned with labour
and environment issues.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)