36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 49
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 11, 1997
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN MILITARY EXPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1005
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1010
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXPROPRIATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-303. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-304. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMOUS FIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH PENSIONERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1020
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Retirement System
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rail Transportation
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Crimes of Violence
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rural Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rail Transportation
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1025
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of the Child
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1030
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1100
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1120
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1125
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1140
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1155
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1210
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1225
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1240
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1245
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1310
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1325
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1330
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1345
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOLIDAY GREETINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WESTAIM
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1400
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRIBUTE TO FATHER GÉRALD MAUZEROLL
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PATRIOTS OF SAINT-EUSTACHE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAR CRIMES
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1405
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST ABORIGINAL WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRIBUTE TO SOEUR LORETTE GALLANT
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 'TWAS THE NIGHT AFTER KYOTO
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1410
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAPE TORMENTINE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | “LET US SPEND”
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL AND SPORTING EVENTS IN THE MAURICIE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEAKER'S WORKSHOP
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISCAL DIVIDEND
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET SURPLUS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTORIA BRIDGE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPIRIT OF COLUMBUS PLATFORM
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFUGEES
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1445
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAIRY INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COINAGE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1450
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SINGER RETIREES
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1455
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEASON'S GREETINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1500
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRIBUTE TO THE LATE ANTONIO YANAKIS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1505
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1510
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Department of National Revenue
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1515
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1520
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1525
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1530
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1535
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1540
1545
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1600
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1605
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1635
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1640
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1655
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1700
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1715
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1730
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1735
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMOUS FIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1750
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1815
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1830
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1835
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rail Transportation
|
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1840
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 49
![](/web/20061116192638im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 11, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that the following member has been appointed member of the board
of internal economy for the purposes and under the provisions of
an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, Chapter 32,
Statutes of Canada, 1997: the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN MILITARY EXPORTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the annual report on Canadian military exports for the year 1996.
[English]
It is important to point out that in the interests of providing
more meaningful information and greater transparency we have
considerably expanded the amount of information about the nature
of the goods exported.
I think members of Parliament will find now that it is a much
more complete examination of the military exports of Canada.
* * *
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing
Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the Canadian Tourism Commission's annual report for
1996-97 entitled “Industry Led, Market Driven”.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
1005
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the second
report of the Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which
represented Canada at the 43rd annual session of the North
Atlantic Assembly of NATO Parliamentarians held in Bucharest,
Romania October 9 to 13, 1997.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in
both official languages, the report of the eighth annual meeting
between the Canada-Japan interparliamentary group and the
Japan-Canada parliamentarians friendship league.
The meeting and visit took place between November 8 and 16,
1997. The Canadian delegation was honoured to receive the largest
number of Diet members to have ever attended bilateral talks.
Japan is undergoing changes to its economy, institution and
society which will be felt worldwide. We must not neglect the
fact that Japan is our second largest trading partner next to the
United States. Meetings and visits such as these allow
parliamentarians from both countries to keep abreast of such
developments.
I wish to thank my colleagues on the delegation for the
exceptional bilateral talks and a very productive visit. I would
also like to note the professionalism and dedication of our
Canadian embassy officials.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
[English]
It deals with Human Resources Development Canada, “A Critical
Transition Toward Result Based Management”, including the
committee's recommendations to improve the same.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the
government to table a comprehensive response to the report.
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[English]
It deals with Transport Canada, the commercialization of the air
navigation system and the problems that the committee
investigated regarding the privatization of NavCan and its
recommendations thereon.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the
government to table a comprehensive response to the report.
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, a report entitled
“Ensuring Access—Assistance for Post-Secondary Students”.
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development.
The committee has considered Bill C-6, an Act to provide for
an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie
Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts, and has agreed to report it
with amendments.
In closing, it is an honour for me to express my thanks to all
those witnesses who came here to Ottawa, as well as all those who
travelled to Yellowknife or Inuvik to take part in the
videoconferences.
I also wish to thank all the committee members for their work, as
well as our excellent clerk, Ms. Fisher, our researchers and the
support team.
[English]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TRADE DISPUTES AND
INVESTMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the report of
the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment entitled “A Study of the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment”.
The government, knowing how important this agreement is to
Canadians, asked our committee to hold hearings and to bring
Canadians from across the country to Ottawa to hear their points
of view on the MAI.
1010
Our committee endeavoured to do this. A number of experts and
spokespersons of national organizations came before the committee
and let the committee know their views on this very important
international agreement.
Our committee was informed about the advantages and the
disadvantages of an MAI. We were presented with a wide range of
views, as members can imagine, on these.
I hope all Canadians will read this report and learn of the
issues involved in the MAI. We have provided a number of
recommendations for our government to take into consideration for
when negotiations begin again in January. I have great
confidence that they will listen to the views of the subcommittee
on international trade.
* * *
EXPROPRIATION ACT
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act to amend the Expropriation
Act (disposal of expropriated lands).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill essentially is quite simple. It
would have, for effect, that whenever the crown has acquired land
through expropriation and it then proceeds to resell this land,
this act, if enacted, would demand that the crown give to the
original owner a right of first refusal to match the best offer
received by the crown. This is common practice in many
provinces.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to amend an act for the
recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
Lethbridge for seconding my bill which would guarantee everyone's
right to the enjoyment of property in all federal law.
I would like to thank my independent legislative counsel for her
hard work, dedication and expert legal advice in drafting such an
important piece of legislation for consideration in this House.
My property rights bill amends the Canadian bill of rights and
adds two new sections to the Constitution Act of 1867, thereby
strengthening property rights in federal law.
If passed, my bill would specifically guarantee that every
person has, first, the right to the enjoyment of their property;
second, the right not to be deprived of their property unless
they are given a fair hearing, paid fair, timely and impartially
fixed compensation; third, the right to appeal to the courts if
their property rights have been infringed upon or denied, and
every person's property rights would be guaranteed in every law
in Canada, unless it is expressly declared that the act shall
operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights and adoption
of a declaration of notwithstanding would require the votes of at
least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to seek unanimous consent to introduce the following
motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should renew
its commitment to draft a victims bill of rights and initiate
consultations with the provinces in areas of provincial concern
aimed at arriving at a national standard for a victims bill of
rights.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to present
this motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
* * *
1015
FAMOUS FIVE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent for a motion. I move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the request of the Famous Five Foundation to honour the
memory of Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise
McKinney, Henrietta Muir Edwards, known as the Famous Five, by
allowing a statue commemorating them to be placed on Parliament
Hill.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order.
While the motion presented by the hon. member would appear to
have considerable merit, it seems to me that the motion is
deserving of some debate and discussion in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: That does not sound like a point of
order to me. The motion may be one which is deserving of debate
in the House and, if so, there are avenues where the hon. member
could move the motion. However, there is not unanimous consent
at this time to put the motion and accordingly there is no
possibility at this stage for debate.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my understanding is that the motion can only be debated
if it is put. In fact, the member has declined to give consent
for the motion to be put, so it cannot—
The Deputy Speaker: The member is stating what I think I
just stated. There is no consent to put the motion, therefore,
there can be no debate.
* * *
BRITISH PENSIONERS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, following consultation on all sides of the House, I
would seek the unanimous consent of the House to put the
following motion with the support of members of the Liberal
Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative
Party. I move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should renew
its commitment to British pensioners living in Canada and
vigorously pursue an agreement with the Government of the United
Kingdom to provide them with pensions fully indexed to the cost
of living.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has asked for the
unanimous consent of the House to put this motion. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order.
There is an established procedure in the House to deal with
Private Members' Business. All private members have to adhere to
a procedure which is established by the House. Now, this
particular motion appears to have considerable merit and is
deserving of discussion and debate in the House. I would like to
know why this motion should take precedence over all other
Private Members' Business?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is having trouble. There
is no point of order here. This motion did not get precedence
over any other. The member sought consent to move it and it was
denied. That is the end of the matter.
I hope this is a different point from the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Government House Leader.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are following established procedure which is that even if one
member objects, there is not unanimous consent.
In both of these cases, one member only did object.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not pretend to hear
how may yeas or nays may come out in the House. I do not think
the hon. member is raising a legitimate point of order. The
question that was asked by the Chair is the correct one, was
there unanimous consent. There clearly was not consent and in
the circumstances we are unable to proceed with the motions.
* * *
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
to the House signed by a number of Canadians, including some from
my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners also agree with the National Forum on Health
report which points out the importance of investing in children
and specifically to pursue tax initiatives to assist families who
provide direct parental care in the home.
The petitioners, therefore, pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to change the Income Tax Act to assist
families who provide direct parental care to preschool children.
1020
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and honoured
to be able to present petitions on behalf of constituents in
Winnipeg North Centre and other Manitobans who are deeply
concerned about the future of Canada's retirement system. They
express concern about the changes to the Canada pension plan that
were forced through this Parliament. They are very concerned
about the changes to the seniors benefit. They petition this
House for a national review of the retirement income system in
Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today
and tomorrow.
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present to this House a petition
signed by 712 people.
It reads “We want VIA Rail to continue to use the intermodal
terminal in Lévis and the Montmagny subdivision section between
Harlaka and Saint-Romuald to allow the Chaleur and the Ocean trains
to run”.
This petition is presented in conjunction with the petition
bearing 550 other signatures presented by my colleague the member
for Lévis yesterday, December 10.
Other similar petitions are being prepared in cities in Quebec, New
Brunswick and Ontario. To date, we have 1,263 signatures in
support of saving the Lévis and Charny stations in the Montmagny
subdivision in the province of Quebec.
The Coalition pour le maintien et l'utilisation accrue du
rail, région du Québec et de ses environs will conclude this
petition early in 1998 and will send petitions to the clerk to be
certified pursuant to Standing Order 36.
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present two petitions today. The first petition is from citizens
of Pointe-Claire and Dorval in Quebec and Oakville, Ontario. The
petitioners ask Parliament to declare and confirm immediately
that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of Canada and
its provinces, territories and territorial waters may be modified
only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and through the amending
formula as stipulated in Canada's constitution.
CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from citizens in the greater Ottawa area. They
ask Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against
persons are serious and abhorrent to society and to amend the
Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the
Parole Act to better reflect societal attitudes.
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition that was
presented to me by the public service workers in my riding of
Saint John, New Brunswick. They are eagerly awaiting a decision
on the pay equity dispute. The petitioners call upon this
Parliament to urge the President of the Treasury Board to
authorize an interim payment to all employees affected based upon
what is now agreed upon as being owed to these employees.
RURAL CANADA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from numerous citizens of the Peterborough riding.
They point out that rural Canada contributes substantially to the
national economy and that agriculture and agri-food are the third
largest employers in Canada, that rural Canada is full of people
with innovative ideas and plenty of energy to carry them out but
they often have difficulty getting the financing to bring those
ideas to fruition. These petitioners call upon Parliament to
work toward ensuring that the needs and concerns of rural Canada
are addressed, that the access of rural Canadians to federal
programs and services be improved and that rural Canada be
supplied with the tools to not only survive but to thrive in
today's global marketplace.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of another
486 people who have signed petitions that asking that Parliament
amend the Criminal Code of Canada to raise the age of consent for
sexual activity between a young person and an adult from 14 to 16
years of age. These people are echoing the concerns brought
forward by the attorney general of our province, Ujjal Dosanjh,
who at the last meeting of federal-provincial ministers attempted
to raise this issue because of the concern not only in British
Columbia but across the land that people as young as 14 years old
are being taken advantage of by predatory adults. It is a
pleasure to support this petition.
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
present a petition signed by 564 persons from the Quebec City
region, who want VIA Rail to continue to use the intermodal
terminal in Lévis and the Montmagny subdivision section between
Harlaka and Saint-Romuald to allow the Chaleur and the Ocean trains
to run.
This is the third petition presented in the House. Up to now,
1,827 individuals have signed similar petitions.
1025
[English]
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present three petitions, signed
mainly by people from Ontario.
The petitioners are concerned that by ratifying and implementing
the United Nations convention on the rights of the child that
government bureaucrats and the courts will be legally entitled to
determine what is in “the best interest of the child” rather
than the parents. They fear that the Government of Canada is
creating a bureaucracy to police parents and enforce the
guidelines of a UN charter which has never been approved. They
are concerned that it will create greater incentives for families
to abdicate their parental responsibilities to the state. They
are concerned that parental responsibilities will be undermined
by the UN convention.
They want Parliament to support my private member's motion,
M-33, which would add the protection of parental rights and
responsibilities to the charter of rights and freedoms.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second group of petitions which I would like to
present also comes from Ontario.
The petitioners support the retention of section 43 of the
Criminal Code, which states:
Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a
parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a
pupil or child, who is under his care, if the force does not
exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
The petitioners believe that the removal of section 43 would
strengthen the role of bureaucrats, while weakening the role of
parents in determining what is in the best interest of the child.
They feel that this would be a major, unjustified intrusion of
the state into the realm of parental rights and responsibilities.
The petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents
to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience. They request that section 43 be retained in the
Criminal Code of Canada as it is currently worded.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move that
all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
The House resumed from December 10 consideration of the
motion.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in this very important debate today, prior to the
presentation of the federal budget. The purpose is to see how we
can promote and bring about the dreams, aspirations and objectives
of Canadians.
[English]
That is really what a prebudget debate is. It is an
opportunity to talk about how we should order our priorities as
Canadians and how we should order our priorities for Canada's
future.
In the final analysis a budget is about what the real priorities
of the government are; not the soothing assurances, not the empty
rhetoric and not the promises which have no substance. It is
about where the government will put its money, where it will
allocate its resources and, therefore, what its real priorities
are.
Let me make it very clear at the outset, on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party, that it is our absolute
belief that the top economic priority for the 1998 budget is to
set targets to reduce unemployment by at least 1%. At an
absolute minimum unemployment should be reduced by 1%. We must
develop specific strategies to attain that objective.
It is hard to get your answers right when you keep focusing on
the wrong problem. That is exactly what this government has done
over the last four years. It has focused on the wrong problem.
1030
It is focused exclusively on inflation, failing to set targets
for jobs. In the process the government is simply writing off
literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, writing off an
additional 500,000 jobs that are desperately needed by Canadians.
Over a five year period an additional 100,000 jobs a year could
push our unemployment rate to 5%.
I know there will be some naysayers who will say “We couldn't
possibly bring the unemployment level in Canada to 5%. Who has
an unemployment level among industrial countries of 5%?” Let's
remind ourselves, in the process of trying to stiffen our resolve
to tackle this problem, that the United States of America has an
unemployment level today below 5%. I think it is 4.7% at the
current time. The United Kingdom has an unemployment level below
5%.
The government has to ask itself and all Canadians are asking
themselves the following question. How is it less of a priority
for the Government of Canada and for the people of Canada to
reduce the unemployment level to 5% than it is for the people of
the United States or the people of the United Kingdom?
It is the number one priority for Canadians and it remains the
number one priority for Canadians. It is a priority that is
absolutely attainable if the government would finally recognize
it and take up the challenge. Unfortunately, instead of a
commitment to generate jobs and reduce unemployment, the Liberal
policy has been designed to ensure that jobless rates do not sink
too far, a perversity, surely, when we look at the numbers of
people who are suffering.
The biggest threat to the future is the likelihood the
government will refuse to allow growth to continue and instead
will choke off any real recovery in its infancy by jacking up
interest rates yet again by strangling the process of economic
growth that is finally beginning to glimmer on the horizon.
Canadians know that when the Minister of Finance really means
business, when he makes up his mind about something, when he
accepts that something is indeed a priority, he sets targets and
timetables for achieving them. That is exactly what we have seen
the Minister of Finance do with the deficit over the last four
years. It is what he does with inflation. He makes it clear
that he is serious and he sets timetables and targets. It is
what he proposes now to do with the debt.
Canadians know that targets mean commitment and timetables mean
results. Over the last four years the Liberal government has
been absolutely single minded in its approach to deficit
reduction: massive program cuts, the largest layoffs in Canadian
history, the sell-off of some of the nation's most valuable
assets, and the elimination of many of the programs that provide
support to Canadians in need, in fact many of the programs that
define our very sense of being Canadian.
The government's persistent lying throughout has been: “There
is really no alternative”. It has come to be understood as the
TINA syndrome: there is no alternative. The tragic irony is
that there was and still is an alternative which would have
allowed the government to reach its original target for deficit
reduction without the painful disastrous cuts that were the
supposed centrepiece of this strategy.
Testimony before the finance committee indicated that 60% of the
improvement in government finances between 1995 and 1997 came
from a growing economy stimulated by low interest rates. Dr. Jim
Stanford's analysis presented before the finance committee showed
that if the government had merely frozen spending at its 1995
levels, allowed economic growth and maintained lower interest
rates, the Minister of Finance could have beaten his very own
deficit reduction timetable. He could have met his targets and
still have reduced Canada's deficit to the lowest level among G-7
countries.
1035
The study also demonstrates that pursuing a sustained 4% growth
strategy simply by maintaining interest rates at the early 1997
level would add an additional $70 billion to federal balance
sheets over the next five years to be spent on the important
programs that Canadians depend upon, that our seniors deserve,
that our children desperately need and that our young people
require to enter the new millennium with some sense of hope and
promise. In addition it would mean sufficient resources to allow
for reasonable tax cuts targeted to where they would matter most
and get on with debt repayment at the same time.
On the other hand, if real growth is stalled by the central
bank's obsessively low inflation policy, the fiscal dividend may
disappear altogether. That would be a tragedy.
Canadians need to consider this question. Are we willing to
spend $70 billion over the next five years to keep inflation at a
zero level, to keep wringing jobs out of the economy, to keep
eliminating important social programs, in order to battle an
imaginary mythical phantom of high inflation? Or, do we have
other priorities like fighting unemployment, rebuilding our
health care system, and ensuring our young people access to
education and decent jobs?
The Liberals have been positioning themselves as a party of
balance on economic issues. The title of the finance committee's
report “Keeping the Balance” is another attempt to embellish
that image. The point is that it bears no relationship or
resemblance to what the Liberal government has actually being
doing. The reality is that Canada has eliminated its fiscal
deficit by creating a massive social deficit for which Canadians
will be paying for a very long time to come.
Canada's real wealth is declining as we supposedly grow richer.
The stock market is soaring. The GDP is climbing. However
somehow there is not enough money to pull our kids out of
poverty, to give young people the education they need to get
decent jobs, to pay working men and women a living wage, or to
maintain one of the best health care systems in the world in
which Canadians have invested and which has become the envy of
the world.
For the government it has been an official policy of forget
about jobs, toss in the towel on jobs. We are told repeatedly
that governments cannot create jobs and why should they really
try. The essence of the Liberal solution is to make its problem
someone else's problem by downloading debt and offloading
responsibility to the provinces, municipalities, ordinary people,
the charitable sector, the non-governmental sector and, most
callously and most unforgivably, the backs of the poor. As a
result the federal books may be in balance but the economy is
very much out of kilter.
The headline in the local newspaper in my riding said it all the
day that the finance minister appeared on the west coast before
the finance committee. The headline read “Federal books doing
well but the question is are Canadians doing well?” For far too
many Canadians the answer to that question is no, they are not
doing well at all.
1040
Internationally we may be the first to balance the budget. This
is something the federal finance minister constantly crows about,
constantly congratulates himself about. While citizens in other
industrialized nations saw their GDP per capita grow at an
average rate of 9.1%, Canada alone saw its standard of living
decline. That is not something about which the government should
be congratulating itself.
As a result we now have the second highest incidence of child
poverty among major industrialize countries, the second highest
inequality index and the second highest incident of low pay for
full time workers in the industrialized world. The finance
minister may claim that Canada is leading the G-7 and is on the
verge of a new economic era, but social and economic indicators
reveal that Canada is marching backward into the millennium.
Since 1989 average family incomes have fallen by roughly 5%. In
this country 538,000 more children are living in poverty. The
number of food banks has tripled as the proportion of the
population forced to rely on food banks has more than doubled.
The number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy has gone
through the roof. This does not point to a balanced economy or
to a leading edge economy but to an economy that is running in
reverse.
The real test of a balanced economy surely is not whether the
government can balance its books at the expense of its citizens
but rather whether it can provide the economic environment in
which Canadians and families can balance their own books. We
have been losing ground in that regard.
A stronger economy is key to the long term health of federal
balance sheets. Our approach would be to build a high
employment, growing economy which could generate a significant
fiscal dividend and could provide an ongoing revenue stream to
address the growing social deficit. Social investment that
creates jobs and addresses the needs of children, youth and
families must surely come first.
Let me be very clear about what the NDP priorities are for the
coming year. We will be pushing for those priorities to be
expressed in the forthcoming federal budget.
The first is to make full employment the primary goal of
government with targets to cut rates by a minimum of 1% per year.
The Bank of Canada should be instructed that employment growth is
the central priority.
The second is to set targets for the elimination of child
poverty and a timetable for implementation of that commitment.
In 1989 the country set for itself a millennium project. The
House of Commons resolved unanimously an all-party resolution to
ensure that we eliminated child poverty by the year 2000. Before
we go looking for a lot of new millennium projects, let us follow
through on the commitment adopted by the House, by all members on
all sides of the House in 1989, and make the real millennium
project the elimination of poverty.
What could have a greater long lasting benefit? What could be
more enduring? What could more captivate the people of a nation
than pulling together and working together to eliminate poverty
so that we make a real investment in the future of all Canadians
and the future of the nation?
The third priority we will be insisting upon is to make
strategic investments to rebuild our failing public
infrastructure.
Our health care system, education and training systems and
networks, environmental and cultural industries, social housing,
child care and elder care, highway and other important
transportation links that make this a real nation.
1045
Fourth is to maintain a balanced budget over the next five years
aiming for continuing GDP growth of 4% per year and some easing
of the inflation target band. When this country continues to be
totally obsessed with inflation, it absolutely fails to recognize
that countries, including the United States to our south and the
U.K., have recognized that yes inflation is a problem and yes
inflation has to be kept in check, but they have understood that
we have to be prepared to make jobs and economic growth our real
priorities. That requires easing up a little bit on the inflation
target band.
They have allowed inflation to go up in the 3% range. As long
as Canada continues to insist on wringing inflation absolutely
out of the economy, reducing it to the 1% range, then we are
going to continue to choke off those 500,000 jobs that we
desperately need.
Fifth, our priority is going to be maintaining overall tax
levels in the short term but rebalancing the system to achieve
greater fairness and to advance broader social policy goals such
as the elimination of poverty, a fairer share of the tax burden
and assistance for students and the disabled.
Wrapping up, my final priority that I want to advance as we head
into this budgetary process is direct tax relief measures to the
neediest through refundable tax credits such as the GST and
exempting essentials from the federal sales tax rather than
enriching subsidies for those earning over $75,000 a year. If
circumstances permit, we want to reduce the overall GST rate by
two points to promote job creation and give hard pressed
consumers a break.
These are the measures that NDP members will be advancing.
Already to date in this fall parliamentary session, if the
proposals the NDP had been putting forward, the concrete and
specific proposals for job creation, had been implemented by this
government, we would have created over 175,000 jobs. This would
have reduced unemployment to 7.9%.
We look forward to participating in the continuing debate in the
run up to the budget. Most importantly, we look forward to
seeing this government finally get its priorities right and
invest in a real future for Canada.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wish to seek unanimous consent to put the following motion
without debate. I move:
That the House shall not sit on December 12, 1997, provided
that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed
to have sat and adjourned on that day.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague from the NDP while
she was speaking about having a full employment strategy. The
first thing that came to my mind is that government in general
does not really create jobs. It in itself does not go out and
hire everyone to work on the government payrolls.
However the government creates a proper environment for job
creation because the real engine of job creation is the private
sector.
1050
Frankly my head somehow was boiling and spinning at the same
time. The member wants the government to stop fighting the
mythical phantom of high inflation and to stop being obsessed
with inflation. She thought that the government should have a
full employment policy.
Suppose that inflation went above 3% or 4% and there was a
downturn in the economy in two or three years and we begin to
have the same problems we had in the 1980s of a high deficit,
high debt loads, high inflation and high interest rates, is the
member proposing that the government should hire all those people
and put them on the public payroll?
I also want to say to my colleague that it is extremely
important to put things into perspective. All of the economic
indicators she is talking about are fair game. However, there
are certain indicators that I as a member of Parliament totally
disagree with.
For example, here in Canada we had a deficit. I want to
congratulate the government for winning the war on the deficit.
We used criteria that are very much different from the criteria
being used by OECD members around the world.
When we talk about assets in Canada and somebody from the
auditor general's office says that we have $50 billion in assets,
in my view, Canadian assets are really in excess of $150 billion
taking into consideration crown corporations and everything else
the government owns in Canada.
We have to put things into perspective when we talk about
shrinking wealth and economic indicators when comparing them with
other countries around the world.
If the private sector does not really create the jobs she is
asking for and the private sector is not meeting the target she
is setting, is the member proposing that the government hire all
those people who were not hired by the private sector?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I have to say in all
honesty, and I intend no disrespect to the member opposite, but
that is an absurd suggestion and a distortion of the position the
New Democratic Party has put forward today in specific, concrete
terms. It makes it impossible to even engage in a reasonable,
sensible debate about fiscal policy, inflation, interest rates
and setting targets and timetables for jobs.
I do not need a lecture from the member opposite on how
important the private sector is in the creation of jobs. I will
be going back to my office to meet with representatives from the
chamber of commerce. They have come to Ottawa today because they
understand what an important partnership there must be between
government and the private sector.
Those representatives from the chamber of commerce want to talk
to me and my colleagues from Nova Scotia about the completely
irresponsible withdrawal of the federal government from providing
and ensuring that the kind of infrastructure is in place which
would allow the private sector to do its job to generate jobs and
grow the economy.
The private sector is understandably concerned about the fact
that the Government of Canada has gone pell-mell into the
privatization of our ports without understanding that there must
be a commitment from the government in the investment of the
ports and make sure the infrastructure is there.
It is very concerned that the government will not make a
commitment to ensure that our Halifax regional airport which
serves as an international airport and is a very important part
of our infrastucture, is in good shape. The government has been
pulling back from its investment with the result that the entire
business community in Nova Scotia is very concerned that our
Halifax international airport is not getting the kind of support
from government that it needs, deserves and absolutely requires
if the private sector is going to be able to do its part to
contribute to the generation of jobs.
1055
In response to the question, if it was the view of the
government that the federal government cannot do anything about
jobs, then why in the name of heaven did the Liberal Party of
Canada not tell the Canadian people the truth? It told Canadians
that it intended to make jobs the number one priority, but that
is not what the government did.
It is such a ridiculous question. That is exactly what engenders
disrespect for government, engenders disrespect for Parliament.
It is just a completely absurd notion. The member knows that when
he stands on his feet and says, “Would you let inflation go up
3% or 4%”, he clearly was not listening when I said that
allowing inflation to rise to 3% does not seem to be such a
disastrous policy when that is what the United States has done
and unemployment is below 5%. That is what the U.K. has done and
their unemployment is 5%. Canadians deserve no less.
It is a very good illustration of why this government will not
put its money where its mouth is and actually commit itself to
making jobs the number one priority, and it went to the Canadian
people instead in 1993 and again in 1997.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
briefly I want to commend the leader of the NDP for spending so
much time on the subject of child poverty. It is certainly a
subject matter on which all hon. members share her concern.
In my view child poverty is a political term which is intended
to evoke sympathy. The real issue here is family poverty. The
member articulated her reasons why she felt there were economic
factors which contributed to this serious problem.
I would ask the member whether or not she would concede or maybe
recognize that 42% of all children living in poverty come from
lone parent families and that the rising level of breakdown of
the Canadian family is a very significant contributing factor.
Would the member care to comment on her party's position with
regard to issues of strengthening the family outside of economic
considerations?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, what the issue of
poverty is all about is the failure of government to put in place
policies that will strengthen the family.
Nothing weakens a family more, whether there is one child or
five children, whether there is one parent or two parents, than
having a parent who simply cannot put food on the table, who
cannot ensure that their kids get the best possible start in
life.
To repeat, I think that should be our millennium project. It is
the project that would matter the most to the future of this
nation, to make sure that our kids do get a start in life.
It requires a comprehensive, co-ordinated strategy, an all out
assault on the problem of poverty which has many faces. I
completely agree and I commend the member for making the point
that the issue is poverty, period. It is not child poverty as if
it is completely separate and apart.
Let us be clear about where this decision came from, the one to
somehow segment off child poverty as if it is not part of the
failed economic system. That essentially has been this
government's decision, to not face up to the fact that at the
root of poverty are the kind of economic policies that have been
pursued for a decade and a half by right wing governments, both
federal and provincial.
1100
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour
to speak on this very important topic. Over the next two or
three months there will be much debate. The directions we take
will likely be debated frequently over the next couple of years.
The results of the finance committee hearings show this Titanic
government has decided to chart a course that steers every
Canadian right into the iceberg. The short sighting of the tip
of the iceberg that resembles the deficit completely misses the
massive danger of the submerged problem of the debt that is just
waiting to sink the economy. As history sometimes ends up
repeating itself, everyone will go down with the sinking ship.
What is worse is that shuffling the chairs on the deck will not
buy Canadians any more time.
This government does not understand that high taxes kill jobs.
This government does not understand that “high taxes equal high
revenue” is just recycled money that is borrowed and is not new.
This government does not understand that everyone knows the
bloated employment insurance premium is a tax on the backs of the
working class.
This government does not understand that we are losing the
battle with the U.S. regarding the brain drain. This government
does not understand that Canada should not only end
interprovincial trade barriers but that the Canada-U.S. economy
is actually one big market made up of 330 million people. This
government does not understand that Canada must be a global
leader as we enter the next millennium.
This government does not understand that small business drives
the economy and still faces unbearable payroll taxes and extreme
bankruptcy statistics. This government does not understand the
impact that part of the consultation process means actually
listening to Canadians and rightfully respecting their interests
and their recommendations. The captain of this government does
not show any desire to scope the dangers of this massive debt,
the ticking time bomb of the economy.
Rather, the finance minister is too involved scoping the Prime
Minister's job. Let us face it, working families have been
crippled with the burden of creating such a so-called fiscal
dividend. They have been taxed, taxed and overtaxed. In the
event of the upcoming surplus, this government should feel
obligated to return what is rightfully theirs. This means
cutting taxes. All Canadians have paid long enough for the
misconduct of the EI fund.
Canadians are no longer prepared to sit back and let this
government set strategies without seriously implementing the
suggestions provided during consultation. Canadians shared their
frustrations and proposed solutions. This government did not
listen. Why did we travel across Canada and hear from over 400
witnesses if we are not going to put their ideas to work?
The suggestion is clear. This government is not serious about
creating the environment to reduce employment. It is not serious
about cutting taxes. It is not serious about facilitating
growth. This government did not listen. The report from the
finance committee does not represent Canada's interests. It is
merely a supporting document of the Minister of Finance.
Canadians are being held hostage by Liberal Party politics. The
deathwatch on the Prime Minister has begun and the captain is the
Minister of Finance. He is not willing to give anything of
substance to Canadians until he is running for or is Prime
Minister. It is a sad but true fact. One only has to look at
his own cabinet colleagues to know this is what is happening. In
the meantime working Canadians get poorer, unemployment remains a
national tragedy and Canadians become less competitive.
In Jeff Rubin's 1997 Monthly Indicator named the “The Federal
Fiscal Dividend: Who gets to spend it?”, Mr. Rubin discussed
how personal income taxes as a share of GDP rank Canada the
highest among the G-7 countries. Not only is Canada's personal
income tax rate not internationally competitive but it has now
saddled households with the largest tax burden in Canadian
history.
Even a $13 billion personal income tax cut over the next four
years would leave the income tax to GDP ratio well above its 1989
level. After some seven years of declining after tax real income
per capita in Canada, a personal tax decrease could at least
begin the process of restoring domestic purchasing power in the
economy.
1105
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business told us that
“One very important priority which is the cornerstone to
building a better life for Canadians is meaningful job
creation”. The CFIB said it and we have said it too.
Priorities should be placed on debt and tax reduction, not on
new program spending. A recent survey revealed that 85% of small
business favours restrained spending. The plan to allocate 50%
of the so-called fiscal dividend to new spending and the other
50% to debt and tax reduction is wrong. It is the wrong blend.
This mix will only create fiscal problems in the future.
Small business has called for the emphasis to be on strategies
that lead to private sector job creation which will provide a
solid foundation for the future of the Canadian economy, debt
reduction, which will decrease the servicing costs of the debt,
and reduced taxes.
We support these initiatives for the good of Canadian small
business. No longer can we let the government make the wrong
decisions for Canadians. Who suffers? Canadians.
We have a government collecting higher employment insurance
premiums than necessary to fund the account for a rainy day. We
know, of course, that the EI surplus is being used as a deficit
reduction tax. Seventy-four per cent of small businesses polled
said that the EI fund should be managed separately. The CP fund
was privatized; why not the EI fund too?
Small business and the PC Party believe that a top priority is
to substantially lower EI premiums for 1998. That will make a
difference in the pockets of Canadians. Canadians have
over-contributed in good faith to this fund.
It is time for this to stop. Working Canadians deserve to have
their hard earned money back. The CFIB calls for a refund to
Canadians and so do we. The increase set for 1998 of 66¢ per
$100 in CPP premiums must be offset by at least this amount, if
not more, in EI premiums. This is an achievable objective. After
all, the EI fund has a surplus of close to $12 billion.
Canadians are rightfully upset about taxes, whether they are
caused by too much government debt or spending. It is time
Canadians had a say in their economic future. We are going to
fight to give Canadians that freedom.
Clearly one of the greatest problems facing this country is the
high level of unemployment. Is there really any doubt that high
taxation in this country is the number one cause of this horrific
problem? I think not.
For example, as we know, the province with the lowest tax rate,
Alberta, has the lowest unemployment rate. Clearly the Alberta
government has committed to a strategy and stuck to it. Why can
the federal government not do this?
The U.S. unemployment rate is the lowest it has been for 50
years. This is not luck. It is the result of lower taxes, which
means more money in the hands of the people.
We believe the debate on what to do with any surplus has focused
too much on the traditional idea of “What should government do
now?” This is an unacceptable starting point. Yet again we
witness a responsive, knee-jerk reaction to a critical upcoming
opportunity. What this government should be focusing on is the
question of “What can Canadians do now?”
After all, it is income taken from working families which has
led to the fiscal dividend. Canadians have caught on. No longer
will we stand by and let unfairness happen. We demand that the
government act responsibly with our money. Let us make the
decisions on how to spend our money.
The projected fiscal dividend is an opportunity for government
to redefine itself, its size and its role to the Canadian people.
Canadians have earned the right to spend their own money. They
have endured long enough. They have sacrificed to help eliminate
the deficit. They have earned the right to spend their own
money.
Any tax increase is wrong. Taxes must be cut. Again and again
we hear the cry from working families and small businesses.
Recent increases in CPP premiums were not offset by substantial
reductions in other areas.
In Ontario, our provincial government has kept its promise.
Personal income taxes have been cut and government revenues have
grown substantially. In the last eight months Ontario has
created 216,000 jobs in the private sector, which is roughly 70%
of all the jobs which have been created in the country. Clearly
there is a lesson to be learned here: high taxes cost jobs.
The federal government cut the CHST payments to the provinces by
$6.8 billion in the mid-nineties. The message we have heard from
provincial finance ministers and the public is clear. Extra
dollars must be transferred back to the provinces so they can
restore health, education and social programs.
1110
The suffering has gone on long enough. These transfer cuts
meant hospital lineups in the emergency rooms, hospital closings,
lack of resources in schools, inadequate home care for the
elderly and the mentally ill face closed community homes.
We are losing our future to the United States. Every day
Canadian talent is drained to our southern neighbours, all
because of high taxation levels and a lack of employment
prospects in Canada. We are not willing to sit idle on this. In
Canada we face a chronic unemployment problem at 9% unemployment
compared to 4.5% in the U.S. This is totally unacceptable.
We know that taxes are also lower in the U.S. Employment
opportunities in the U.S. are attracting our people south because
of the jobs that they are creating. That is what it is all
about. Canadians want to work. Young people want to put their
skills and education to use. If this government does not
facilitate the setting for job creation now, our talents will
continue to turn elsewhere.
Just how do we expect to be competitive with the U.S. when our
tax rates are so much higher? Think about it. In the U.S. if
you make over $250,000, the tax rate is 36%. In Canada, if you
only make $55,000 to $60,000 or over that, you are quickly at the
top level of 54%. It does not take a rocket scientist to see
where you would get the most money for your salary.
I have a real problem with this government overtaxing Canadians
for the purpose of claiming a so-called fiscal dividend. I think
it is important to note that the fiscal dividend is by no means a
forgone conclusion. If we did not have the $7 billion surplus in
the employment insurance fund, the arrival of the dividend would
be much later claimed by the Minister of Finance.
Let's get one thing straight. The Minister has factored the EI
surplus into the fiscal dividend, a purpose for which EI
contributions were never intended. In my opinion, this is
totally unethical. We urgently need an amendment to the
Employment Insurance Act to outlaw this kind of misuse of the EI
surplus.
Just recently this government took $2.5 billion from the
employee pension fund to service the deficit. This practice must
stop. We must stop the government from continuing to treat this
fund as a cash cow. Recently we privatized the CPP fund. Why
not consider creating a separate fund for employee pension fund
moneys?
We know Canadians want to reduce the debt, yet this government
is planning to spend without a clear agenda. A return to
uncontrolled spending is another fundamental problem and counter
to Canadian culture. The failure to deliver on fiscal reductions
promised in the past is becoming a recurring theme of this
government. The spending reductions that the government promised
in 1995 for the current fiscal year missed the target by roughly
43%, or $5 billion. The government's much vaunted program review
exercise lost its effectiveness. It seems to have not followed
through with this plan and lost sight of the long term gains this
initiative holds.
There are risks that can derail this government from achieving a
surplus. They include uncontrolled government spending, failure
to deliver on fiscal reduction promises in the past and the
dependence of recovering on low interest rates and a low dollar.
These are the items that demand immediate attention. Ignorance of
these issues will only set our economy back further.
With respect to this upcoming surplus, we have an immediate need
for a balanced budget legislation. Committing to balanced budget
legislation not only proves to Canadians that this government is
serious about its role, but fosters growth in investment for the
future. Clear and defined debt reduction targets and debt
reduction legislation must be put in place. This would prove that
this government is serious about its commitments to reduce the
size of the debt.
The government's 50-50 formula is so loose it is almost
meaningless, especially if it starts spending it and never has a
dividend to split 50-50.
This government must stop acting paternalistically. Canadians
have earned the right to choose. The Progressive Conservative
Party comes at this debate differently. Our view is simple and
effective. Lower taxes means lower government spending. Lower
government spending means greater freedom for people to solve
problems in the manner they see fit. This means working families
are taking responsibility for their spending, their savings,
their investments in the future. Informed, autonomous,
independent Canadians foster a responsible society. We know what
we would do.
This government has to create an environment so that jobs can be
created for Canadians, lower their personal taxes and allow our
talent to be competitive with the U.S. The government has
refused to establish clear and measurable targets for debt
reduction and debt-to-GDP ratio.
1115
This is a weak kneed and short sighted response that ignores the
calls the committee heard for urgent action on the debt. It also
flies directly in the face of public opinion.
Recently the Angus Reid poll found that 84% of Canadians want
the federal government to focus on reducing the accumulated debt
and high taxes. We believe that one-third of the surplus should
be devoted to debt reduction and that action to reduce the debt
should start now. The government must reduce our debt to GDP
ratio to 60% by the end of this mandate and to 50% by the year
2005.
Taxation levels in Canada remain too high. They penalize
initiative. They depress investment that creates jobs. They
force investment elsewhere. They encourage highly skilled
entrepreneurial Canadians to seek their futures in more
hospitable countries.
Despite the many calls for tax cuts heard by the committee, it
is clear the government has no intention of responding to this
need in the near future. We believe that tax cuts cannot wait
until later in the government's current mandate. The next
federal budget must send a clear signal that one-third of the
fiscal dividend will be used to reduce the tax burden on
Canadians.
The role of government must change. Before any decisions are
made about the fiscal dividend, the federal government needs to
answer some questions that are much more fundamental. What
things should the federal government not be doing any longer?
What things should the federal government be doing completely
differently? What things should the federal government be doing
that it is not doing now?
The severity of these issues will not go away. The government
has not proven itself in its pre-budget document. We will
continue to push for lower taxes, balanced budget legislation and
debt reduction targets to be included in the February budget and
see if we can get it right then.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am absolutely astounded to hear a Conservative accuse
the government of failing to deliver on its promises.
I had the experience, which the member did not, of sitting
through five Conservative budgets. They had to cut this and they
had to cut that so they could reduce the deficit. I saw a
Conservative government consistently increase the deficit and
fail to deliver on a single one of the promises it made.
On the other hand I have sat through four Liberal budgets. I
have seen them not only deliver but overdeliver on their promise
to cut the deficit and in less than five years reach a balanced
budget.
I heard the member talk about employment insurance premiums. He
may not be aware of it, but he represents a party that increased
employment insurance premiums consistently when it was in power
because it failed to provide for a time when unemployment would
rise, as it did to over 11% under a Conservative government. How
dare he criticize a government that has consistently reduced
employment insurance premiums and reduced the burden on both
workers and employers.
Before the member comes into the House as a representative of
the Conservative Party, perhaps he might want to check the
history of his own party and of his own leader on the issues
about which he talks. I suggest he might want to deal in his
speech honestly with how the government has delivered on its
commitments to Canadians on deficit reduction, on reducing EI
premiums and on reaching a balanced budget. It is well ahead of
target and is putting the economy on a sound footing which it has
not been on.
He talked about reducing taxes. Is the member aware that when
the party he represents was in government it was responsible for
increasing taxes over 33 times? One of them was the 3% surtax on
income, which I note the finance committee is suggesting we
should be reducing and getting rid of eventually.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I recall the Liberal
government in the 1993 election campaign promised to rip up the
free trade agreement and to eliminate the GST.
Two of those items are probably the fundamental reasons the
country is doing so well. Tax revenues increased substantially
over the last four years. Most of that is because growth has
come from free trade and not from growth within the economy.
1120
Back in the late eighties there was a worldwide recession and
high interest rates. It was not just applicable to Canada. It
was applicable to a lot of the countries around the world. Many
governments, organizations and corporations have now cleaned up
their act. They realize they cannot spend more money than they
have. That is why we are seeing the growth we are seeing now.
It has nothing to do necessarily with some of the cuts that have
been made. I commend the government for being the first
government in 27 years to balance the budget. That is a novel
idea. Now we must focus our attention on the debt. We must also
focus our attention on getting Canadians back to work.
We must recognize that the neighbour to the south of us is a
great opportunity for us. We have to get our country more in
line with the neighbour to the south of us if we want to create
the jobs and be competitive. Some 80 per cent of all our trade
is going to the neighbour to the south.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for
Markham. I agreed with most of what he said, particularly when
he used the analogy of the deficit being only the tip of the
iceberg and the debt being the submerged portion that could very
well sink the country in the event of an economic downturn. He
also said that it was incumbent upon government to address the
very important issue presented by the debt.
How could the member justify what he says when the Conservative
government was in power for nine years and increased the national
debt $300 billion in that time period, which constitutes half the
total national debt that we face?
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I was not part of what
happened then. There were certain circumstances going on, not
only in the country but around the world at that point in time.
The culture quite frankly was not there. We were not the only
government in the world that was spending more than it took in.
It was characteristic of a lot of the governments around the
world.
Somehow some type of cultural shock happened in the late
eighties or early nineties when people and governments started to
wake up and say “We cannot continually spend more money than we
have taken in”.
Many of the things that happened in the 1984 to 1993 timeframe
set the pins in place to get the fiscal dividends or rewards we
are getting today. I remember the opposition at the time, which
is now the government, was totally opposed to free trade,
figuring that it would destroy Canada. It has been the greatest
bonanza or dividend the country has ever received.
Our future will be in free trade. Whatever happened in the past
will never happen again. We have to put in place balanced budget
legislation and firm debt reduction legislation to make sure that
governments manage the economy and the assets given to them by
the people and not just dole out money and create programs.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not buy the argument that was the mentality or the
culture of the time and they had to go along with it.
1125
Do not we as leaders have a responsibility to be on top of the
issues, to inform ourselves properly of the consequences of our
decisions in this place and to therefore lead the country in that
way?
If the people of the country had been properly informed by their
leadership as to the consequences of running into debt and having
to pay huge interest to support the debt, they would have gone
along with any cost cutting measures the government would have
wanted to put in place. I have a strong faith in the common
sense of the common people. If they had been informed, they
would have agreed with the government that we cannot overspend.
I have consulted with my constituents. They are opposed to many
government programs that we continue to support even today: all
the grants and tax concessions to special interest groups and
corporations and all the money that is wasted on setting up a
huge bureaucracy, for example in the Indian affairs department
which does not benefit the aboriginal people on the reserves.
When we tell Canadians about that they support any initiative to
limit them.
I do not buy the whole argument that it was the mentality of the
times. We have a responsibility and we should not abrogate that
responsibility.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, between 1974 and 1984 the
debt was multiplied by 10 by the governments that were in power
during that time. Between 1984 and 1993 the debt was multiplied
by two. We inherited high interest rates and the debt. We also
inherited budgets that were being constructed that were not even
covering the programs.
Shortly into the programs the cuts were made. The governments
covered their programs and started eating into the debt or the
servicing cost of the deficit. They recognized this and put in
other things to create growth in the economy such as the free
trade agreement and the GST. They removed the manufacturers
sales tax and brought in the GST, one tax that allowed us to be
competitive from a free trade standpoint. Goods now leaving the
country no longer have the 14% additional tax on them and because
of the low dollar we are seeing benefits today.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa
West—Nepean.
I am very grateful to have the opportunity to make some
suggestions with respect to the upcoming budget. Before I do so,
I would like to make a couple of comments on the speech by the
member for Calgary Southwest, the Leader of the Opposition. He
made these remarks yesterday.
After he spoke another Reform member rose in the House on a
point of order and complained that only two Liberal members on
this side were listening to the speech of the member for Calgary
Southwest. I was one of those members.
I have to spring to the defence of my colleagues. I listened
throughout the 40 minute speech which dealt with a single point,
the proposal to bring forward a child care tax credit in the next
budget. I have to say that many of us on this side support that
kind of initiative, most especially the member for Mississauga
South who has championed the initiative for a very long time.
The problem was that the member for Calgary Southwest in
developing this point read at great length letters from
constituents. If we look in yesterday's Hansard we will
see column after column, four letters actually, of closely packed
type which was read by the Leader of the Opposition.
It is very difficult—and I was a captive audience—to watch
someone read text. It is very difficult to maintain one's
attention level when someone is constantly reading, is not making
eye contact and is only developing a single point with a single
illustration. Perhaps the other members were justified in their
attention wandering, but because I was part of the debate I paid
rapt attention.
1130
For something like a prebudget debate, our responsibility as MPs
is to bring real suggestions to the table. While the Leader of
the Opposition did bring one suggestion, I would like to bring
several suggestions in the time that I have.
I have been very concerned over the years with charities and
non-profit organizations. There is a tremendous oversight by
government of this type of organization which accounts for
approximately $100 billion in revenues every year. I am afraid
that a lot of the taxpayer money which goes into these
organizations either from government or individual donors is not
actually reaching people in need. I have commented at some
length on this before.
Recently I submitted a second report to the Standing Committee
on Finance. I suggested ways in which the government could bring
in legislation that would address some of the problems of
accountability and transparency in not for profit organizations
and charities. I will run very quickly through these
suggestions. If anyone wants to read them in depth, copies of
the report are available in my office. I will make three points.
It is very important that government move as soon as possible to
define what charities are in law. As the situation now exists,
we rely on an Elizabethan statute of 1601 to define charities. It
would be very helpful if we modernized the definition in law and
consulted with Canadians.
Charities include this broad, sweeping collection of
organizations that are constantly badgering the public for
projects which sometimes have very little to do with human
suffering, the problems of the poor and those in need. At the
very least, legislation would be written which would narrow the
definition of charities to those helping people in need, rather
than organizations which may be engaged in the arts, preserving
the environment, et cetera. Charities should have a real human
component and should deal with human suffering. I would like to
see that change.
Right now our concept of a non-profit organization, unlike a
charity, is simply an organization which can issue tax receipts,
but does not pay taxes. There are about 30,000 of these
organizations and the tax deferral is in the many billions of
dollars. These organizations encompass a broad range of purposes
and are defined as whatever charity is not, as non-profit
organizations. This is a tremendous problem because these
organizations have no accountability to the community. Revenue
Canada does not even keep track of their financial statistics.
The second thing I would propose is that government revisit the
Canada Corporations Act and set rules and standards in
legislation for non-profit organizations. It is possible to be a
federally incorporated non-profit organization and not have to
produce a financial statement other than for its members. There
could possibly be only two members of a non-profit organization.
Non-profit organizations do not have to send financial
statements to Revenue Canada. There are absolutely no checks and
balances. The government does not oversee non-profit
organizations, which embrace organizations such as the Canadian
Automobile Association, the Better Business Bureau and various
industry and manufacturer associations. This is deplorable
because when there is no oversight by government, there is no
oversight by ordinary people. Unfortunately this can lead to all
kinds of problems.
To point out one very briefly, in the past year since my first
report on charities was released, many people have written to me.
One point that has been drawn to my attention is the fact that
charities and other types of non-profit organizations do not have
to seek tenders to buy goods and services.
When the government buys goods and services from the community
it always tries to do it by tender or by some form of open
bidding process. When we download responsibilities to charitable
or non-profit organizations and they do not have a similar
responsibility to contract out or to seek tenders, we run a
terrible risk that there will be abuse of the system.
It is especially bad with non-profit organizations where there is
actually no coherent or meaningful reporting to the public at
large.
1135
That is the second point. Revisit the Canada Corporations Act.
Write legislation for non-profit organizations that makes them
transparent and accountable at least in the same measure as
for-profit organizations.
The last change in legislation I would like to see would save a
lot of money and bring a lot of discipline to charities and
non-profit organizations. That would be to change the Access to
Information Act and the Income Tax Act so that when charities and
non-profit organizations are audited by Revenue Canada, those
audits are public.
Right now when Revenue Canada audits a charity, the audits
remain secret. The difficulty is that an organization can be
audited and all kinds of things that are very wrong can be found.
That organization is slapped on the wrist and if there is no
public disclosure, it can carry on doing exactly the same thing
as it had been doing hitherto.
One of the greatest disciplines for any organization whether it
is government, quasi-government or business, is the exposure to
the public view of mismanagement. When an audit comes along, if
the audit finds mismanagement and it is exposed, then all those
other organizations will step back and think very carefully about
their management practices.
It is not a matter of auditing every organization. It is a
matter that every organization ought to fear a public audit. If
the organizations conduct themselves properly and manage their
affairs well, they have nothing to fear.
It would be a major, positive step for the government to
consider this as an option when the finance minister examines the
budget.
Those are my three suggestions. They are very important because
the non-profit and charitable sector accounts for about $100
billion in revenue. It is an enormous sector. A lot of
charities are doing very good work but the sad thing is that
because there is such little government oversight and there are
so few standards written in law, we cannot tell the good
charities from the bad charities.
I think the majority are good charities and at this time of year
we need to support them. So when we talk accountability and
transparency, indeed what we are talking about is helping those
charities help the people who are really in need.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, the member raises some very interesting concerns with
respect to the non-profit and charitable sector and how those
organizations are treated in this country.
It seems to me that those concerns are of such a serious nature
and I know the member has been an outspoken advocate on this
issue. I wonder whether the member can indicate what progress the
government has made in the four years it has held office with
respect to these matters.
Could I also ask the hon. member to comment on the fact that
hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of dollars are going
untaxed because of the tax system.
Would the member not be better served if, rather than going
after charities and the concerns with respect to that sector, the
government went after the major loopholes in the Income Tax Act
that allow families to move billions of dollars offshore without
paying their fair share of taxes?
Can the member comment on whether he believes the loopholes in
the Income Tax Act that allow tens of thousands of profitable
corporations to not pay any taxes at all is fair to the poor,
working people in the riding of York South—Weston who every week
have to write a cheque to Revenue Canada? These are people who
can barely meet the mortgage or the rent payment. They can
barely put food on the table.
Can he comment on the fairness and indicate why his government
has not made it a priority to close those massive loopholes in
the Income Tax Act?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the government has moved on
some of the concerns I have raised with respect to charities.
Revenue Canada revised the T-3010 financial reporting statement
that charities are required to fill out every year. It is much
more stringent, more elaborate and less ambiguous.
1140
In the last budget the government closed a major loophole in the
charity system. Corporations were giving money to charities and
borrowing it back. This major abuse was covered in the last
budget.
In the last budget about $35 million more was allocated to the
charity division of Revenue Canada and more people were hired to
do audits and that kind of thing. Revenue Canada took very
positive steps.
The problem with charities and non-profit organizations is so
huge because of the lack of legislation. There is a limit to
what can be done by regulation. The difficulty is in not having
adequate laws and this exists particularly for non-profit
organizations. There are guidelines set for them by Revenue
Canada through the corporations directorate but it is unfortunate
that without legislation those guidelines can be ignored. People
cannot be sent to jail. They cannot be penalized because there
is no law to that effect. I stress that the next major step must
be legislation and I hope the government is listening.
To take up the member's second point with respect to closing tax
loopholes, again that centres very much on non-profit
organizations and charities. There is a lot of abuse with
respect to the way money is put into charities and non-profit
organizations as a method of tax avoidance and sometimes actual
money laundering.
I hate to say it but the oversight is so loose and real problems
have come to my attention. I will not bring them to the House
now because I do not think it is suitable. I have raised these
issues with Revenue Canada and it is investigating individual
organizations. I do not think we should talk about that in an
open session.
People have used some charities to produce their own perks. This
is a major abuse and it is often done by the affluent. It
deprives people in need and worthy of assistance and it deprives
the very good charities of the type of support they need from the
community.
The government would be on the right track to look into this
area, in particular non-profit organizations. If you have not
looked in a corner, you will find a lot of dust when you do.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to
comment in this prebudget debate. It is an extension of one of
the innovations of our government that I am most proud of, that
of holding prebudget consultations. Hearings are held across the
country to hear from ordinary Canadians, organizations, interest
groups and business associations as to what Canadians feel should
be in the next federal budget. As the House knows, the finance
committee tabled its report on those consultations very recently.
We recognize that Canadians from all walks of life at all levels
have made a major contribution to the fiscal success of this
government over the last four and a half years. They have
endured some significant sacrifices in the quality of their
health care, in access to post-secondary education, in social
services.
In a number of areas Canadians have very much been partners with
government in achieving what by next year's budget will be a
balanced budget for the first time in nearly three decades. It is
important that we listen to what Canadians are saying now about
the future for this country and the path for this government.
Health care is a major concern of my constituents. They see the
stress on the health care system.
They are very much supportive of the idea of assisting people
with their pharmaceutical needs because that is often a good
substitute for hospital care or replacement for hospital care. As
we have an increasingly aging population, but a population that
is also able to stay in its own homes, in its communities, they
are very much aware of the need for a home care program. I
encourage the government to proceed with both those initiatives.
1145
One of the prime concerns of my constituents is the needs of our
children and our young people. I would like to talk about that
for a few minutes.
I certainly want to encourage the government to proceed as well
with its national child program. It is important that we set up
ways of finding out how effective are the measures that we are
taking. We have numerous programs in government. We do not
often enough stop and ask and put in place the tools for finding
out whether they are achieving the objectives we hope they are
achieving.
More and more young children in Canada are living in poverty. It
is not an acceptable situation for one of the wealthiest
countries in the world. As we start down a program to work away
at the number of young children who do not have enough to eat,
who do not have adequate housing, who are therefore disadvantaged
when it comes to becoming properly educated, children who live in
abusive situations, I think it is very important that we ensure
on an ongoing basis that what we are doing is achieving the
results we want and that we are able to shift course and shift
those resources to things that will work if what we have started
is not working.
Let me talk a little about youth as well. Many children who
start life in poverty become a risk at youth because they have
not had the basic advantages that most of us take for granted.
We certainly have as an objective that every Canadian child
enjoys the right to be well fed, well housed, well cared for and
well educated wherever we live in this great country. These
become the youth who have an extremely difficult time finding and
keeping employment and ever being responsible for themselves in
life. I think the continuation and the strengthening of the
youth employment strategy is vital to this country.
My own experience in holding a youth employment info fair in my
riding just a few weeks ago was that young people and their
parents and their friends are telling me they do not know enough
about the programs that are out there. But I am also seeing
cracks in the system, cracks for those very young people at risk
who most need the help of our society.
I encourage the government, as the finance committee has done in
its report, to give more attention to those community based
programs that can work with young people and their families to
overcome some of the disadvantages many of them have had earlier
in life and to set them on a path in life that is going to be
productive for them and for our communities.
I talked about poor children. The fact is in the vast majority
of cases, well over 90%, children are poor because their mothers
are poor. I urge the Minister of Finance, as he prepares to
finalize his budget and present it to this House early in the new
year, to take into consideration the different implications for
women than for men of different measures he might take in that
budget.
There is no question that in Canada, as in every country around
the world, women continue to be economically disadvantaged. As
long as that is the case, women will continue to be socially and
politically disadvantaged.
Yesterday the minister for the status of women was asked in the
House how good a job she is doing and how much co-operation she
is getting from the Minister of Finance to be coached on how to
do gender equity analysis of the budget.
1150
I urge the Minister of Finance to look very carefully at that
issue and to consider when he tables his budget outlining for
Parliament how it affects women and many millions of children in
this country differently than it affects men.
For example, the finance committee has recommended that we
increase the limits for RRSP contributions. One of our problems
in terms of equity is the major disparity in retirement between
men and women. Most of the people in Canada who benefit from
RRSP contributions are men. I ask the Minister of Finance to
consider whether by increasing the RRSP levels he is contributing
to reducing economic disparity or contributing to increasing it.
I also urge him to look at tax bracket creep. Because tax
brackets have not been indexed for some time now, more and more
people at the low income end of the scale who did not have to pay
income tax before are finding that they now have to pay it.
Again this is an issue of equity. The majority of Canadians at
the low income end of the scale are women. That has a direct
impact on the children those women are raising. It has a direct
impact on how those women provide for their children.
How well the economy does and how well Canadians do will
continue to depend on the strength of the economy in various
areas.
I want to speak about the high technology sector. This sector is
extremely important to the national capital region, of which I
represent a portion. This sector is also extremely important to
the economic growth of the entire country.
I urge the minister to look very carefully at the need for a
national human resources strategy to ensure that we continue to
be one of the top performing countries in the world in
information and telecommunications technology, rather than losing
our place and losing up to 600,000 potential jobs in the next 10
to 15 years. There should be continuing support for the
transition of research to actual technology and products in that
sector. I urge the government to put in place much better means
of measuring data in the industry, its performance in the
international market and its human resources needs. That will
enable the sector to continue to thrive in the economy and
continue to provide good paying jobs for many Canadians in the
years to come.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member spoke about young people and the difficulties they
are having living on the poverty line.
There are three young families in my riding, two with two kids
and the third with one. These individuals earn $10 to $12 an
hour. The only jobs available to them pay that wage. These three
families have reported to me that they have been evicted from
their homes. One family was trying to buy the home and the other
two were renting. They were evicted because they simply could
not make the payments.
A couple of the families managed to move in with their parents,
which they are very dismayed about. I am not too sure what the
other family did.
I believe that if we checked with every MP we would find that
this type of story is not unique to my riding. It is happening
all across the land. These young people are struggling.
1155
Please do not get into this rhetoric about the Reform says we
cannot cut taxes until we balance the books. No, we cannot have
overall tax reduction until we balance the books, there is no
doubt about that. But we can do things that will meet the needs
of these people by saying they will not pay any more income tax
because the $2,000 or $3,000 extra would have saved these homes
for these young people.
In one case they cannot even afford a car. They are using
bicycles. They cannot afford to buy gas, insurance, licence
plates and all that. There is just too much they cannot do.
That is at $10 to $12 an hour jobs. Mothers with young children
choose to be home with the children because it becomes expensive
to have them looked after if they wanted to take on a job.
Instead of spending $25 million for a flag program, that $25
million could do wonders for a lot of young families. Instead of
spending $116,000 for a committee on seniors and sexuality,
$116,000 would help a lot of young families. I am a senior and I
should appreciate that, but I do not appreciate it at all. Why
can this government not look at the dollars wasted in some areas?
Maybe calling it a waste is not fair, but spending on things
that we could do without when we could give these families an
instant break on their taxes. Please stay away from that
rhetoric that we cannot do it until we balance the books. That is
not what I am talking about.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, initially I was going
to compliment the member because I think he knows that, having
observed me in the House for sometime, I do not normally indulge
in rhetoric unless it is in response to rhetoric. He was
avoiding that very nicely until his last few comments. Now he
has tempted me to indulge in rhetoric.
The member has touched on things which I touched on my speech.
It is extremely important that we look at those income tax
brackets which are now putting many people, both young and older,
into taxable situations who had not previously been because of
their low incomes. That is extremely important. Our child tax
credit program is extremely important. I will also defend the
flag program because if this country does not stay united we are
all going to suffer economically in such a dramatic way. We can
argue whether something like the flag program helps national
unity. I believe it does.
There are a number of things which I referred to in my speech
which our government has done, is doing, or which I encourage be
done which will help those young people. We all know of families
where young people are having to move back into their homes.
Parents who thought they were grandparents are becoming parents
all over again. I know it is placing a lot of burden not only on
the young people who want to be independent but on the older
parents.
I hope I addressed some of those issues in my speech. Many of
the things our government is doing will help that. There is more
to be done as well.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary
Southeast.
I rise on behalf of the people from Okanagan—Coquihalla on this
prebudget debate to express their concern over the tax and spend
mentality of the Liberal government. When back in my riding I
talk to my constituents, I communicate with my constituents and
we do that through a variety of means. We hold town hall
meetings. We publish weekly editorials in the newspapers. We
ask for feedback. We get that feedback.
One of the messages that most often comes to me from my
constituents, the message I try to relay in the House, is again
and again people are saying the spending priorities of the
government are out of whack with the rest of the country. That is
evident in a recent public opinion poll that showed Canadians do
not trust the government in the way it spends their tax dollars.
Canadians want a government that is going to look after the
budget in a responsible and reasonable fashion.
1200
They want balanced books. They want lower taxes so that we can
create jobs in this country. With regard to the massive debt
that has been built up, over $600 billion by Liberals and Tories
for years now, they want to make sure that we start paying off
that mortgage and look after that debt problem.
The reason is if we can tackle that debt problem and get taxes
down, we can lay the course and the groundwork for a strong
future for the country, for our children and our grandchildren.
What I would like to do today with my time is talk a bit about
the priorities that I mentioned earlier and a few of the
programs. I am not going to say that this money should not be
spent, but I am going to point out some areas where the
government spends money and it seems to be out of sync with the
rest of the country on how it would like to see that money spent.
For instance, I am going to talk now about the $26.4 million
spent on a parole system in this country, a system that has
proven to fail time and time again. I will give a specific
example to the House and Canadians.
In my riding on September 7 there was a double murder, the
murder of Cecilia and Tammy Grono. They were murdered by a
person by the name of Kevin Machell who was on day parole in
Calgary. The rules of Corrections Canada state very clearly that
a person who is tardy or does not show up at his halfway house
should be reported within 10 minutes to one hour.
This is a shocking case because it took 24 hours for any
authorities to notify anybody of the non-appearance of Kevin
Machell. In that 24 hour period he travelled to Summerland, my
home town, and murdered Cecilia and Tammy Grono while Tammy's two
and four year old children sat and watched in horror. It is a
terrible case. Kevin Machell three months later is still on the
loose in this country. Maybe he is not in this country any
longer. We do not know but he is still on the loose. Those two
preschool children will be spending their Christmas under police
protection.
Where did the $26.4 million go to protect the Grono family in
this country and all the other families who have lived under this
type of system? It is horrendous that this could happen. It has
been traumatic for the family, it has been traumatic for the
people in my riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla.
The problem is not the $26.4 million. If we had a system that
worked, I would say spend $30 million or $40 million. What is
happening is that this is a system that is so bent on trying to
rehabilitate the criminal, it does not look at the real fact of
what a parole system is for. It is to protect law-abiding
citizens in this country. The safety of Canadians is being
ignored. That has to change.
I would also like to talk about another circumstance in my
riding with the department of Indian affairs. We spend some $4
billion on the department of Indian affairs. With that money the
government is responsible for certain objectives and
responsibilities. Yet one of the responsibilities this
government does not have is to provide assistance for individuals
who are renting property on an Indian reserve.
I was shocked to find that in my riding there is a mobile home
park situated on an Indian reserve. Two months ago the people
living there received their eviction notices. They were told to
move out just before Christmas. They are low income families.
The $4 billion we spend on the department of Indian affairs does
not protect them because there is no law in this land that says
there is a level playing field for people who rent property on an
Indian reserve.
If persons rent property let us say on an ordinary piece of land
owned by a private citizen, they fall under the provincial
rentals act but not if they rent property on an Indian reserve.
What has this government done to change that? It has done
nothing, not a thing. The $4 billion did not help those people
who live at Driftwood Mobile Home Park nor the other three mobile
home parks where people are going to be evicted in the dead of
winter.
1205
Why has the government not taken up the initiative to make sure
that there is a rental act federally for people who rent land on
Indian reserves? There is no excuse for this. I will make sure,
as a private member, that in the new year I will introduce such
legislation in this House.
My time is short and there are a number of things we could talk
about today prior to Christmas about how the government spends
its money and the misguided way it does it. I have come to know
many of the Liberal members across the way, the NDP members and
Conservative members, all of the people in the House. They come
here with good ideas and are good people in many respects.
However, what the federal Liberals are doing is inexcusable to
the Canadian people. Time and time again public opinion polls
show that Canadians do not trust this government and will not
trust this government. I am not saying that the federal Liberals
are stupid or bad people. They are just wrong in what they do
with our hard earned tax money.
I will point out one more example which is the need for search
and rescue helicopters. This is a debate that has been going on
for close to six years when we take in the time that the
Conservatives spent on it as well. However, here we have a
federal Liberal government that is not concerned about the safety
of Canadians when it comes to search and rescue from coast to
coast. No, it is busy in the back rooms with its public
relations folks sucking back cappuccinos and trying to figure out
how it is going to explain the helicopter that it is going to
buy.
Well, that is unacceptable. It was unacceptable last year in
the pre-budget debate and it is unacceptable today. Our military
needs the equipment when the government sends them out to do a
job. I was in the military and they are good people. They do the
best with what they have. However, a government is irresponsible
when it does not give them the tools they need.
Just a couple of weeks ago we saw another example. A young man
who went to Croatia in service of the country for peacekeeping
was not given a helmet. It is outrageous that he was not given a
helmet. His armoured patrol vehicle, which is not armoured at
all, rolled down a hill and landed on top of him. He now has
brain damage. We sent these people on peacekeeping missions
without the proper equipment. That is inexcusable by this
government.
I can see it is time now to wrap up very quickly and I will wrap
up. However, I do want to say, for goodness sake, the Canadian
public is sick and tired of the extreme uncaring positions that
the government takes. It is time for a balanced and reasonable
approach when it comes to the things that Canadians need and
want. When it comes to social programs, criminal justice, the
military or any department, make a choice, but let us start
spending our money properly.
Canadians can laugh about it or cry about it, but for goodness
sake let us not ignore the problem. Let us move into the 21st
century on a reasonable footing for the future of Canadians.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
sit here perplexed. This is the beginning of my second term in
the House and in the last four years since I have been part of
this House, I have often wondered why it is that members on this
side of the House come up with those heart-wrenching,
gut-wrenching examples like the Machell case or, as the member
for Wild Rose talked about earlier, three young families who
could not pay the bills.
Why is it that we never hear anything like that from the other
side? Everything we hear from the other side is that everything
is fine, everything is great, don't worry, be happy. It is
really confusing when we hear those kinds of things.
My colleague used some examples. I would like to give another
example about spending priorities. This is something my
colleague talked about, the parole system, and obviously an area
that I am working in.
I want to ask the member a simple question. Would it not be
better if we took that $100 million, $200 million or $300 million
that it is going to cost taxpayers for gun registration and put
it into real, meaningful programs such as expanding police
forces? I worked for the city of Saskatoon police and they have
had to shut down their community police station, cut back because
they cannot pay the bills. Would we not be better to target
those dollars to areas where they could do far more good?
1210
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question.
I think it is an important one about misguided funds. All of us
in the House are concerned about the criminal justice system in
this country. For goodness sake, we have had handgun control for
many, many years and it has not prevented murders in this
country.
When we are talking about rehabilitation and early detection
programs, I think the Canadian public would honestly believe that
instead of taxing duck hunters and law abiding citizens of the
country, because that is who the government is going after with
its gun registration, why not direct that money toward a criminal
justice system that works. That is what we should do. That is
what the Canadian public is clearly telling us as legislators to
do.
My friend also raised the issue of the Machell case, the
horrendous story of a person who was on day parole who committed
a double homicide in my riding. I do not think I mentioned it in
my remarks, but because of the lack of action by this government
on the parole system in this country, I introduced a private
member's motion dealing specifically with ensuring that there is
a zero tolerance policy for those people who are tardy, who do
not show up or report while on parole. Zero tolerance means that
if they are not at their halfway house at the assigned time,
there would be a Canada-wide warrant put out immediately for
them.
I feel that there is a reluctance on the part of the government
and the House to accept such a policy. When we put the facts
together about the two Grono family members who were murdered in
cold blood by a person who was on parole, the government said:
“No, we think our parole system should be geared toward the
likes of Kevin Machell. ” It favours Kevin Machell over the
Gronos. Now, that is wrong. It is just plain wrong.
If the government is to give the benefit of the doubt in any
parole case, give it to the victims and the law-abiding citizens
of Canada. Why does the government insist on giving the benefit
of the doubt to the criminals, the Kevin Machells of Canada who
murder and rape citizens of this country. It does not make
sense.
For goodness sake, Liberal government, get your priorities
straight.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to debate the prebudget motion with respect
to the report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
I have had experience with the committee since I sit on it as an
associate member and I have attended many of its hearings. I
appeared before it in my former capacity as a taxpayer advocate.
I know the kinds of people who generally appear before the
finance committee tend to be special interest pleaders, people
with a particular focus or point to make to the government and
legislators. These people are all well intentioned, as are all
members of the legislature.
However, it strikes me that all too often the people who appear
before the finance committee in its prebudget hearings do not
speak about the kind of real economic pain that is being felt by
so many Canadians in a very personal and tangible way. Nor is
that pain reflected in any way in the actual report of the
finance committee which speaks about big issues. It talks about
debt, government spending priorities and so forth.
1215
At the end of the day that document and, I would suggest the
fiscal and budgetary policies of the government, do not really
reflect a compassionate view of the priorities of Canadians.
I have stood many times in this place, even though I am in my
first term, to talk about the economic record of this government
and to talk about the unemployment rate, the growth and the debt,
the record high tax levels and referred to all the statistics. I
could do that again but rather than repeat myself I will talk
about some absolutely devastating tragic cases of how the fiscal
priorities of this government and previous governments have led
to so much pain for so many real Canadian families.
For instance, I think of friends of mine, Bernice Lee and her
husband Philip, who are relatively recent immigrants to Canada
from Hong Kong. Bernice and Philip have four young children and
run a small mending and dry cleaning shop in downtown Edmonton in
an apartment building where I used to live.
Bernice arrives at work before 6 a.m. North of Edmonton it is
often dark until 9 a.m. in the winter days and it can get down to
40 below. She does not have a car. She gets there on public
transport, arrives and opens up her shop. By 7 a.m. she is
working away. One can walk by her store at 10 p.m. when the wind
is howling outside in the winter and she is there alone, working
away. Sometimes their children are there late at night, having
come there from school because there is no one at home, because
neither Bernice nor Philip can afford to stay at home.
Her husband Philip works on the side, I think about a $10 an
hour job at a computer plant in Edmonton. He has to work the
graveyard shift to add a little more to the family budget just so
they can get by.
I asked Bernice one day how their business was going. They
bought it the year before. I just noticed that she was working
so terribly hard and had nobody there to help her. I asked her
how it was going and she looked at me with almost tears in her
eyes. I don't think she had really thought about that before.
She said they were barely hanging on and she was so disappointed
because she said they were working so hard but were hardly able
to keep the business going.
The tragedy is this business represents the hopes and dreams and
aspirations of this family in coming to Canada. The Canadian
dream for them was that by making sacrifices, by working hard, by
playing by the rules, they might be able to get ahead and make a
better life for their children, but she said to me that she could
not understand why a family in their circumstances had the kind
of tax burden they had.
She said to me that if it were not for the taxes she had to pay,
not just the small business tax and the income taxes and the
consumption taxes but also the local property taxes and the
provincial taxes, if not for the several thousands of dollars her
very small one person business had to pay, she would be able to
hire somebody to come in and help her, do the hard manual work of
her business. That would allow her, instead of working from 6
a.m. to 9 p.m. and beyond, six days a week, to maybe take a day
off or to go home at a reasonable hour to spend the evening with
her children and her husband. But she does not have that ability
because her business does not have the disposable income.
There is a reason it does not have the disposable income. They
are getting enough business to do that sort of thing, but they
are not able to keep the money they are earning because of the
fiscal priorities of the federal government. This is the human
impact. People like Bernice are working well into the night.
What were formally one income families have become two income
families. Children who 30 years ago used to be able to go home
to a parental home after school are now going home to empty
houses. Why? Both parents are out in the workforce trying to
run their businesses, trying to do their jobs to pay for the tax
bill, to furnish the funds this government thinks are so
absolutely necessary for all the programs and bureaucracy it
operates.
1220
I ask the members opposite one basic philosophical question. I
used to be a Liberal. Liberals love to pride themselves on their
sense of compassion.
Their sense of compassion is to take money away from Bernice
Lee, transfer it through some hugely expensive Ottawa bureaucracy
and spit it out in other things such as over $5 billion in
handouts to major corporations like Bombardier, grants to special
interest groups so they can plead here in Ottawa for more money
to fuel their special interests, and huge programs that create
disincentives to work, to save and to invest in parts of the
country. That is what they take money away from Bernice Lee to
do.
The question I ask in this debate is a very simple question but
a profoundly important one. Do the members of the government
really believe they know better how to spend a dollar that
Bernice Lee earns than she does? Do they believe that what they
would with an extra dollar out of her till will produce a greater
social benefit for her and her family than that dollar left in
her pocketbook?
Do they believe hiring another bureaucrat to administer another
distant program in Ottawa is going to do more for Mrs. Lee than
her ability to hire somebody to come in and help her take care of
her business? Do they believe that another dollar in another
grant program is going to do more for the economy and create jobs
than Mrs. Lee can do in her own business? That is what this
debate is about.
We can talk about the statistics and the numbers, the 9%
unemployment, the 16% youth unemployment, the $100 billion they
have added to the debt and the 73% debt to GDP ratio. We can
talk about all the statistics and numbers we want and the
Liberals are wonderful at doing that. However, when it comes to
people, real people and the lives they are living in this
country, why can we not afford to change our priorities and to
let people like Mrs. Lee keep more of what belongs to them? That
is ultimately what this debate is about.
It is about who the money belongs to. Does it belong to the
government? Does it belong to the Liberal Party of Canada? Does
it belong to politicians and bureaucrats who think they know
better how to spend that money than the Canadians who earn it?
Does it belong to the people who make sacrifices to raise their
families and to leave a better life to their children than they
had themselves?
I just want to say, in this debate as we prepare for the budget
next year, I hope the members of the government will start to
listen to people like Mrs. Lee and will start to put their
priorities where they belong by letting people keep a little more
of their own money. That really would provide the kind of hope
that people like Mrs. Lee need to hang on a little longer to help
their families get by.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do
not know what planet my colleague is living on. In fact, he has
forgotten that in a matter of three years this government has
been able to win the war on the deficit and to balance its books.
We came out of a devastating recession. We came out of a
situation that was beyond control.
Before we decide to take every single penny of surplus and dump
it in across the board tax relief for what he calls Canadians, I
wonder whether he is advocating this tax cut relief be given, for
example, to someone who makes $500,000 or whether it should be
given to somebody who makes $30,000. Is he really advocating
across the board tax relief without having a balanced approach to
say if John Smith or ABC Canada Inc. or whoever is making enough
money, they do not need the tax relief? These are the people who
can make it on their own.
I do not understand how he can stand up without blushing and
call for tax cuts across the board when what this government is
doing is providing incentives, proper programs, proper dividends
and proper assistance for people who need the assistance.
1225
He cannot just say that the government has not done anything to
help people like Mrs. Lee. As a result of this government policy
Mrs. Lee and many others like her across the country have been
able to save. For example, on a house with a $100,000 mortgage
they could save over $3,000 a year. That dividend is a result of
what the government has done. That came as a result of what this
government has done in terms of proper fiscal management of the
nation as a whole.
Sometimes I wonder about that kind of poison coated statement
that comes from some of my colleagues on the other side of the
House when they talk about special interest programs. I believe
it is their objective to eradicate every single grant that is
given to special interest groups. Mrs. Lee, her husband and her
children fall under those special interest groups. These are the
kinds of groups, organizations and individuals who benefit from
what they define as special grants or special interest groups.
They want to eradicate every single grant for every single
special interest group because they probably call women a special
interest group. They call organizations for the disabled special
interest groups. They call groups that are multicultural
organizations special interest groups and they paint everybody
with the same brush and they want to cut grants all across the
board.
My colleague should stand up within the next 30 seconds or so
and congratulate the government on the excellent job it has done
in trying to strike a balance between controlling the deficit,
reducing the debt and ensuring that Canadians get the net
dividend out of its proper fiscal responsibility. Would he stand
up and congratulate the government right now?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I will not congratulate
the government for perpetuating 15 years of shrinking disposable
after tax income for the average family. This member talks about
lower interest rates. That has not been felt by people even when
the member includes the reduction in interest rates. People are
coming home with less today than they did 15 years ago, in real
terms after tax, because of the tax burden.
Talk about tax fairness, this member is from a shameless party.
I remember the prime minister held a confederation dinner with
2,300 people at $500 a plate. He talked about the Reform Party
fat cats to people who paid $500 a plate. The same government
that talks about fat cats also taxes 7.7 million Canadians who
earn under $30,000. It collects over $11 billion from them and
takes on average $1,500 per taxpayer just within the income tax
system.
People like Mrs. Lee are not feeling anything but the economic
pain of 30 years of bigger government. I guess that member just
counted himself on the side of those who think they know how to
spend that money better than she does.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter into the prebudget debate in the
House. I was very happy to have a town hall meeting in my riding
of Durham which many of my constituents attended.
Reform members talked about their desire to consult their
constituents. It is interesting to look at the back of this
report. It talks about the members who actually submitted
reports from their constituents to the finance committee. The
list includes many of my own colleagues, many of the opposition
party colleagues but not a single name of a Reform Party member.
That is unfortunate because this was a great opportunity for
Reform Party members to do what they are always saying in the
House that they do, that they represent their constituents, that
they want the views of their constituents heard in Ottawa.
I am happy to say that the people of Durham had a direct voice
here.
We had a very good and open discussion. Almost 70 people
attended. They gave me their ideas on what should be done if
there is a fiscal dividend. I was very happy to participate.
1230
I have one slight criticism of the finance committee report. One
of the recommendations is to allow for an increase in the
deductibility in the foreign component of registered retirement
savings plans. Within their RRSPs people can put up to 20% in
so-called foreign investments, foreign assets. The finance
committee has recommended that the limit be increased.
This is very important. This limit is used not only in RRSPs but
in all aspects of the pension system. As I understand it, the
newly formed Canada pension plan board would have a similar
threshold. I object to this.
I believe we have to focus on what we are talking about when we
are talking about RRSP deductions. RRSPs are used as a tax
deduction. Essentially, the result of this would be to
subsidize, and I underline the word subsidize, higher income
earners to invest in foreign countries.
There are no laws in Canada against foreign investments. People
are free to do that if that is their choice. However, they may
have to do it with their tax paid money, in other words from
their normal savings as opposed to actually getting a tax
deduction, an incentive if you will, to invest in another
country.
That is one small point on which I differ. I believe it would be
improper and unwise to proceed in that direction.
A lot of the debate on budgetary items concerns expenditures.
The Reform Party and others talk about government spending,
spending, spending. What is missing when we talk about the
expenditure of money is that sometimes, in fact a lot of the
time, the expenditure is an investment.
We should all know the difference between investing and
spending. When we invest in something, we expect a return. That
is why it is important to recognize in the upcoming budget that
we are not wasting money to spend money in areas of some things
that will actually come back to us. In other words, that money
did not disappear. It will come back to us in the form of a
return on our investment.
One of those very important areas is science and technology.
There is a general recognition that we must move forward and
embrace the challenges which science and technology present to
us.
Durham College is in my riding. It has a science and technology
faculty. There is something like three jobs for every one of its
graduates. We talk about youth unemployment on the one hand, but
we also have on the other hand a disproportionate demand for
people who are trained in certain areas.
Today I attended the industry committee and we heard from the
granting councils. Representatives of the National Research
Council, NSERC and MRC appeared before us. They pointed out that
Canada's expenditures in research and development lag behind just
about every other country in the western world. I think the only
country that gives less money to research and development based
on its gross domestic product is Italy. We need to invest more in
the science field.
Recently the Conference Board of Canada published a very
excellent report about the Canadian economy. It found some very
remarkable things. It found that Canada is one of the highest
spenders in education.
1235
I should interject, Madam Speaker, that I am sharing my time
with the hon. member for Oxford.
The Conference Board of Canada made a number of observations.
Some of the very important ones were that in post-secondary
education, Canada is one of the highest spenders in the world. At
the same time, some of the performance in the area of science and
technology is in fact some of the most mediocre. We need to
revamp some of our educational institutions to ensure that we are
training our people properly.
Having said that, it is interesting that one of the initiatives
which our government is involved in is called technology
partnerships. It is a program I am very proud of. In fact the
member across the say said to give away money to Bombardier.
Bombardier was a recipient of the technology partnerships
program. But that just shows the lack of knowledge that exists
on the other side of the House.
Technology partnerships matches the expenditures by companies in
the area of research and development. It provides a degree of
risk capital but it is an investment that is based on a royalty
system. For instance as Bombardier sells more Dash-7 aeroplanes,
money comes back into the government.
This program has only been around for about three years and just
recently we received our first cheque, a royalty payment coming
back to the government. It is very clear that the object of the
exercise is to allow this funding to assist. It is sort of risk
capital. We are matching money. We have a partnership going with
small and medium size businesses to do this.
There is a company close to my riding called Camateoid which is
another recipient of a technology partnerships venture capital
loan. This is a very interesting company. It makes the paint
for the Challenger aircraft. It is very much related to
aerospace.
These are some of the ways we can use the resources we have in
government to lever other forms of capital, pools of capital that
possibly would not have been spent in the area of research and
development. That generates all kinds of multipliers in our
economy.
It allows our graduating students from high tech institutions to
have a place to work in this country. We often talk about the
brain drain and how people are being forced to leave this country
because the opportunities are not there. This is a very specific
way in which the government can invest in some of these sectors,
not give the money away but invest it in such a way that the
money is coming back to the people of Canada.
I hope that when we are putting our budget together we can find
some room to move in these areas. As the granting councils and
the Conference Board of Canada have said, Canada is lagging
behind.
A lot of the growth in our economy has been based on the export
sector, almost 40% now. If our Canadian dollar goes upward
vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar which it probably should—and some
people suggest the Canadian dollar is worth 85¢—if that happens,
we are going to see a lot of unemployment because we have not
kept up with the productivity challenges that are going to make
this country great.
I reiterate it is important that this government puts more money
into research councils and also the technological programs that
will make this country strong.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have a question
for my hon. colleague. He seems to be looking for funding for research
and development. But the government has a great source of income that
has not been tapped into, and intentionally so I think.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois have often spoken in the House about
family trusts and trusts in general. The fact is that trusts are exempt
from provisional tax, while every other company as well as self-employed
workers have to pay tax instalments four times a year.
1240
By making advance payments on their income tax these people are
actually making funds available to the government, and the government
earns interest on these very large amounts. Why does the government
persist in exempting trusts, in which hundreds and hundreds of millions
of dollars are invested, without requiring that tax instalments be paid
on these amounts, thereby benefiting the government much earlier than if
it had to wait till the end of the year to receive the tax owed on these
trusts?
At present, the government is paid a lump sum at the end of the
year, when these trusts file their tax returns.
Yet we are looking for funds, we need money that could be used, based on
our priorities, to relieve child poverty and to invest more in
education, health and research and development, as my hon. colleague
just said.
I would like my colleague, who is a member of the party in power,
to tell us what he thinks of this approach and why the government would
not require trusts to pay tax instalments four times a year, as all
self-employed workers are required to do.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I cannot specifically
answer but I suspect that part of the problem is the
predictability of income. For people to pay on a quarterly basis
there has to be a degree of predictability of what the income of
the trust is going to be. I suspect there is some argument that
some trusts are active in some years and not active in others. It
is very difficult to predict what their quarterly payments would
be. I suggest to the member that it is probably not that
significant a loss of revenue in any case.
There are more interesting areas of the administration. I think
the member was talking to some extent about the auditor general's
report. It was interesting how the banks are actually holding
back cheques in the GST system and excise system before they
deliver them to the government. Something our government is very
keen on looking into is how we can make the whole collection
process a lot more efficient and effective and increase some of
the revenues to the government.
Most of us think that tax reductions will come and tax relief
should come to some of the people the hon. member is talking
about.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to congratulate the member for Durham on his comments. He
has been a very tireless advocate for job creation initiatives
and R and D.
I would like to ask him, with regard to the technology
partnerships such as the Pasteur Merrieux one which was announced
within the past year, whether he could comment on the potential
impact on jobs and the economy of those kinds of initiatives.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to
respond to the hon. member for Mississauga South who has also
been very active in these areas. We share a lot of similarities
in our vocation and also in our desire to create jobs in this
country.
The whole concept of the expenditures in the technology
partnerships program is about creating jobs. Sometimes we forget
about taking it to the nth degree. It is about creating jobs. It
is about creating opportunities for small and medium size
businesses. It is also about helping our environment. Companies
like Ballard Power are at the forefront of research and
development in Canada and are creating exciting and good jobs for
Canadians.
1245
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank
the member for Durham for splitting his time with me.
It is with courage and a commitment to do what is right that the
government has been successful on the economic front. The Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance realized we could not
continue to burden our children with constant deficits and an
ever increasing mountain of debt.
The national debt of more than $600 billion hangs like a
millstone around our necks. It takes 35¢ of every tax dollar
collected just to pay the interest.
When the Liberal government was first elected in October 1993 we
inherited a deficit of $42 billion. This past fiscal year the
deficit came in at $8.9 billion, almost $20 billion lower than
the deficit in 1995-96. It also represented the largest year
over year reduction in the deficit in Canadian history. At 1.1%
of GDP as compared to 6% per cent of GDP when the government took
office it is the smallest federal government deficit in over two
decades.
This represents economic success that we are well on the road to
surpassing. There are indications that the federal government
will be at or very near a balanced budget this year. With a
balanced budget Canadian taxpayers can begin to look forward to
annual surpluses rather than annual deficits.
This fiscal dividend will force the government and by extension
the Canadian people to make choices about the kind of Canada we
want to build for our children and grandchildren.
The Liberal Party pledged during the last federal election that
any surplus would be invested in social spending, for example
health care, youth employment initiatives and education, as well
as debt reduction and tax relief. It was a platform that I
endeavoured to ensure my constituents understood so that they
knew what to expect from a Liberal government.
It is clear that we need to make certain strategic investments.
Some quick examples of this type of investment are the increases
in the Canadian health and social transfer allocation to $12.5
billion a year and the prime minister's millennium scholarship
fund which will help Canadian students compete in the global
economy. These investments strengthen Canadian society for today
and tomorrow.
We must remember, though, that the battle against the deficit is
not finished. As we enter the era of surplus we must remember
that we continue to have an immense debt hanging over our heads.
We ignore it at our peril. I am convinced, and I believe the
people of Oxford agree with me, that we should invest as much of
the surplus as possible in debt reduction.
While it is tempting to prescribe a short term tax reduction
fix, it will have been for naught if economic circumstances
change and we have not reduced the national debt. The fiscal
dividend cannot be used to benefit this generation alone. We
must look forward and realize that Canadians decades from now
will judge us for what we do about the debt now.
I do not want to tell my grandchildren that when I had the
chance to influence government policy, as I do now, I did nothing
to relieve them of the tremendous burden of paying interest year
after year after year on a $600 billion national debt.
We hear a lot in the House and in the provincial capitals of the
country about tax cuts. For the past few years the leader of the
Reform Party has stood and asked the Minister of Finance when
Canadians could expect an across the board tax cut. As a member
of Parliament from Ontario I have been able to see firsthand the
effects of the Mike Harris inspired tax cut.
Since Mike Harris is some type of super hero to Reformers, we
can assume a Reform administration would operate much like the
Ontario Tories. Mike Harris and the Ontario Tories have made a
crucial mistake in making a tax cut. By reducing taxes before
the budget is balanced, Mike Harris has been forced to make
draconian cuts to some essential services in Ontario.
Members of the official opposition may have a problem with my
use of the word draconian. To me an additional $700 million cut
in education spending, following the $700 million loss in
provincial revenues due to the latest round of the tax cut, is
draconian. Speaking personally, the small amount of money I save
from the Harris tax cut is not worth the effect it is having on
the education system in Ontario.
1250
If the Reform Party were governing the country it would follow
the lead of Mike Harris. Could the Reform Party tell us how much
will have to be cut from education, health care and the
environment to pay for the tax cuts? Furthermore, it would add
$600 million to our debt through its super RRSP to replace the
CPP. How could we possibly trust a party that refuses to even
acknowledge that the CPP has an unfunded liability of $600
million that must be paid out whether or not people are paying
into the plan?
We all want tax cuts, but those of us on this side of the House
feel they should not come before they are sustainable. We cannot
afford to cut taxes one year, only to raise them the next, or,
worse, cut an essential program because we provided an across the
board tax cut before it could be sustained.
In the short term tax cuts should be targeted at those who need
it the most. These are students, persons with disabilities and
children of working parents with low incomes. To be honest these
tax cuts have already been made by the government in the last
federal budget.
Now we need to broaden the group to include, possibly,
environmental initiatives, agricultural and agri-food
development, technological and biological research, and an end to
the luxury tax on jewellery. These selective tax cuts could
provide a needed shot of adrenalin to the economy while assisting
certain sectors to remain competitive.
In the aftermath of Kyoto it would be appropriate for a firm
specializing in environmental technologies to receive some tax
assistance for undertaking research and development in this area.
This can assist Canada and the global community in reaching their
goals. Canada is already a leader in environmental technologies.
Let us take it one step further to underscore Canada's commitment
to the environment and sustainable development.
As well, we need to reward research and development in new
agricultural products. Tax measures taken by the Minister of
Finance have already assisted in helping a growing domestic
ethanol industry. Programs like the tobacco diversification
program are successful in assisting farmers in developing new
crops. Southwestern Ontario is playing a large role in the
development of an industrial hemp crop for export as fibre to the
United States. This industry will create jobs in rural Canada
and government assistance will allow it to get off to a fast and
successful start.
I would also like to discuss briefly the excise tax on
jewellery. The finance committee report which we are debating
now suggested that the Minister of Finance consider removing this
luxury tax. This is a 10% excise tax which is unfair when other
items of luxury, such as fur coats, speed boats and sports cars,
are not similarly taxed. While there is some debate concerning
the correlation between the luxury tax on jewellery and the
underground economy, I ask the Minister of Finance to do what is
just and remove this unfair tax.
Before I conclude I would like to refer to cost recovery in the
agricultural sector. This is an issue that I dealt with
extensively with corn producers in my riding in the debate over
the creation of the Pest Management Review Agency, the PMRA.
While farmers are prepared to bear a portion of the costs for
these programs and for the most part do not have a problem with
cost recovery, we have to ensure the system is fair. We cannot
ask farmers to pay for a system that is top heavy in bureaucracy
and benefits other groups. For farmers to pay the entire cost of
this program when consumers and industry also benefit from it is
unfair.
I sincerely hope the government has learned a lesson from the
PMRA debate which took place last winter and spring. I
congratulate the committee for studying the issue during its
deliberations.
Five years ago we would never have seen a debate like the one
taking place in the House today. The standing committee and
members of the House could not have offered their feelings about
the budget in a debate like this one today. Consultations took
place in bank board rooms with the country's elite in attendance.
The average citizen on the street did not have a choice.
I thank the Minister of Finance for giving Canadians a voice in
this process. His previous budgets have shown that he listens to
the debate in the House, to committees and to average Canadians.
1255
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance for giving
me the opportunity to share my perspectives in this important
debate.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think Canadian people should be fooled on this point.
Successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the past 25
years or so have got the country into the terrible debt situation
it faces today. The Liberals ought to listen to constituents in
their own ridings like we in the Reform Party listen to the ones
in ours.
When I go back to my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan people ask me
why Canadian taxpayers should have to continue to pay increased
taxes because of the gross mismanagement and mistakes of our
governments.
It is all well and good for the hon. member to say that they
removed taxes on jewellery. I have a son who could never afford
to buy the kind of jewellery he is talking about.
What does the government have in real tax relief to offer
Canadians so that they have money put back into their pockets and
can simply live?
That same son of mine has a family. He is 23 years old. He has
a wife, a small child and another one on the way. The average
youth unemployment in that age group in Nanaimo is 16.5%, one of
the highest in the nation. He recently had to leave British
Columbia and move to Alberta where the economy is booming under
the strong fiscal management of the Klein government. He now has
a full time job and can finally feed his family.
What kind of hope does the government offer my son and his young
family in the final analysis of giving them tax relief not only
now but in the future? Could my hon. colleague give them some
hope?
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his comments and his question.
Successive governments, Liberal and Progressive Conservative,
built up the debt. That is quite true. However we elected those
governments. There is only one taxpayer and we will have to pay
the debt sooner or later.
It is better to pay it under a balanced system which tries to
take into account all the needs, beginning with those most
serious like health care, seniors benefits and the disabled, than
to have a government that would hand it all out in some form of
tax cut to everybody whether or not they need it.
I am very glad my colleague's son is working successfully in
Alberta. Perhaps there is a lesson there. No one else will pay
the debt and no one else will balance the budget. The people of
Canada will do that, as we have been doing it.
We are still considered the best country in the world in which
to live. People are still clamouring to come here. We must be
doing something right. The government got it right this time and
will keep on doing it until things are in balance.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today to the prebudget consultations. These consultations
are an opportunity for the public to provide input to the
government as it gets ready to draw up next year's budget.
This year, the country-wide approach to the consultations gave
the temporary impression that the government was open and ready to
listen to what people had to say. But that was the extent of the
surprise. The reality of the matter can be found in the committee
report we are discussing today.
The much-heralded exercise was very simple: take the
Liberals' red book II, remove the cover page and tack on a new one
that reads Report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
1300
That is exactly what it contains: the same reasoning, the same
promises, the same spending and the same plans for interfering in
provincial areas of jurisdiction. In short, the entire
consultation exercise was a sham, because the report is nothing
more than a rehash of the Liberals' last election platform
To set the record straight, I would like to remind the
government what the people of Quebec and of Canada want to see in
the Minister of Finance's next budget. We in the Bloc Quebecois
have appended a dissenting report to the finance committee's
report. I would like to give an idea of what we are calling for in
the next budget.
We want the Minister of Finance to pass seven specific
measures. These measures represent the consensus of Quebec's
stakeholders during the prebudget consultations.
First, the government must quit interfering in provincial
spheres of jurisdiction, such as health, education and social
security. It must drop the idea of creating new programs in areas
of jurisdiction that would only multiply bureaucratic structures,
not to mention driving up costs for taxpayers.
The Minister of Finance must instead use some of the spare
funds that he frees up over the coming years to pay back part of
what he took from the provinces for postsecondary education, health
and social assistance.
Second, the federal government must reform the present employment
insurance system to put an end to the injustices created by this program
and to provide better protection for the workers of Quebec and Canada,
especially seasonal workers.
The Bloc also calls on the Minister of Finance to greatly reduce
employment insurance premiums, based on a company's performance in job
creation. This reduction in rates could represent 40 cents for every
$100 of the total insurable payroll.
The Minister of Finance must also create an employment insurance
fund which is separate from the federal government consolidated fund, as
proposed by the Auditor General of Canada, so that money from the
workers and the employers is not used to artificially reduce the
deficit.
Third, the federal government must stimulate job creation and
commit to seriously fight against poverty.
The Bloc Quebecois, along with many stakeholders in Quebec, is calling
for a major reform of personal and corporate income tax through which
these objectives could be achieved, while implementing targeted tax
reductions for individuals and small and medium size companies.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention now, as I forgot to do so at
the beginning of my speech, that I will be sharing my speaking time with
the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Fourth, the federal government must restore indexing in the tax
tables. No indexing is essentially a hidden increase in personal income
tax.
Fifth, the Minister of Finance must pass a law to prohibit
deficits, like the one passed by the Quebec National Assembly.
As far as the GST is concerned, the Minister of Finance must first
accept the arbitration proposal made by the Bloc Quebecois to settle
this issue, and, depending on the outcome, he must pay to the government
of Quebec the $2 billion in compensation being demanded for harmonizing
with the GST.
Seventh, the Minister of Finance must re-establish funding for
international assistance. Since 1993, that is since the Liberals came to
power, funding for international assistance has been drastically
reduced, contrary to Canada's humanist tradition.
Recent consultations clearly indicate that there are now more than
ever two completely opposite visions on the role that the federal
government should play, with Quebec calling for more powers for the
provinces and greater autonomy. The nine other Canadian provinces are
calling for stronger action in Ottawa in their areas of jurisdiction.
This is what we see in health, education and policies to fight poverty.
In Quebec, the federal government's intrusion in these jurisdictions
belonging to the government of Quebec is strongly condemned.
1305
Yet, these respective areas of jurisdiction are clearly specified
in the Constitution. We said it throughout the last Parliament, and we
are repeating it again. The government is once again putting its foot in
the door to get into other areas of jurisdiction. We are asking the
government to comply with the Constitution of 1867.
We are also asking it to repay the money taken by the Minister of
Finance in this respect, while the rest of Canada is asking for Canada-wide
programs and national standards from coast to coast. These two
competing visions are irreconcilable and a sign of future jurisdictional
battles and useless and costly frictions between Quebec and the rest of
Canada.
As we know, the first ministers are gathering here in Ottawa this
week. Let me tell you what Mr. Bouchard said yesterday at a press
conference, when he condemned the federal government's activities in
areas of provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Bouchard said that “instead of
sprinkling money through new programs in areas of provincial
jurisdiction, the Chrétien government would be better off reducing
personal income taxes and easing off on the cuts it has been making for
years in transfers to the provinces. The finance minister's surplus,
said to be somewhere between $4 billion and $6 billion for 1998-99,
should be used first and foremost to reduce taxes. Quebeckers and
Canadians are being taxed to death. Nothing would have a more positive
impact on families and on the economy than quick federal tax
relief”.
According to him, the Canadian tax burden is a millstone
around the neck of Canadian productivity. Seventy-five percent of
the surplus should go to reduce taxes by approximately $100 per
taxpayer. One-quarter of the remaining surplus should go to social
expenditures, as Ottawa wants to do but through transfer payments
to the provinces, transferring tax points instead of creating a
series of new programs whose common denominator is interference in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
In Ottawa the premiers want to sell the idea of creating a
framework for federal spending powers, a mechanism through which
new initiatives by Ottawa would have to be approved by a committee
of provincial governments.
So they created a transition fund for science and health, a
national pharmacare program, millennium scholarships, a Canadian
foundation for innovation, sprinkling a little money here and there
to create new programs, just after they cut health care and slashed
transfers to the provinces.
They wanted to cut up to $48 billion, and now they are handing
us back a piddling $6 billion. Instead of transferring that to the
taxpayers who need it, they are trying to create new programs. And
who do you think will end up holding the bag with these programs a
few years down the road? The federal government's tactic is to
pull out of these programs and leave it up to the provinces to
administer them, although it created both the programs and the
needs. Then it withdraws funding. That is unacceptable.
I wish this government would understand common sense and take
away this tax burden it is imposing everywhere.
What is of the most concern to me, as I tell people regularly, is
that the government is not giving us anything. They are just
returning our taxes to us. They should stop distributing their
goodies to make us close our eyes to reality; they should stop
sprinkling crumbs. The people are hungry, the people want to see
a lessening of their tax burden.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to our Bloc Quebecois colleague's
speech. At one point in it she mentioned that her party had
included a dissenting opinion in the report she was commenting on.
1310
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows he should not be
using props in the House. I hope he will follow Standing Orders in
this regard.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, do you mean that it is
indecent to show a government document, that it is not permitted?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: That is right.
Mr. René Laurin: It is not indecent, but it is not permitted.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, would you include that as
part of my parliamentary apprenticeship. I had no idea that it was
not appropriate to show a government document in quoting it. I
could not have guessed.
In her remarks, the member mentioned that her party had
presented a dissenting opinion. She quoted a number of sections of
the dissenting report.
However, she neglected to quote an important passage of the
opinion, which provides that, for the Bloc, the only solution for
Quebec is either to let itself be steamrollered by the federal
government or to get out of Canada following a referendum on
sovereignty.
If this is the definitive analysis of the Bloc Quebecois on
this debate on public finances, the upcoming budget and the choices
to be made, I would like to know how they can point to dissent
based on the idea of having to separate from Canada while listening
to the eminent spokespersons of the Quebec government, the minister
of finance and even the Quebec premier say that the federal
government cannot be allowed to destroy Canada's Constitution.
Which face is the real one? Which is the real intent?
Do these people want to help rebuild Canada on a healthier basis or
do they want to separate from Canada as they indicate in their
dissenting report?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I use a professional approach in
my work, otherwise it would more difficult for the member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies to comment on my remarks.
We want to withdraw from the federal system precisely because we
have been witnessing intrusions in our areas of jurisdiction for 40
years. For 40 years we have been asking this government to abide by the
Constitution, which makes Quebec a people distinct from the rest of
Canada.
To say that we want out of Canada because we are fed up with
these intrusions is nothing new. The hon. member should know that
a number of premiers have complained about the federal
government's intrusions. Remember Mr. Duplessis, who used to tell
the federal government “give us back our loot”. As for Jean
Lesage, he coined the expression “Maîtres chez nous”, masters
in our own home.
So, we are not the first ones to condemn the centralizing attitude
of the federal government, which wants to create a Canadian people,
while we say we are a different people, a distinct people. We want to
separate, we want to achieve sovereignty, but we want to do it in
harmony with the rest of Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for the way you said the
name of my riding, which truly represents the four regional county
municipalities that it covers.
We are discussing the prebudget consultations whereby the
government is asking the House its opinion on the report submitted by
the parliamentary committee. I would like first of all to mention the
consultations that I carried out in my riding, which were submitted to
the committee and which are included in the report.
Among other things, I will quote some of the people who
participated in the debate. These are people who are experiencing these
things in their daily lives and who are in contact with the population.
1315
For example, Mrs. Bilocq, of the KRTB economic development
corporation, said “The danger, after a period of economic restraint, is
that the government will start spending again to please the
electorate”.
I think the federal government has clearly demonstrated that it cannot
shed its old habits and that, as soon as it has money available, it
cannot refrain from dishing it out in its programs in the hope of
gaining votes.
True, the Canadian federal system is rather pitiful. The federal
government might have less visibility than it wants if it limited itself
to its responsibilities as defined in the Constitution, but that is what
it should be doing.
It should ensure that it does not invest in areas where the provinces
already have jurisdiction and where they have developed programs. What
the provinces really want is that the money be returned to them so that
they can invest more in their own programs and in the strategies that
they are currently developing.
They can say that it is the nasty separatists who are saying this,
but this week, unanimously, the provincial finance ministers gave a
warning to Mr. Martin, the minister. “Ottawa must resist the temptation
to get involved piecemeal in programs with isolated initiatives in areas
under provincial jurisdiction like home care services and pharmacare,
for example”.
So this message is not coming from sovereignists, it is coming from
Canada's finance ministers, who remember. If they were not there
themselves, they remember what happened during the seventies in the
Trudeau era.
The federal government started to spend left and right to give its
members more visibility, to give itself more visibility as a government,
and the result was the financial situation we had in 1993.
That situation has now been remedied, to a large extent on the
backs of the people who are paying employment insurance, both employers
and employees, and also on the backs of the provinces through cuts in
transfer payments, but the government should not revert to its old
habits. If, in 2000, 2001 or 2002, we have to say once again that the
federal government should not have invested in this program, that we are
in the red once again, we will have failed to learn the lessons from the
past.
I will quote another person who spoke during the consultations,
Benoît Aubut, who represents the unemployed.
He said: “We ask that the EI benefit period and amount not longer depend
on the financial needs of the government but rather on those of the
workers, who pay to be covered if they lose their jobs”.
This week, the Bloc Quebecois made a very constructive proposal. We
have introduced six private members' bills from six different members
clearly showing what needs to be changed in the employment insurance
legislation. We were even so lucky as to have the support of the NDP.
Again, this is an issue on which the big, bad separatists could have
made suggestions that might not have been good for Canada, but as it
turns out, members of another party sitting next to us—and I am
referring to the NDP—also found the idea interesting because they
have been elected to teach the government a lesson and tell the
government: “The changes you made to the employment insurance plan one
or two years ago are unacceptable.
We in high unemployment areas cannot live with that because workers are
not assured of a sufficient income between two jobs.”
That is another very concrete quote on a very concrete problem that
the government should address as soon as possible.
By lowering EI premiums by an amount equivalent to the increase in
CPP contributions, the government acted on part of a recommendation made
by the Bloc. I think this must be applauded. We made this recommendation
in committee before any other party, and the government took our lead.
There is, however, still room for improvement in the employment
insurance plan.
About the EI reform, even though the chief actuary said that the
system could be self-sufficient with premiums of $2 per $100 of
insurable income, premiums will be set at $2.70 as of January 1, 1998.
So there is a 70-cent margin of manoeuvre. The Conservatives would
like to see all of that used to decrease contributions.
We, on the other hand, would rather cut contributions by about
35 cents, or half of that margin of manoeuvre, and earmark the
other half for improving the system so that unemployment insurance
can resume its function of stabilizing the economies of high
unemployment regions and become a true tool in the battle against
poverty. That is all we hear about these days, the battle against
poverty, against child poverty. The federal government absolutely
wants to have a cheque with a nice Canada flag in the corner,
whereas there is a proper way of doing things, with tools over
which it has complete control, and over which it would have full
jurisdiction. We could talk about that this afternoon and tomorrow
morning if that is the hon. members' wish.
1320
The employment insurance program could be modified and its
human face restored, making it into something which could, for
instance, eliminate the so-called spring gap. With the new reform,
few seasonal workers can get employment insurance to tide them over
for the entire period they are without work until they start up
again the following year. We want to see that corrected.
We also want to see the intensity rule done away with, which
reduces rates by 1% each time 20 weeks of employment insurance is
used.
That was part of the principle of the former Minister of Human
Resources Development, but he got the message—very emphatically—on
June 2, 1997, when the people of his riding told him that, no,
they could not live with such a thing, that it offended their
dignity, that they no longer wanted a minister who was capable of
doing such a thing.
Should the government, which will be producing its legislative
progress report within a few days, not have addressed the real
problem? The first message it got in the June 2 federal election
was that the high-unemployment regions are seriously dissatisfied
with the employment insurance program imposed upon them. Budget
choices will have to be made. We are debating pre-budget
consultations and I trust the government will be capable of heeding
what has been said.
The people we heard from in committee on November 12, 1997,
also told us that it was important that those who have contributed
the most to bringing down the deficit should be the ones to benefit
from the fiscal dividend. Here again, the reference is to EI
premiums, but also to provinces that have had to manage with cuts
in transfer payments. It was not their idea to make these cuts,
but they are the ones who have to live with them, who have to
contend with the impact on hospitals, CLSCs, home-care services.
Many of the decisions taken were the result of these cuts.
So, many social stakeholders did not make extravagant demands.
They want the money to go towards existing programs. They told us,
for instance, to use it to consolidate existing organizations and
to resist the temptation to woo voters by creating new programs.
Yesterday again, this was brought home to us in caucus. We
heard from Canadian women's groups, who told us that what they want
is not money to duplicate provincial programs, but satisfactory
funding for women's groups in Canada. The present government
should listen carefully to this request because it is another way
to fight poverty. If children are poor, then you can be sure that
many women in Canada are poor as well. They must have the means to
escape this poverty, and be represented and be able to conduct
their lives with dignity.
People in my riding also tell me they do not want to see more
federal interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction, because
this leaves the public confused and always trying to get the best
deal. People are not stupid. They have seen what has been going
on for the last 25 or 30 years. I will conclude on this.
People have been perfectly aware of the competition between the two
levels of government over the years, and they want no more of it.
They want each level of government to stick to its own area of
jurisdiction until such time as there can be just one level of
government. In addition, when they elect representatives, they
want to be able to know exactly who is responsible and that they
can re-elect the government they have chosen, or not re-elect it,
in the knowledge that they are fully responsible for their choice.
This is one of the fundamental reasons we want to leave this
madhouse. The Canadian federal system has resulted in such
confusion in Canada that voters are unable to make logical choices.
In conclusion, we should listen to what the public is saying.
Each of us should take his or her responsibilities and the federal
government should mind its own business.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore on a point of order.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent for a motion. I move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the request of the Famous Five Foundation to honour the
memory of Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise
McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards, the Famous Five, by allowing
a statue commemorating them to be placed on Parliament Hill.
1325
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore have the unanimous consent of the House to
propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not know how there can be a
point of order rising out this, but I will hear the hon. member
for Yorkton—Melville.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me that earlier in the day we had this very
point raised. My question to you, is the member allowed to
continue to raise this and bring it up when we know, as a fact,
not everyone in this House supports it? If they will go to—
An hon. member: Shame, shame.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Members rise from time to
time in the House and seek unanimous consent to do various
things. The fact that the same question may have been asked
earlier is irrelevant. The question is whether there is consent
now.
The member asked for that consent. There was no consent. There
is no consent.
Questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Thank you Mr. Speaker. It is
never too late to do the right thing.
Party politics aside, I would like to make a few comments and ask
a question to the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
In this debate on issues which may enable the government to come up
with a more rational budget, one that will better meet the needs of our
fellow Canadians, the hon. member said a number of times that people
told him this or that.
In the latest surveys, given that our colleagues in the Bloc
continue to constitutionalize things here in the House of Commons
and given that 86% of the people of Quebec are saying they have had
their fill of the endless constitutional debates, does not, in
fact, what we call Quebec's ambivalence concern the fact that what
we put forward in the latest election campaign, the so-called
Canadian pact, with the objectives of meeting the real needs of
Canadians, not require us, rather than saying we are going to scrap
one government and improve another, do people not recognize in this
approach, in its ambivalence, which may not really exist, the fact
that, when they find the two governments unsatisfactory, they can
still, through their representatives define their priorities with
one of the two governments and call for a consensus with the two
levels of government to act in areas they consider important, such
as industry, tourism, highway infrastructures and other urgent
matters?
Quebeckers' common sense dictates that a balance be struck between
the two levels of government. When 86% of Quebeckers tell us they are
sick and tired of hearing about the Constitution left and right day
after day, I think this means that we, as elected representatives, must
try to act rationally, decide together what our priorities should be for
each level of government and, if at all possible, put all available
resources behind achieving objectives that they hold dear.
One can fake it only so far. In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois said it
would get elected to hold real power. That is quite interesting. What is
real power?
Let us see the facts in two columns.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: You should talk, with your five members in
Quebec.
An hon. member: What about the Conservatives?
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Let us talk about the
Conservatives. I am not ashamed of the PC's record from 1974 to 1984,
before we came to power. It could not be so bad if I got elected in
Chicoutimi. That is reality.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague what is more important: to
try to bring down one government or another or to try to set our main
priorities together in such a way that we can meet them?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, it seems funny, but it is sad,
because the speech I just heard is what my father used to say to me
in the 1960s. The Conservative slant, the new joint management
slant. It is the same bloody system with the federal government
running the show.
1330
It is exactly what we heard from the Minister of Human
Resources Development on the Canadian social union. This proves
once again that the federal Conservatives and Liberals are one and
the same.
I am one of the 80% of Quebeckers they say are tired of
constitutional debates. We are tired of constitutional debates,
but we want the choice of Quebeckers to be made democratically. We
reached 49.4% last time, and we are carrying on the democratic
battle. More and more Quebeckers understand that the federal
system does not work.
There is going to be another two day federal-provincial
conference, where the federal government's centralizing power, as
soon as money becomes available, will again want to put it
somewhere, which is the very same formula as the Conservatives'.
The Conservatives' joint management approach was not, in the last
election program, chosen by the majority of Quebeckers as far as
I know. They have 5 members in Quebec, while the Bloc Quebecois
has 44. That is the quantifiable and official result.
Mr. Speaker, I agree I must conclude my response, but the
comment took time. I can tell you that the greatest service
Quebeckers and Canadians can offer each other is to decide to
resolve the constitutional debate so that in the future we can
debate social and economic choices and no longer need to deal with
the issue of the country's architecture.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Kitchener
Centre.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House today on
the finance committee's report, an initiative in which I have
been actively involved.
First let me say that I am very proud to be the vice-chair of
the finance committee, one which worked under the direction of
the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora and with Canadians from
coast to coast to coast to ensure that the Minister of Finance
has a clear presentation of Canadians' priorities, values and
expectations for the upcoming budget.
This prebudget consultation is evidence that once again the
Liberal government has delivered on its promise to provide
Canadians with good government, to provide Canadians with a
government that listens and then acts, a government that involves
Canadians in the process so that the very people who are affected
by government policies are actually there and choosing these new
priorities for the economic realities and providing the very
recommendations on how to achieve those new realities. This
involvement of all Canadians in the decision making process
ensures that we have the benefit of their knowledge, their
experience and that we achieve the best possible outcomes.
Unlike previous years, this year's prebudget consultations
centred around the fact that Canadians for the first time in
decades will not be faced with a deficit. On October 15 the
finance minister announced that no later than 1998-1999 fiscal
year we would begin this new era which presents Canadians with
new choices and challenges. The country cheered. This dialogue
and this optimism carried throughout the provinces.
In each of our meetings in the provincial capitals and here in
Ottawa I was encouraged to hear that Canadians are more
optimistic about their own futures and the futures of their
children and grandchildren.
As a result of our international performance we heard that
Canadians have a positive outlook about our future as a nation
and as a world leader. There is no doubt that this optimism is
the product of the Liberal government's actions to set a new
course for Canada, to eliminate the deficit and to restore
Canada's fiscal health. This optimism arises from the fact that
Canadians know that at long last they have a government that
cares about their priorities and is working co-operatively to
ensure that all Canadians have an improved quality of life.
As the committee heard time and time again, Canadians approve of
the direction the government has taken and understand the
decisions that have been made. Canadians have made sacrifices and
they have supported the government's focus over the last four
years on eliminating that deficit, on restoring fiscal health and
at the same time making positive targeted measures to improve the
quality of life for Canadians.
They know that this renewed focus, this changed focus in fact
will ensure that present and future generations have room to move
and react to situations as they arise.
1335
Canada was built on principles of sharing, caring, fairness and
equity. These are the parameters within which we held our
debate. In preparing the report the finance committee considered
more than 500 witnesses and 450 written briefs. These
appearances and submissions coupled with the town hall meetings
held by many of my colleagues in this House make this the most
extensive prebudget consultation session ever.
In my own riding of Burlington, Ontario more than 60 people
joined with me for a good evening's discussion about the issues.
I was overwhelmed by their enthusiasm and creativity with which
they tackled this debate.
Perhaps most interesting to me is the reaffirmation of the
sense of balance that Canadians have and want. Participants in
Burlington and across Canada focused on the importance of
decreasing the debt, ensuring that we have increased financial
security and stability, and at the same time Canadians wanted
increased investment in Canada's greatest resource, its people.
They want the government to invest in research in preparing
Canadians for the future economy. They want investment in health
care and children. Children deserve to have every and equal
opportunity to succeed in Canada.
The finance committee heard from Canadians on how to find that
balance, to protect Canadians of today and provide for Canadians
of tomorrow. In making our recommendations members of the
finance committee dealt with three main options available to
them, to use the surplus to further reduce the debt, to introduce
a major tax cut as was done with mixed reviews in Ontario, and to
increase spending on social programs.
Members of the House I am sure are interested to know that the
answers from Canadians were that they feel very strongly about
maintaining the programs we have which they have come to count
on, but more often than not and in a very large measure Canadians
lent their support to reducing the debt first and foremost.
In my own riding 87% of the people at our meeting were in favour
of reducing the debt, leaving a small percentage of people who
supported an across the board tax cut. In further discussing
these ideas however it appears that Canadians wanted this
investment and support in social programs for health care, for
education, support for those in our communities in need, for
fairness for seniors and those who are disabled.
These are the things that make us uniquely Canadian. Canadians
supported our job creation focus, our emphasis over the last few
years on getting the environment right so that job creation will
occur and focusing on youth employment opportunities and on the
infrastructure program. They hope this job creation focus will
continue because too many Canadians still are lacking that
opportunity which they need to make sure they can provide for
their families and to contribute to our economy.
Four years of responsible government have produced positive
results. As we all know the numbers, more than 1,012,000 have
been created. Our commitment continues in ensuring that every
Canadian who wants a job will have that opportunity.
Generally the finance committee's recommendations reflect the
need to maintain fiscal prudence and at the same time to invest
in those initiatives that meet the social and economic needs of
Canadians, including enhanced debt reduction, continued targeted
tax relief, increased investment in science and technology and
health care, as well as the urgent need to reduce child poverty
and youth unemployment.
Far too many very low income people in Canada are paying taxes.
While we have delivered targeted tax relief, while we have
enhanced the working income supplement, we must continue in this
vein to take that pressure off. We have that recommendation on
the surtax. While it was perhaps misunderstood by some of the
people who reported on it, it was across the board that this
surtax was being charged and we must begin to deliver that
relief.
Many presenters talked about the brain drain and the lack of
research opportunities that exist for Canadian young people at
home.
1340
They also talked about the precarious position we are putting
ourselves in as an economy vis-à-vis other nations in that we
must ensure we are making the investment for the future in those
high tech industries and businesses that are making way for all
Canadians. The innovation fund has done great things but we have
to enhance that culture of investment and research.
All Canadians have made sacrifices to ensure Canada's fiscal
health and independence are restored. I want to thank them for
that. I thank all the people who were involved in this process
of prebudget consultation: my colleagues in the House of
Commons, those on the finance committee, the staff of the finance
committee, in particular our clerk and researchers and, most
important, our committee chair, the member for
Vaughan—King—Aurora. His staff deserves the credit for
ensuring the report was co-ordinated, for ensuring the ts
were crossed and the is dotted.
I thank those Canadians who participated in the committee
hearings in the cities where I had the pleasure of chairing the
meetings, Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal, Fredericton and
Charlottetown, and especially in Burlington. Presenters shared
with us their very personal experiences and their incredible
expertise.
To my colleagues from all parties who listened with great care
in those meetings and who asked thoughtful questions, the pace
was somewhat intense but the spirit of co-operation and of shared
purpose was excellent. The results of the work of this committee
speak for themselves. Canadians have a unique opportunity now.
They appreciate that opportunity and they have told us very
clearly what their priorities and values are. We encourage the
minister to pay attention to the report and to implement those
suggestions.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a quick question for the hon. member. On behalf of some of
the constituents I have talked to I would like a little help
regarding math. I used to teach math and I am having a problem
with this one.
In 1993 there were 1.5 million people unemployed. In 1997
approximately 1.3 million people are unemployed. It sounds like
we have had a net increase of about 200,000. We hear this all
the time, we have created over a million jobs, aren't we
wonderful? Could the member explain why we still have
approximately the same amount of people unemployed today that we
had in 1993.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood
the member's question. Perhaps it was my interpretation of the
math. I think he suggested that 1.5 million were unemployed in
1993 and that 1.3 million are unemployed now. Then he suggested
that was an increase. Could he clarify that point.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there were 1.5 million
unemployed in 1993 and there are 1.3 million unemployed in 1997.
That means 200,000 jobs have been filled. Not over a million, but
200,000 jobs have been filled. Therefore it has come down from
1.5 million to 1.3 million.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member
clarified that point. Earlier he implied there was an increase
in unemployment instead of a decrease. He needs to recognize
that the economy has grown, that there are more Canadians in the
workplace as we have more generations graduating from university
and more citizens.
The numbers speak for themselves. Over one million jobs have
been created in this country and there has been a decrease in the
overall unemployment rate across the board for Canadians. In
Burlington the unemployment rate is somewhere around 7% or
better. There are opportunities at home and abroad. Burlington
residents and many residents across Canada feel a willingness and
optimism in going after new markets and new opportunities. This
is demonstrated by the prime minister's terrific Team Canada
missions and our focus on increased opportunity in the very
competitive international market. These missions have
demonstrated that Canadians can compete and will continue to do
that.
I encourage the member to look at those numbers again and to
keep that math straight.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say to my colleague that she must be living in a different
country from the one the rest of us live in.
1345
In the report that was obtained, and written up in Sunday's
Citizen and yesterday's Le Devoir, it says that the government also
knows that Canada is far from being the best country in the world
as far as growth and development are concerned.
With research and higher education shown in this report to be
extremely important for future development, how can the member
explain that this government has made cuts to education and to
research and innovation budgets? Their recommendation is for a
gradual increase, when needs are acute.
What we learn from this study ordered from on high by the
government is that, although Canada appears to have high growth, it
is growth that does little to increase productivity. Even Canada
is down in relative productivity, with the result that the standard
of living is dropping. If radical changes are not made, Canada is
going to find itself in an extremely difficult situation—
The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for questions and
comments has almost expired. The member for Burlington.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's comments.
There was definitely a call for increased spending on research.
Canada needs to do more to focus on that innovative economy. We
heard it in Montreal, in Toronto and all across the country. I
firmly believe in that. Many people in my riding are dependent on
that research. They are fulfilling the research requirements of
the nation. They are encouraging the country to do more.
We have had to make some tough decisions over the last few
years, but we have still managed to have the best country for all
Canadians to live in. We will—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt both hon.
members, but the time for questions and comments has expired.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the federal representative of the constituents of
Kitchener Centre and as a member of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Finance, it is a pleasure to take part in the
prebudget debate.
On November 13 I held a town hall meeting in Kitchener to gather
input from my constituents. Throughout the months of October and
November the finance committee held 42 meetings totalling 101
hours. It heard 514 witnesses and received 463 briefs on this
subject.
In response to the chair's challenge to all 301 members of
Parliament to hold public consultations, 35 town hall meetings
were held as well as the one which I held in Kitchener Centre. In
addition, we received personal comments over the website for the
finance minister, as well as several phone calls and many
letters.
I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my colleagues on
both sides of the House, the fair hearing we heard from witnesses
and the sincere and thoughtful participation by all members of
the finance committee.
The message was heard loud and clear both at my town hall
meeting and during the committee meetings we held across the
country. We heard many things from Vancouver to St. John's. Some
strong themes came through. We heard from a diverse range of
individuals with different concerns. We heard from economists
who told us that we needed to look at debt reduction. In Alberta
we heard from a disabled woman who was forced to choose between
food and medicine.
“Keeping the Balance” is a reflection of what we heard. This
government is committed to maintaining a balance between the
collective good and freedom while providing for those in need.
This government has shown leadership in consulting with
Canadians. There has been widespread support for the prudent
estimates put forth by the Minister of Finance. Canadians would
rather err on the side of prudence than find themselves in a
situation similar to the one in which we found ourselves in 1993.
1350
However we are now in a position, after having reduced our
economic deficit, to address the outstanding human deficit.
As the Minister of Finance said during his presentation to the
committee, this is not simply a question of budgets and their
size. It is a question also of what government does and how it
does it.
The debate should be about national priorities, about how best
to build a strong economy and a strong society, one of both
opportunity and security. Some see the discussion as a financial
debate only, but it is not. It is also a debate about values.
Many recommendations were made to the committee which are
reflected in “Keeping the Balance”.
There was an intriguing correlation that emerged from the
remarks the minister made in Vancouver and the comments and
concerns that were echoed to our committee as we travelled across
Canada and also ones very similar to those that I heard from my
constituents in Kitchener Centre. I would like to review a few of
these issues. Time and time again, some of these themes rose
throughout our process.
Canada is known worldwide for our health system and the
integrity we have placed in maintaining the five principles of
the Canada Health Act. Our treasured health care system was
created because there was a need. Canadians are telling us these
needs have grown due to our aging population among other factors.
To address this need, the government should establish in
co-operation with the provinces, health care providers and local
communities new approaches to health care such as a national home
care system.
This government has done much to address the needs of the
disabled in the community. However, much remains to be done. I
believe we must continue working with groups representing persons
with disabilities to ensure that measures recently announced are
effective and to find further ways of helping Canadians with
disabilities.
We have been hearing cries for action to curb child poverty, to
ensure Canadian children are not going hungry. This government
has put in place a number of safeguards. However, we still have
hungry children.
In partnership with communities, parents, provincial
governments, private corporations, the agri-food industry and
volunteer organizations such as the Canadian Living Foundation,
we can create a national school nutrition program. This type of
partnership approach could apply to other organizations and
initiatives as well.
In communities across Canada, people are concerned about our
youth. The ministerial task force on youth in 1996 made a number
of recommendations which Canadians would like to see endorsed.
The committee heard about them. We are pleased to recommend that
additional funding be made available for the Youth Service Canada
and student summer job creation programs, both of which provide
opportunities for youth to enter the workforce and offer valuable
work experience.
In keeping with improving the future of our youth, we have
recommended a deferred credit formula for registered education
savings plans which would offer student beneficiaries a federal
grant calculated on a percentage of the total RESP contributions.
This grant would be distributed in equal amounts in each year of
the post-secondary program. This would create an incentive for
parents to plan for their children's education.
The incredible debt burden weighing on the shoulders of many
recent graduates from post-secondary institutions can take many
years to pay, sometimes impeding their ability to enter the job
market. That is why I support the recommendation that the federal
and provincial governments offer students a debt repayment
schedule that is based on income with features that would include
interest relief, deferred grants and debt forgiveness. This would
go a long way in reducing the burden on youth entering the
workforce.
Very few individuals we heard from during our consultations
called for income tax cuts at this time. Their priority lay in
stabilizing our economy. However it was suggested that we
increase the basic personal non-refundable tax credits amount,
the spousal amount and the equivalent to spousal amount for the
1998 taxation year. I support this recommendation. In future
when the fiscal situation improves and permits, I strongly
support reintroducing indexation.
From coast to coast we heard Canadians asking for a reduction in
employment insurance premiums to balance the upcoming increase in
CPP payments to ease the load on small business owners.
This is one recommendation on which the finance minister has
already acted.
1355
On October 21, in co-operation with the Minister of Human
Resources Development, the Minister of Finance announced the
second largest drop in EI payments in 20 years, to $2.70 per $100
of insurable earnings for 1998, 20¢ below the 1997 rate. This is
a savings of $1.4 billion for employers and employees. With a
promise of lower rates when the economic climate permits and to
take measures to ensure EI premiums are not raised during an
economic downturn, this will offer Canadians greater stability.
An additional request from small business owners is to review
the small business deduction and the appropriateness of the
$200,000 threshold level. This is in keeping with the
government's intention to offer targeted tax relief. It is
important that we recognize this need to enable small businesses
to grow and prosper in the future.
The last but certainly not the least of the recommendations I
would like to cover today is the investment in the future of our
research and development sector. In my mind this includes
medical research, technological advancement, academic and
cultural development. There are so many facets to our social
make-up that require the support of continuing development.
Through the support and partnership of the federal government, I
look forward to seeing our commitment to research and development
grow. It is through these commitments that we will keep our
knowledge based industries in Canada. The result will mean that
our society will gain both economically and socially.
In conclusion, I have only grazed the surface of the results of
the consultations. However, one thing is clear. Canadians are
proud of the leadership of this government and the hard decisions
that it has made. There is a widespread sense of relief that the
deficit has been wrestled down. Canadians have told us that they
are prepared to see strategic and responsible investments in
areas where it will be demonstrated there is value for the
dollars spent. This government aims to do that through our 50:50
plan of investment and debt reduction.
Many of the recommendations call for increased co-operation and
partnership between levels of government and the private and
voluntary sectors. I feel strongly about partnerships. This
government has placed great value and energy in building and
maintaining healthy partnerships which will enable these visions
to become a reality.
The government is committed to working on restoring and keeping
the balance. This document is one step forward in that process.
The Deputy Speaker: When debate resumes there will be
five minutes of questions and comments following the hon.
member's speech.
We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HOLIDAY GREETINGS
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity
to wish holiday greetings to my colleagues on both sides of the
floor.
My riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington is a
rural riding. Holidays are important to each of us because they
bring people together in celebration. In the countryside where
people live in greater isolation, holidays often become community
events.
In my small village of Camden East, we constructed a crèche near
the river. At this time of year farmers bring livestock and the
scene of the first Christmas is re-enacted and carols are sung by
neighbours, friends and visitors.
I want to acknowledge the countless volunteers in communities
right across HFL and A and indeed across the country who provide
inspiration, leadership and organizational skills to make these
events happen.
* * *
WESTAIM
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Westaim is a
successful corporation with a major plant in my riding. For 30
years it has been supplying Canada and many other countries
around the world with high quality materials from which coins are
stamped.
The company has had an exceptionally good working relationship
with the Canadian Mint providing blanks for most of Canada's
coins, including the $1 and $2 coins. But the Canadian Mint has
now been authorized to spend $30 million to build a plant in
Winnipeg to compete with Westaim.
The government's claims of savings are greatly exaggerated.
Furthermore, when we were told that this will create 100 to 130
jobs in Winnipeg, no mention was made of potential job losses in
my riding.
It is a mystery. Why would the government risk $30 million to
get into a business which is in a worldwide state of oversupply
and which could result in the loss of up to 100 jobs in my
riding?
* * *
1400
[Translation]
TRIBUTE TO FATHER GÉRALD MAUZEROLL
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
pay tribute to Father Gérald Mauzeroll, a resident of Masson-Angers
in the riding of Gatineau, who has been serving as a missionary in
Brazil for a number of years and who is to receive tomorrow the
award of the human rights defence council from the government in
Sao Paulo.
His devotion to the disenfranchised of Brazil and his pastoral
duties among prisoners promote the cause of human dignity.
Father Mauzeroll has also done special work in the parish of
Vila Fatima, where he helped create the human rights centre. His
work in Brazil is supported by a team of priests in the dioceses of
Ottawa, Mont-Laurier and Gatineau—Hull.
Our congratulations and best wishes to Gérald Mauzeroll.
* * *
PATRIOTS OF SAINT-EUSTACHE
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, carved out of the lands of the seigneurie des Mille Isles,
the riding of Sainte-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse occupies an important
place in our national history.
On December 14, 1837, 2,000 English soldiers commanded by
Colborne waged battle with some one hundred of our young men. In
response to Queen Victoria's troops, Dr. Jean-Olivier Chénier and
his companions offered heroic resistance. With only the meanest of
weapons, this clutch of men, barricaded in the church, fought a
courageous battle over several hours with 70 of them losing their
lives.
The people of Quebec remember you, Jean-Olivier Chénier,
Jean-Baptiste Lauzé, François Dubé, Nazaire Fillion, Joseph
Guitard, Séraphin Doré, Joseph Bouvret, Jean-Baptiste Toupin,
Alexis Lachance, Pierre Dubeau, Joseph Paquet, and all the
others.
* * *
[English]
WAR CRIMES
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not believe everything I read in the newspaper. However, I hope
what was reported on Monday in the Toronto Star is correct.
It was reported that tomorrow, December 12, the Minister of
Justice will announce that Neal Sher will be hired as a special
adviser to the war crimes unit in the Department of Justice.
My constituents in the riding of Thornhill will be delighted if
this report is true. Mr. Sher will be of great assistance to the
Canadian government, bringing war criminals to trial in Canada.
While acting as the head of the U.S. justice department's office
of special investigations, he had a most impressive record of
deporting war crime suspects from the United States.
Canada must not be, nor be seen as, a haven for war criminals
and I am proud to say that the government of which I am a member
is taking action to correct a problem that has gone on for too
long. I would like to welcome Mr. Sher to Canada and I wish him
success in his attempts to rid our country of people who have
committed unspeakable crimes against humanity.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the
Quebec premier, Lucien Bouchard, and the PQ members of the Saguenay—Lac
Saint-Jean and Abitibi—Témiscamingue regions are imposing new changes
on the load requirements for heavy vehicles, by allowing 25 meter long
road trains, and a load increase of several thousands kilos.
It is estimated that, every day, 400 additional trucks may travel
on the secondary roads of the Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region. People
are afraid of trucks. The Quebec transport minister is the first one to
admit that certain roads in the Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region arre
dangerous.
Through their silence, Lucien bouchard, who is from Lac Saint-Jean,
and the PQ members are signing the death warrant of the railway network
in these rural areas, that is the short line railway for northern
Quebec. A public debate must take place. Quebeckers are the only ones
who should make this decision.
* * *
[English]
'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
'Twas the night before Christmas and all of Sundre was sleeping,
Safe in the knowledge Reform's watch I was keeping.
Me and my stetson and Art in the night,
Prepared our Sea King for a long winter's flight.
We tightened the rotors and filled it with gas,
Praying we will make it to see Preston at last.
The copter it shook and landed with a splatter,
On 24 Sussex, hey Art, grab the ladder.
We ran from the copter to the back of the house,
Past the guards and the sensors, quiet as a mouse.
The PM appeared, mad as a hatter,
Sculptures in hand, poised like a batter.
Myron and Art, he cried with delight,
Come in, come in, come in from the night.
Of course you know Herb and Sheila and Paul,
We're writing a new red book, it's due out next fall.
Our ideas are vague, disjointed and few,
Will you call Preston, he'll know what to do.
Do you think this is Christmas, Art said with a smile,
While off in the corner, I started to dial.
Preston, it's Myron, I'm with the PM,
He's turning Reform, Herb, lend me a pen.
Just as he signed Paul started to shout,
How much will this cost, our books are in doubt.
Our country's at stake, Reform is the answer
If you don't like our beef, try eating Prancer.
* * *
1405
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is this relatively new phenomenon of teenage group
criminality that manifests itself in the commission of serious
assaults and the swarming, looting and vandalism of shopping
malls?
What is this deviant activity that only two weeks ago resulted
in the brutal murder of a teenage girl? And what is the
anti-social impulse that compelled dozens of young people to
stand by idly while this innocent girl was beaten to death?
This type of behaviour is occurring with alarming frequency and
violence and is no longer confined to the asphalt jungles of
North America's mega cities. This type of behaviour defies
comprehension and suggests an underlying desensitization and
total disregard for the consequences of a criminal act.
This form of group criminality goes beyond the scope of the
Young Offenders Act. It needs to be examined right now and
addressed independently of the act to ensure the future
well-being and safety of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE AGAINST ABORIGINAL WOMEN
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, violence
in Canada's aboriginal communities is omnipresent. It is a constant
threat to the safety and the development of the full potential of
aboriginal children and women.
During the hearings of the royal commission, First nations, Inuit
and Metis women said they would like to see better support services, and
also alcohol and drug abuse programs that are more effective and better
suited to their environment.
I urge the Liberal government to follow up on the commission's
recommendation by implementing community projects and a health care
system for aboriginals, in which women will have a decision making role.
These women are aware of the consequences of violence in their
communities and they want to be part of the new reality, so that their
physical and psychological well-being, and that of their children, will
finally be protected. The federal government must take immediate action
in this area.
* * *
TRIBUTE TO SOEUR LORETTE GALLANT
Ms. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to pay tribute to Soeur Lorette Gallant.
For the past 40 years, Soeur Lorette has been directing Les Jeunes
Chanteurs de l'Acadie, a choir of young people from the Greater Moncton
area. Soeur Lorette started this choir in 1957 at Beauséjour school.
Over the years, the choir became more community based. Les Jeunes
Chanteurs de l'Acadie have won several provincial, national and
international awards. The choir has provided many young people the
opportunity to travel across Canada as well as abroad.
In 1996, Soeur Lorette was made a member of the Order of Canada in
recognition of her dedication to young people and to her community.
[English]
Soeur Lorette is a remarkable person who dedicated herself to
children in her community. She has helped many children over the
years build a sense of respect and commitment. We are all very
grateful to her for this. She is our idol.
* * *
'TWAS THE NIGHT AFTER KYOTO
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
'Twas the night after Kyoto, and all through the land
Not a person could tell where the Liberals stand
While the stockings are hung by the chimney with care
The Liberals claim that chimneys shouldn't be there
They say we should trust them, don't worry or fret
But Canadians feel they've been shafted, you bet
They think back to Pearson, the airport that's gone
Or the sad cancellation of the EH-101
The Somalia thing, and the Krever thing too
It's no wonder Canadians don't know what to do
The Quebec referendum, Mulroney's Airbus
And the pepper spray story they said was no fuss
The fund-raising scandal where money brought grants
Was a Liberal plan till the cops said you can't
A victims first policy is replaced in the night
With a new Liberal promise—more animal rights
The postal strike problem, it was clear as a bell
It was proof, said the Libs, that the system works well
Then out in the land there arose such a clatter
The spin doctors asked themselves, what is the matter?
Our patronage system is working just fine
Every Liberal job we give is one of a kind
Could it be they detect that our Grit arrogance
Has now reached such proportion it causes offence?
The Liberals are famous for taking, not giving
They're year round examples that Scrooge is still living
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the Canadian first ministers conference just hours away,
the PQ government went all out by asking the federal government to
freeze its spending in various economic and social programs.
1410
The PQ's political goals are clear: to derail any plans for
federal-provincial co-operation regarding the future of Canada.
The Parti Quebecois is carrying on its irresponsible referendum
battle, inviting the Canadian government to abandon its responsibilities
to the people of Canada, something our government is obviously not
prepared to do.
We made a vital commitment to the people of Canada in the last
election campaign to improve their quality of life. Giving in to threats
by a sovereignist provincial government, whose sole purpose is to break
up the country, is out of the question.
If the Parti Quebecois is serious about taking Quebec out of Canada
and will not agree to full and frank discussion, it should call an
election in Quebec and let the people know what their future will be
after separation.
* * *
[English]
CAPE TORMENTINE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has abandoned the once
prosperous community of Cape Tormentine.
Upon completion of the fixed link, the ferry service from the
village of Cape Tormentine to Prince Edward Island ceased. The
village lost not only the ferry but its prosperity as well.
Hope was to be restored with the announcement of new money under
the Cape Tormentine redevelopment program. The federal
government pledged $1.8 million to help offset the closure of
Maritime Atlantic's terminal.
The program turned out to be nothing but a series of empty
promises. Why is it? Perhaps because the provincial government
had already exhausted half the funds allocated to the program.
This government is subsidizing the New Brunswick provincial
Liberal's byelection campaign by pick-pocketing ACOA funds in
order to finance projects for the department of agriculture and
the department of economic development and tourism.
I demand that the minister ensure that the money supposed to go
to the Cape Tormentine area gets to the people who need it. They
have suffered long enough.
* * *
“LET US SPEND”
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Unemployment rates are frightful
Inside the Grits feel delightful
They say stop the cuts and then
Some hon. members: Let us spend, let us spend, let us
spend.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne:
The Grits say we need to buy some votes back
We must reward some old hacks
The jobless can wait till then
Some hon. members: Let us spend, let us spend, let us
spend.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne:
The Grits say, when we finally balance the books
These same books we can cook
And if Canadians hold on tight
We'll give them a great big tax hike
The Tories made it easy
Free Trade is not so sleazy
So we'll take the credit and then
Some hon. members: Let us spend, let us spend, let us
spend.
* * *
[Translation]
CULTURAL AND SPORTING EVENTS IN THE MAURICIE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again the Mauricie region has to mobilize against this government.
Greater Trois-Rivières decries the inertia of the Liberals,
who have forced the tobacco companies to withdraw their support for
cultural and sporting events next fall, thus threatening the
survival of the Trois-Rivières grand prix.
However, on the eve of the election, Mr. Dingwall, Minister of
Health at the time, announced his intention to introduce
amendments. In a letter to car race organizers, he wrote, and I
quote “I want it to be clear that, before the end of 1997, we will
have time to introduce amendments in Parliament”.
This government abused the trust of the people of Quebec and
of the Mauricie region.
The Trois-Rivières grand prix means $10 million in economic
benefits, but more importantly it is an opportunity for pride that
unites our people behind an activity that gives them international
recognition. We want to develop this event, not just to have it
survive. This is why we demand the government honour the
commitment it made before the last election.
* * *
[English]
SPEAKER'S WORKSHOP
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all members of Parliament I want to thank
the little elves of parliament who sit at your feet ready to
scurry to meet our every need.
I also want to thank the reindeer with their little green sleigh
who drive us around Parliament Hill.
[Translation]
I also want to thank the angels posted at every door and in
the corridors who look after our security and the beavers in the
far corners of these buildings who help us to do our job.
[English]
And you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Santa Claus pardon me, who sits
benevolently in your big chair to make sure that we are all good
little girls and boys.
Finally, to all Canadians who have given us the privilege of
serving the history of this country, nos meilleurs voeux du temps
des Fêtes.
Happy 1998 and thank you all.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the environment minister signed the Kyoto
deal. That means that Canada is committed to drastic cuts in
economic activity.
Canadians now want answers on how much this will cost in terms
of lost jobs and higher taxes, but the government refuses to
answer. It just keeps saying “We don't know, so tell us your
position” or the biggest whopper of all is “We don't know but
it is probably cheaper to sign than not to sign”.
Tonight when the Prime Minister meets the premiers and they ask
how much does Kyoto cost, does the government really think the
premiers will buy these whoppers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party still has not made up its mind whether
climate change is a problem. Until it does, it has no
credibility with Canadians. It should go back home over the
holidays and figure out what it wants to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Reform wants a balanced approach on this issue. It is
the government that will not provide the economic side.
The premiers know that the cost of Kyoto could be thousands of
lost jobs and even a 35¢ a litre jump at the pump. The Prime
Minister lost the support of British Columbia, Alberta and
Saskatchewan before the government went to Kyoto and now Ontario
says it will not go along.
How can the government possibly expect to implement this
agreement and force it on these premiers when it has alienated at
least four of them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we believe that we made a good deal for Canadians on
both environmental and economic grounds and we believe that as we
discuss this with the premiers, they will join in the plan to
make sure that the economy not only is not hurt by the Kyoto deal
but will benefit from it.
Unlike the Reform Party, we have confidence in the ability of
Canadians to develop and apply technologies not only to deal with
global warming but also to advance our economy and to advance the
position of the world.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
That is meaningless smog, Mr. Speaker.
A month ago Ottawa and the premiers agreed on a united position
for Kyoto. Since then the Prime Minister unilaterally changed
his position twice and the position that was signed at Kyoto is a
different position again.
Why should other countries believe the Prime Minister will keep
his promises at Kyoto when he does not keep his promises to the
premiers of Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister took into account the views of the
provincial premiers. Provincial ministers were present as part
of the negotiations.
I ask the Leader of the Reform Party, why should the people of
Canada believe him when he cannot even say what his position is
and what should be done about the issue of global warming?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians woke up and asked themselves today, just what is this
Kyoto deal all about. Now we know what it is about. It is a
fancy photo op with some headlines.
In fact, the Kyoto deal is not even worth the recycled paper
that it is printed on. The Prime Minister flip-flopped so many
times about this that the provinces are refusing to implement the
deal.
How can the government prove today that this Kyoto deal is not
just a Rio repeat?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we cannot talk about people being in the House and so
on, but I would say that from what I see of the Reform House
leader there is a real improvement in his hairdo and perhaps the
Leader of the Reform Party ought to go to the same barber.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
will not comment about hair, but we will comment about the Kyoto
deal.
The premiers have said the deal is dead and it is going
absolutely nowhere. They know that the deal could lead to
thousands of job losses and a 35¢ jump at the pumps for gas.
At the end of the day the environment has not been helped and
neither has the economy, so we are no further ahead on this.
Let me ask the government, someone who will answer a question
finally about Kyoto.
1420
Why did this government let itself get swept away by an
environmental Meech Lake sequel?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we believe that Canada has worked out a good deal in
negotiating with the other countries. It is a deal that is good
for the world. Above all, it is good for Canada in terms of
balancing our economic and environmental interests.
If the hon. member thinks this was only a photo opportunity, why
should she worry about its effect on Canadians?
* * *
[Translation]
FISCAL DIVIDEND
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the premiers are unanimous that the federal government should stop
spending on new programs in provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Judging by the panic of the federal ministers of finance and
intergovernmental affairs yesterday, Quebec and the provinces have
hit a nerve.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that, through its arrogant
and narrow attitude, his government is cutting itself off, when it
is his government, the federal government, that has the furthest to
go to find common ground with the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois has only to look at the areas in which
we have invested. The first thing the government did was to put
$1.5 billion into the Canada social transfer, and it did so at the
request of the provinces. We invested $850 million, to be matched
by a similar amount in a second stage, according to the Minister of
Human Resources Development, at the request of the provinces. We
invested in infrastructures at the request of the provinces.
A look at what the Canadian government has done—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance is again telling us that he invested $6
billion in just a few years when, instead of cutting $48 billion,
he cut $42 billion. His math is interesting.
My question is how can the federal government still claim to
have the monopoly on being able to interpret what the public is
thinking, and why, with the provinces unanimous, is it once again
the federal government alone that is right about what to do with
the fiscal dividend?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talks about unanimity. When we look at the initiative
of the Minister of Human Resources Development with respect to the
national child benefit, the provinces were certainly all for that.
When we look at the infrastructure program, that was at the request
of the provinces.
So, if the member wants to talk about unanimity, he should
have been with me at the meeting of finance ministers. He would
have seen that the priorities of the Canadian government, the
priorities of the provinces, and the priorities of Canadians are
the same: child poverty, health, training, human resources,
research and development. The priority is to build the future.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance. All the evidence points to the
fact that the federal government cannot resist the temptation to
sprinkle the anticipated fiscal dividend here and there, despite
the consensus of the provinces.
If the federal government has that much difficulty resisting
temptation, is it not because it is constantly seeking to justify
its existence and sees going over the heads of the provinces and
delivering services directly to the population as an easy way of
doing so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
role of the Canadian government is to protect the national interest
and it is our intention to do so.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from the
minister's replies it is obvious that the dice were stacked from
the start, the decisions have already been made, and if the
provinces do not bow to the federal government's point of view, the
conference will be a failure.
In that case, what is the point of the provincial premiers
coming to Ottawa?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the
world.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Stéphane Dion: The Canadian government fulfils its
responsibilities and it will do so in conjunction with the
provinces in the social field, for this requires us to work
together. We have one of the most generous social systems in the
world, and if it is successful, it is because we are working
together. That is why they have come today, to strengthen our
concerted efforts.
* * *
[English]
EDUCATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
average university graduate in Canada today goes out into the
world with high hopes and high debt.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said he is ready to reinvest in
Canada's young people.
Does that mean he is ready to abolish the death sentence being
imposed on students? Will he reinvest the $1.4 billion in
education cuts and ensure that there is a student assistance
program that provides grants based on students' economic needs?
1425
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House
are well aware of the difficult situation faced by a growing
number of students in this country. We began to tackle this
situation in the budget of last year. The Minister of Finance is
helping parents to save money toward education. He has increased
the interest relief period for student loans.
A few weeks ago I held in Ottawa the first ever conference of
stakeholders on this very subject. Many very good propositions
were made to us.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
are a lot of parents who do not have money to save. Government
cuts have forced many university students to play tuition
roulette. They are hoping the wheel stops on a number they can
afford. Luck should never determine anyone's chance for an
education.
Is the Prime Minister ready to stop the tuition roulette wheel?
Will he work with the premiers to freeze tuitions until
accessibility becomes a national standard in this country?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have direct grants to
students in need and we will continue to build on the system we
have. The leader of the NDP is asking us to set tuition fees,
which is a provincial jurisdiction, and we respect provincial
jurisdictions in this country.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
years leading up to this first ministers conference the
provincial governments have been saying that rather than having
unilateral decisions by Ottawa in areas of shared jurisdiction,
there should be agreed upon national standards. Rather than
having unilateral cuts from Ottawa there should be a shared
funding agreement and rather than having unilateral sanctions
from Ottawa, there should be shared mechanisms for some of the
conflicts.
Will the minister or the government agree today that it is now
time for a new agreement, a new approach, a national covenant
between the provinces and the federal government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want to work in partnership with the provinces in the
interests of all Canadians. For that purpose we not only need a
partnership, we need national leadership.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
hope that leadership would happen in all areas. Let us start
with youth employment. I do not think national leadership would
be qualified as setting a full half hour aside to discuss youth
unemployment at a first ministers conference.
The government has since admitted that it has no new ideas, no
new plans. Could we reiterate today the demand made by the
unions, all the business groups in the country and now the
provinces that the government decrease EI premiums to $2 to
allow young Canadians to get back to work? Exercise leadership.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we already cut EI premiums this year by $1.4 billion.
Let me simply say to the hon. member that for the 10 years the
Conservative government was in power the provinces asked if there
could be shared co-operation in the administration of the tax
system. Year after year the Conservatives said “we won't
co-operate”.
My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and I met with
the provinces and we are putting in place a new era. The
minister of finance from Alberta stood up in the Alberta House
and said that he was delighted to see the way in which the
federal government was working with the provinces.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
can all learn lessons from the terrible plane crash that occurred
in Manitoba. It is painfully obvious to the public and to this
House that we need search and rescue helicopters now. Why do we
not have them? Because of a squabble taking place between the
Department of National Defence and the cabinet.
I ask the Prime Minister this. How long is the Prime Minister
going to allow a cabinet squabble to interfere with the safety of
Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is totally incorrect. We should
first recognize the tragedy that occurred in Little Grand Rapids,
Manitoba. We should indicate our sympathy with the families of
the people who lost their lives. We should indicate our thanks
to the people in the community who put out a great effort to try
to help the victims.
Finally, we should thank the search and rescue personnel who
brought out 13 survivors from the crash.
1430
This has nothing to do with the matter of purchasing new
helicopters. Yes, we need new helicopters, but our search and
rescue did its job.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has everything to do with search and rescue helicopters,
machines the military can use so that it can do its job.
We all know why the cabinet is in turmoil over this issue. It
spent four years. It spent half a billion dollars and risked the
lives of troops and of Canadians. Military experts long ago
informed them which helicopter is the best. They are just trying
to save political face.
Would the prime minister set aside his petty political concerns,
do what is right for public safety and announce a helicopter deal
today?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. The
government is committed to getting a helicopter that will meet
our operational needs and that will provide good value for the
Canadian taxpayers and to doing it as soon as we possibly can.
It is a serious matter of getting the right helicopter for the
purposes of search and rescue of Canadians. We want to make sure
the right decision is made and will make it as soon as we can.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have heard the
Minister of Finance state on a number of occasions this week that any
fiscal dividend arising from a federal budget surplus does not belong to
any government, it belongs to the people of Canada.
If indeed any budget surplus belongs to all Canadians and not to
any government, why is he acting as if he alone had the power to decide
what use to make of it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
prebudget consultations were held in every province of the country. My
colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, indicated that
there had been an election in which the anticipated surplus was
certainly discussed. It should be pointed out that, when I met with my
finance counterparts this week, the use to be made of these surpluses
was discussed.
We are working in perfect co-operation with the provinces.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one the reasons
the federal deficit got so huge is precisely the federal government's
excessive spending in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
With the Liberal government acting the way it is, can we not
conclude that it did not get the message and that, now that a surplus is
in sight, it is set to make the exact same mistake and fall back into
the same old ways? Once a Liberal, always a Liberal.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
very clearly expressed our intention to use surpluses to reduce taxes
and the national debt and to invest in areas where Canadians have the
greatest needs.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Quebec's separatist premier asked that 75% of the
surplus be devoted to lowering federal income taxes.
[Translation]
Finally, we have found something that can unite Canadians from
coast to coast.
[English]
We know reducing taxes is the fair and humane thing to do. We
know it will help unite the country. Why is the finance
minister opposed to helping Canadians by lowering taxes? Why not
do it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Premier of Quebec suggested that 100% of
any surplus be used to reduce taxes and that none of it be used
to reduce debt. We know that the Reform Party has said that 35%
of the surplus should be used to reduce debt. The position I
took yesterday was that some of it should go to reducing debt.
The real issue is why the Reform Party engaged in petty partisan
politics, threw its principles over and last night said that it
no longer should be used to reduce debt. Why did the Reform
Party give up on what it believes?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
usual the finance minister is awfully confused about where the
Reform Party stands with Canadians and about putting debt as the
first priority. We want to pay down more debt.
Canadians of both official languages, federalists and
separatists, want to deal with the tax problem. That is the point
the finance minister is missing. Canadians have mortgages to
pay. They have to pay for groceries. They want more tax dollars
left in their pockets.
1435
Why does the finance minister think he can spend Canadians'
money better than they can?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the real issue is why the Reform Party's finance critic
is saying one thing last night and another thing today. He sold
out his principles for petty partisan reasons.
Let me make it very clear and tell where we draw the line with
the Reform Party. The Liberal government stands for the national
interest. We will speak for the national interest and for the
interest of Canadians, which means we will invest where they
require it. We will cut taxes and pay down the debt, but we will
not sell our principles for a mess of pottage some night because
some separatist premier said something.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTORIA BRIDGE
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, because of a dispute between the federal government and
Canadian National, the Victoria Bridge in Montreal could soon be closed.
The issue is the splitting of the renovation costs between the
federal government and CN, and we learned that CN refuses to submit the
dispute to commercial arbitration.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister
realize that tens of thousands of drivers in the Montreal region are
being held to ransom because the federal government cannot reach an
agreement with CN?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Transport Canada first learned in 1994 that CN intended to
repair the Victoria Bridge, instead of building a new facility.
CN had said that repairs to the road section would not begin until
next year. The closing of the bridge was never discussed with CN in our
negotiations to find a solution to the financing of the project before
work begins.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the minister that the Victoria Bridge has been due for
repairs for six years and that the longer we wait, the costlier it gets.
Does the minister intend to use his powers under the legislation so
that the bridge will be repaired to make it perfectly safe for motor
traffic?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate it was only three weeks ago that
CN came to us and said that we should pay for the cost of the
repairs. Otherwise the bridge would be closed to all traffic on
March 1. That is why we replied by saying we would offer
commercial arbitration.
We hope CN will accept that and then the money will be available
for the repairs. In the meantime, not to inconvenience all those
people who we are concerned about in Montreal, the repairs could
go ahead. I asked CN to accept a commercial arbitrator.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if we could figure out some way to tax the finance
minister's overblown rhetoric we would be out of debt by January
1, 1998.
Canadian families have seen their after tax incomes shrink by
over $3,000 since 1993. Frankly Canadians have had enough.
Eighty-two per cent of them have made it abundantly clear that
they could spend smarter than the government.
Why does the finance minister continue to think he can spend
Canadians' money smarter than they can?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, does the hon. member think that talking for the national
interest in the national parliament is overblown rhetoric? Does
he think that talking about narrow sectoral interests or pitting
one region of the country against another is what he was elected
to do?
I will stand in the House and talk for those people who need the
playing field levelled. I will talk for those Canadians who
require help. I will talk for the people who want to invest in
the future because that is what we were elected to do.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that this finance minister takes his
marching orders from his cabinet and special interest groups and
not from Canadian taxpayers.
Canadians are paying more in taxes than they are for food,
shelter and clothing combined. Average families are paying
$21,000 in taxes and only $17,000 for food, shelter and clothing.
That is a $4,000 shortfall.
The minister and the government talk of balance. Where is the
balance in forcing Canadians to pay more for taxes than for food,
shelter and clothing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us take a look at those special interest groups that
we speak for.
They happen to be poor Canadians, young Canadian families,
aboriginal Canadians, Canadians who want to invest in research
and development to build a stronger economy, Canadians who live
in Atlantic Canada, Canadians who do not want to see their
equalization payments cut, senior Canadians who do not want to
see their pensions cut, and Canadians who believe in medicare.
If that hon. member thinks those Canadians are special interest
groups then, yes, we will speak for them.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
SPIRIT OF COLUMBUS PLATFORM
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of International Trade. For more than a year now,
Davie Industries Inc. of Lévis has been awaiting a response from
the Export Development Corporation guaranteeing funding for the
Spirit of Columbus platform.
Given that retrofitting work on the Spirit of Columbus
platform has been under way for four months now, when will the
federal government respond to the application of Davie Industries?
When?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Mr. Landry some months ago. I directed
the EDC to speak with the Quebec SDI. Meetings were held. I have
spoken with the MIL-Davie union president.
The federal government feels this is a very important
undertaking. I respect the recommendations made by the EDC and the
SDI on behalf of the governments of Quebec and of Canada.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at the APEC summit in Vancouver university student Craig Jones
stood on his dormitory lawn and quietly held up a sign that read
“Free Speech”. For this he was wrestled to the ground by
police and held for 14 hours.
We all know this is of no concern to Sergeant Pepper's crew over
there, but I have a question for the government. What
involvement did the prime minister's office have in directing the
RCMP security operations at the APEC summit?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to advise the House
that the public complaints commission is conducting an inquiry
into this matter. We are awaiting the outcome of that inquiry in
the interest of all Canadians.
* * *
REFUGEES
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the auditor general stated that he “deplores the fact that
it takes on average more than two and a half years to settle a
refugee claim”. Today 38,000 refugees have their lives on hold
as they wait to have their claims heard.
The fact of the matter is that the auditor general has been
calling for an overhaul of the minister's department for the last
10 years. Now another promise has been made.
Will the minister commit today to the urgent implementation of
the auditor general's recommendation?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said that I was favourable
to the auditor general's conclusion that an in-depth review of the
refugee determination process was necessary, and that is what we
are going to do.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
I have been hearing from veterans in my riding who are eligible
for pensions but are having to wait months and even years before
receiving them.
Could the minister indicate to the House whether his department
can cut the red tape, as promised in the 1995 pension reform
bill?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, the
government made a commitment two years ago to considerably reduce
the turnaround time.
I am pleased to report to the House that as a result of the
passage of the pension reform legislation and as a result of the
tremendous efforts of veterans affairs staff, veterans groups and
improved technology, we have improved it considerably in two
years. In fact we have reduced it by half.
It is another concrete example of the work the government does
on behalf of all Canada's veterans.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
it concerns the recent APEC summit in Vancouver.
Today we learned that the Prime Minister's office muscled UBC
and the RCMP into moving protesters out of sight and sound of the
APEC leaders.
1445
In view of the the PMO's police state tactics of silencing
aboriginal rights speakers, pepper spraying protesters and
overturning UBC-RCMP agreements, will the government now order a
full independent inquiry, not an independent inquiry into the
RCMP, but into the role of the PMO in these tactics which are
more appropriate to a dictatorial third world thug?
The Speaker: The rhetoric is getting a little bit higher.
I am going to permit the solicitor general to answer if he
wishes.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I already informed the House, the Public Complaints
Commission announced yesterday that it is going to do a review of
the incident. I think it is in the interest of all Canadians to
get to the bottom of it. I look forward to its review.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party leader cynically manipulated a serious aircraft
tragedy by linking it to the need for new helicopters.
In fact, the 24 hour wait endured by the victims was the result
of botched decision making by search and rescue operations. A
pilot in a privately chartered helicopter claimed that he
followed Transport Canada guidelines while landing at the crash
site.
Can the minister of defence tell us why his department failed to
enlist locally available helicopters in this rescue as was the
case in the Red River flood?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forces aircraft went in as
soon as it possibly could. The weather conditions were terrible.
Yes, a helicopter did get in about an hour and a half before our
Hercules got on the ground, but only by getting underneath the
ceiling and doing it at considerable risk.
I did not say that anybody broke rules. That is a point for the
Transportation Safety Board to determine in its investigation of
the matter. Certainly it was done at considerable risk.
Our people got in there as quickly as they could and they did in
fact perform the rescue.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
information has come to us that there was a meeting of the inner
cabinet last Thursday at which the decision was taken to choose
the EH-101. That information was subsequently leaked to the
other bidders before it was announced to the full cabinet.
When the Prime Minister learned about this, we were told that he
hit the roof. He even asked the officials to leave the cabinet
room and put the entire process on hold until further notice. Can
the defence minister confirm this?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are moving as quickly as we can on the
purchase of necessary search and rescue helicopters.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
what is very clear is that this minister has tainted the entire
process by his dithering. Well, time is up. In 25 days all four
helicopter bids expire. If that happens, the defence minister
will have to restart the process at a cost of millions of
dollars.
What is the minister going to do? Is he going to try to sneak
this announcement by Canadians on Christmas Eve, or will he have
to start the process all over again from scratch?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a hypothetical question. We are
dealing with the matter as quickly as possible.
We recognize the need for proper search and rescue helicopters.
We have good equipment now. We have people who operate it and do
an excellent job. There is no doubt that we are going to need
new helicopters and we need them soon.
* * *
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The Canadian Dairy Commission is poised to set a price increase
for industrial milk. Can the minister tell this House how this
pricing regime operates? Second and most important, can he
assure us that the Canadian dairy industry will continue to be
competitive and a productive force in the Canadian economy?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Canadian
dairy industry is one of the most efficient, productive and
innovative industries in the world.
Since 1990, as far as the pricing of industrial milk products
are concerned, the Canadian Dairy Commission in consultation with
the producers, the processors and the food industry have set the
support price for skim milk powder and butter. This has given
the producers of industrial milk a fair return for their
production and has kept the cost to the consumer of dairy
products lower than the consumer price index.
* * *
COINAGE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
know why the government is using taxpayers' money to compete with
private enterprise.
The government has authorized the building of a $30 million coin
plating plant in Winnipeg in direct competition to Westaim
Corporation, a firm in my riding with a 30 year record of high
quality products.
1450
Why is the government risking $30 million of taxpayers' money to
build a plant that will compete directly with a successful
private firm?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me tell
the hon. member that Canadian taxpayers will not pay a penny.
This project will be totally financed by the mint. We will also
receive benefits because we will be able to pay dividends.
Most important, what the member does not know is that this
decision was made to ensure that the mint would continue to have
the necessary supplies. In January 1997 the supplier said that
four years from now it will get out of the coinage business and
therefore the mint would not have any more supplies.
* * *
[Translation]
SINGER RETIREES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the former
Singer employees, whose average age is over 82, have just had their
first victory.
The Federal Court has just dismissed the case of the Minister
of Human Resources Development, requiring it to recognize the
representativity of the group of retirees and their spokespersons.
Will the minister finally stop playing the arrogant technocrat
and allow this dispute to be settled by mediation, out of respect
for these former workers, who have already waited far too long?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that
the Federal Court acknowledged a few weeks ago, as indeed it does
each time, that this could be a class action. This is nothing new
and the government has not had its case dismissed, not in the
least. The court itself is the one that wanted to clarify the
matter of representativity.
As for the rest of the matter, it is before the courts and we
have to wait for this extremely important decision.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
As the holiday season approaches, we know that bankers in
Canada, like Scrooge, have never been more joyful. Yet there are
millions of Canadians for whom Charles Dickens' A Christmas
Carol is more than a story from the 1800s. Today there are
1.4 million Canadian children living in poverty.
Will the Minister of Finance take the children of Canada out of
the 1800s? Canada deserves a finance minister who gives like
Santa, not behaves like Scrooge.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very concerned about the plight of Canada's
children, which is why my colleagues have done so much and will
continue to do so much. It is why we are now talking to the
provinces about investing in the future of Canada's children. The
member has raised a very important point.
The member referred to Scrooge. I look at the Leader of the
Opposition and his speech yesterday. I must say that when we
look at what the Reform Party would do, it would certainly scare
the dickens out of you. In fact Reform would destroy Canada's
great expectations. They would leave us with a tale of two
unequal cities. In fact, if they were ever elected, this House
would indeed be bleak.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this week the standing committee on justice
completed its report on the firearms regulations. Many witnesses
testified that the regulations will not have the effect on crime
prevention and safety that we were told, but would target
law-abiding citizens and create a logistical nightmare.
The Conservative Party supports effective gun legislation like
Bill C-17, but this cumbersome set of regulations is a sham.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm that the department
estimates of $85 million are low and that the true cost of
implementation is closer to $500 million? And unlike her
predecessor, can she give us those numbers and stand by them
today?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member
to the opinions of the chiefs of police, the Canadian Police
Association and victims groups from all across the country. They
believe this law will be effective gun control and will lead to
safer and more secure communities.
I would suggest that the hon. member look to those opinions.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, major
increases in the number of displaced persons have led rich and poor
countries to no longer accept refugees.
My question is for the Minister of Immigration. Can the minister
guarantee to the House that Canada will continue to accept bona fide
refugees who may be persecuted in their own country?
1455
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, Canada will continue to accept bona fide
refugees who fear persecution. Canada's reputation at the international
level is well established in that area, and we are very proud that our
contribution was acknowledged by the UNHCR. Also, improving protection
for bona fide refugees will definitely be the objective of our review of
the Canadian legislation.
* * *
[English]
SEASON'S GREETINGS
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have one further question for the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Notwithstanding that the government has bungled this Kyoto deal,
notwithstanding that it has angered half the premiers in Canada,
and notwithstanding that it continued to tax Canadians to death,
will the Deputy Prime Minister convey to the Prime Minister,
Madame Chrétien and his colleagues the best wishes of the
official opposition for the Christmas season?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while I do not accept the preamble to the hon. leader's
question, even though he does not know what he is talking about
when it comes not only to climate change, lowering taxes, but to
helping Canadians generally, I on behalf of the Prime Minister
and all the members on this side of the House would like to
convey to him and his colleagues and to all Canadians a Merry
Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.
[Translation]
Happy holidays everyone and a happy New Year.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I am not sure if I should quit while I
am ahead here. I think I will.
My colleagues, there was a House order agreed on for today. We
will be taking our leave from this place for the next little
while. As is customary at this time of year, I usually have a
reception for all members of Parliament. This time the reception
will be in room 216N and I am inviting you there for two reasons.
The first is to sign a banner wishing our Canadian athletes good
luck at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano. The second is just so
that we can come together to wish each other personally good
wishes for this time of the year. I think we are all in the
right kind of mood and I hope the country is in the same mood as
we are in now.
I do thank you and I wish you good holidays.
1500
Order. This part of our day is finished of course, but we have
other business to conduct. We are going to have tributes now to
one of our colleagues whom many of us served with in this House,
Mr. Tony Yanakis, who passed away a little while ago. We are
going to begin the tributes. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister will
lead off.
* * *
[Translation]
TRIBUTE TO THE LATE ANTONIO YANAKIS
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to one of our former colleagues, the late Antonio
Yanakis.
A former Liberal member for the riding of
Berthier—Maskinongé—Lanaudière, in Quebec, he very actively
represented his constituents, who renewed their confidence in him
over almost 20 years.
He was always very close to his family, who has joined us today.
It is therefore with sadness that we say farewell today to Antonio
Yanakis, a man devoted to his constituents, who represented them in this
House, a man valued by his colleagues throughout his career in this
House.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I extend my deepest
condolences to his children and family.
1505
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to add my condolences on the passing of Antonio
Yanakis. Mr. Yanakis was born on July 6, 1922 in Montreal. He
achieved a Bachelor of Commerce at McGill University. He was
very active in politics for over 20 years. He was the mayor of
Ville Saint-Gabriel from 1961 to 1963 and was elected to the
House of Commons in 1965.
He presented himself very well in many of the committees of this
House, including the agricultural committee, forestry and crown
corporations. He was a Knight of Columbus and a member of
numerous service clubs in his community.
We in this House regret the passing of Antonio Yanakis and pass
along our sincere regrets to his family and friends.
[Translation]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
New Democratic Party, I would like to extend our sympathies to the
family of Antonio Yanakis, who passed away a few days ago.
Mr. Yanakis was first elected in 1965 and re-elected five times. I
clearly recall that Mr. Yanakis was here when I was elected in 1968,
because he had just been re-elected. He went on to be re-elected in
1972, 1974, 1979 and 1980. If I remember correctly, he was the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour at the time. He was a
fine politician, who represented his constituents very well for 15
years.
I would like, once again, to extend our condolences to his family.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I did not know Mr.
Yanakis personally. I arrived here in 1984. As mentioned earlier, Mr.
Yanakis was a member of Parliament from 1965 to 1984. He was first
elected at the age of 43.
I took time to read his first speech in the House of Commons. No
one will be surprised to learn that he loved his riding of
Berthier—Maskinongé—Lanaudière, which he described as a region
of beautiful mountains and vast forests, with hundreds of lakes
where summer visitors can relax in a beautiful setting.
He also said “as you probably know, I am the first Canadian of
Greek origin to be elected to the Parliament of Canada, and in an almost
exclusively French Canadian riding.
This would indicate that Quebec is far from displaying the fanaticism it
is sometimes accused of”.
Mr. Yanakis stressed Quebec's dynamism. He said that “the new,
dynamic Quebec wants to be a leader and help shape a new and proud
Canada. It is in the full respect of the rights of both official groups,
anglophones and francophones, that Canadians are asking us to speak on
behalf of the new Canada”.
On behalf of the Progressive-Conservative Party of Canada, and on
my own behalf, I wish to offer our most sincere condolences to all those
who knew Mr. Yanakis, particularly his family and friends.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I too would like to say a few words,
because I knew Antonio Yanakis. Incidentally, his family is here with us
today.
Mr. Yanakis was first elected nine years before me, and we met for
the first time in 1974. We worked together until 1984. I do not really
remember whether he retired at the time, or whether he was defeated. In
any case, we were troopers together in the House.
[English]
There was a time when I was the chairman of the Liberal caucus
and Tony Yanakis was the treasurer. He was the one who had to
raise the money so things could go on in the caucus. I found him
to be a very warm person. I found him to be very reliable.
1510
I do not know that I could call myself among his closest
friends, but I revelled in the fact that I knew him well. We
travelled together in Geneva where he represented Canada. At
that time, I was brand new to the international scene, but he was
not.
Tony Yanakis I found had a warmth about him that endeared him to
all of us who served with him in this House. It can be said I
think fairly that after having served this country, after having
served his province, after having served his municipality so well
for so many years, he should be saluted by us here in this House.
He was one of us. He was a parliamentarian of Canada and you,
his family who are here today, have every right to feel the pride
of your father, of your father-in-law, of your real friend that
all of us felt for him as a parliamentarian.
Those of us who knew him well miss him very much and we give you
our most heartfelt condolences. We wish you welcome, also, to
this place where he served us, where he served you and where he
served Canadians for two decades. I thank you in the name of
Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I think it might be a question of privilege.
I will hear it.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I will leave to your capable judgment whether it is.
I do raise this as a question of privilege of which I have given
you notice today.
On December 8, the Department of Revenue updated its website
concerning payroll deductions and has published new tables
reflecting those changes proposed in Bill C-2 as if those rates
were now law.
These are found at website WWW.RC.GC.ca/menuemenuHSA.HTML. The
House has passed and sent to the Senate Bill C-2, as members are
well aware, which amends the law respecting the Canada pension
plan.
To date, no message has been received from the Senate concerning
the passage of this bill. The Senate is capable of protecting
its own privilege in this case, however the House is also seized
with the issue since the content of Bill C-2 is not settled until
both Houses have agreed on the final content and royal assent has
been granted.
It is still open to the Senate to remit this bill to the House
for consideration of amendments, including the alteration of
those matters that the government is publishing as though they
are now law.
By publishing these tables before the enactment of Bill C-2, the
government seeks to preclude this House from any consideration of
amendments that the Senate might remit as a result of its
deliberations. I submit that this constitutes a contempt of the
Parliament of Canada.
I draw the Speaker's attention to page 226 of the second edition
of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada which
states:
Contempt cannot be codified: Contempt has no limits.
This is why it is said that the “privileges” of the House
cannot be exhaustively codified; there are many acts or omissions
that might occur where the House would feel compelled to find
that a contempt has taken place, even though such acts or
omissions do not amount to an attack on or disregard for any of
the enumerated rights and immunities.
Further on the same page, it states as follows:
As a Speaker said, “—the dimension of contempt of Parliament
is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a
breach of privilege of Members, or of the House. This is
precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined,
contempt of the House has no limits.
When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so
too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a
contempt of the House has occurred.
Mr. Speaker, you will also want to refer to the ruling of
Speaker Fraser on October 10, 1989. At that time, the Speaker
warned the government that he would not treat similar situations
lightly.
Mr. Speaker, you yourself have made a similar ruling at least
twice in this session.
1515
Mr. Speaker, it is my submission to you that the time has come
for the Chair to adopt the doctrine set out at page 227 of
Maingot:
In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks
simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a
breach of privilege—or, to put it shortly, has the Member an
arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question,
he should leave it to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the time of this House. The
precedents are before you and are known to you and indeed in this
Parliament you have dealt with this issue, I would suggest. Your
ruling cautioned the officials of the Department of Finance in
that instance. Now I would suggest the disease has spread to the
department of revenue. Obviously your admonition has carried
little weight with the government and those public officials
concerned with the electronic publication of this table at the
web site which I have placed before you.
This matter should be put to the House through Mr. Speaker and
considered as an abuse of Parliament by this government.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. House leader for the Conservative Party has
raised an interesting point. However, I would suggest that you
reserve judgment on this point until you are able to hear from
the minister in question or his parliamentary secretary. They
are not in the House at the present time.
Also, I might observe that Bill C-2 arises out of
an agreement between the Government of Canada and at least eight
of the provinces, published and made known before the
legislation was brought forward in this House. I do not think
anybody has ever suggested that under these circumstances
information arising out of or from the agreement between the
federal government and the provinces being made known to the
public constitutes a breech of privilege because it comes forward
before the implementing legislation has become law in totality.
Furthermore, I would like to suggest that if in its wisdom the
other place decides to amend Bill C-2, frankly the hon. member
has not made out a case as to why the web site in question would
in any way prevent the other place from amending the bill and
sending it back here for our consideration.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider, whatever the
weight of the hon. member's argument, whether you can act on the
matter because he did not, as far as I could hear, end his
intervention by offering to move or in fact moving the
appropriate motion.
The Speaker: I thank both the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the Deputy Prime Minister for
their views on this question of privilege.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough brings up
points that were raised earlier in the year. I have ruled on
matters similar to this one. However, I want to take the advice
of the Deputy Prime Minister in this regard. I would like to
hear from the minister involved in this question of privilege. I
am going to reserve judgment on this until I can get more
information.
In any case, as far as I know, this is our last day of business
here today, which I think is official now. I will have a look at
all the information that I can gather between now and our
return to Parliament. At that time, if it is necessary, I will
come back to the House with a decision after I have gleaned
enough information about it.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
request unanimous consent to present two travel motions.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
a question to unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The answer is no.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, as this is the last day, I
would like to request unanimous consent that the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine present the motion.
1520
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been an attempt to put some motions before the
House and members do not have a copy of the motions or any
understanding of what they are all about. We can hardly give
unanimous consent if we do not know what we are giving unanimous
consent to.
The Speaker: The hon. member for York South—Weston is
correct. With regard to the request made by the parliamentary
secretary, it is not necessary. If the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine wishes to ask this House for
unanimous consent for whatever it is, that is her right and I
recognize the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights—
[English]
The Speaker: First you have to get permission. You are
asking permission to have unanimous consent?
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to put a motion in the House
today.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to put a motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The answer is no.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to its study of social and economic challenges
facing members of the Canadian forces, the Standing Committee
on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel
to western Canada from January 25 to 31, 1998, and that the
necessary staff do accompany the committee.
The Speaker: I take it the hon. member seeks unanimous
consent to put the motion. Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to put a motion before this House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the spirit of the Christmas season, I ask for the consent of the
House to present a very similar motion to the one just presented.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to put another motion?
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: All we are asking for at this point is
unanimous consent to put the motion. After that we will hear
what the motion is.
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to
put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding of the
rules is that once the motion is put, a debate should ensue.
It seems to me the government has mismanaged the agenda to the
point where it is trying to get unanimous consent to run through
this House on the last day of sitting a number of measures for
which it requires consent. At the very least, the government
could grant us the courtesy of advising members of the opposition
what these motions are all about.
I have no difficulty giving consent to having these motions
carry. However, at the very least I would like to see what I am
voting on in advance.
The Speaker: In order to facilitate matters in the House,
perhaps what I will do is give permission for the hon. member
simply to put the motion. Would the hon. member please read the
motion which he wants us to consider. We will go from there.
1525
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that is wise counsel. I therefore rise to ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion. I
move:
That 10 members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans be authorized to travel to Prince Rupert, Vancouver,
Sechelt, Saanich, Ucluelet, Sointula, Alert Bay, Port Hardy and
Campbell River for the week of January 18 to 26, 1998 and that
the necessary staff do accompany the members of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask
permission of the House to present a report from an
interparliamentary delegation that I inadvertently did not
present this morning.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the first
report of Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which
represented Canada at the 1997 spring session of the North
Atlantic Assembly of NATO Parliamentarians held in Luxembourg,
May 28 to June 1, 1997.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to understand. A while ago, my colleague for
Notre-Dame-de-Grace—Lachine could not even read her motion. She
could not be heard. I would like some consistency, if our
colleagues have presentations, if that is the ruling of the
Chair, then hon. members—
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member is right. I thought we
would get through an impasse here. Yes, we do have rules in the
House. I detected a will on the part of the House to hear this
motion and so I put it to the House.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine asked
permission to put it to the floor. I asked permission and it was
turned down.
You are right. I did perhaps transgress the rules. I hope the
House will give me a bit of latitude on that. I think the House
is reasonably well pleased with what it did decide on
collectively. I take the hon. member's words to heart.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I am seeking the
unanimous consent of the House to table a very brief petition
which I did not table this morning.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a
petition from my constituents and individuals from Nova Scotia
pertaining to the removal of GST from books, magazines and
newspapers.
1530
The petition is intended to urge the federal government to
follow that recommendation, and I table it forthwith.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
before question period the hon. member for Kitchener Centre
addressed the House on the pre-budget debate. During the debate
a couple of opposition members indicated that the report of the
Standing Committee on Finance on the pre-budget consultation was
some sort of a trick and that it represented merely the
government platform.
The member for Kitchener Centre is a member of that committee,
travelled with the committee and participated fully in the
process. It would be helpful for Canadians to understand the
genesis of the report.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
for his question.
We listened to all sectors of society when we travelled from
Vancouver to Edmonton, Toronto, Halifax and St. John's as well as
to my own riding of Kitchener Centre. I heard from people who
are street people. I heard from people who I know share the
philosophy of some members opposite.
They appreciated that we had paid down the deficit. They were
looking for leadership from the government, which I think we have
provided in a resounding way by achieving a balance in the report
of the finance standing committee in which all members
participated,
Also we heard from them that there was very little desire for a
cross the board tax cut. People were looking for strategic
investments. The member will see those recommendations in the
finance committee report.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have a
comment, and the member may want to respond to it.
She used the same phrase the Liberals use over and over and
over. It is not a correct way of stating the situation. She
talked of paying down the deficit. That is physically impossible
because a deficit is an amount of money that was borrowed. It is
true that the Liberal government is now borrowing less, so it has
reduced the deficit. It is borrowing less but that has nothing
to do with paying the deficit.
Would the member acknowledge and tell Canadians that the
government has in fact increased the debt but at a slower rate by
reducing the rate of borrowing?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Madam Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for pointing out that there is a deficit and there is a
debt.
Whether or not we want to argue semantics, the reality is the
government has taken a huge burden off the backs of both our
children and our grandchildren by maintaining a balance, a fiscal
balance, so that we can move forward and we can strategically
reinvest in this great country.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I wish the Reform Party were as concerned about poverty
as it is concerned about the definitions of the deficit and the
debt. Then maybe we would have a bit less poverty.
The member across the way mentioned that Canadians were proud.
1535
It depends on where one is living. In the Atlantic provinces
Canadians are certainly not proud of the Liberal government.
Atlantic Canadians are very poor. They have been slashed, cut,
abused and reused.
What does the member opposite think about the way the government
has been working? Does she really agree with the poverty that
has been caused by her government in the last few years?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Madam Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for her question. It was incredible to go across the
country to listen to the people in Saint John talk about living
on $89 a month of welfare.
I agree with the member that poverty is too high. I agree with
her that student debt is a huge issue. There has been a human
cost which we heard about in spades when we travelled across the
country. However, I would also underscore that if we had not
made these difficult decisions and we had not achieved this
balance we could not then redress these issues.
We are now in a position where we can make meaningful decisions
about reinvesting.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened
with interest to my hon. friend who detailed very accurately that
the finance committee travelled extensively. It met with many
Canadians.
After reading the report carefully I wonder whether or not the
committee listened to the people with whom it met. Much of what
I heard people from coast to coast to coast say is not reflected
very accurately in the report. I would not say it is not
reflected at all. That would be silly. I think it is called
keeping the balance.
We heard that the country was not in balance, that it was out of
kilter, and that the weights were a bit lopsided. For some
Canadians things are going incredibly well. I know my hon.
friend is very serious in her work and would agree that for many
Canadians life has actually never been better.
For bankers and those holding bank stock today, man alive, this
is as good as it gets. The stock market is skyrocketing. A lot
of people are saying that exports are up and they have never done
better. It is actually true that many Canadians will have a
fantastic holiday. There will be champagne corks on Bay Street
and on main streets of the country, wherever there are financial
institutions.
The chartered banks are booming with historically high profits.
Another set of banks are doing a booming business, the nearly
1,000 food banks across the country. We should be embarrassed
this afternoon, speaking in the House of Commons and knowing that
there are nearly 1,000 food banks. In fact they have serious
problems because there is not enough food for hungry people.
There are 1.4 million children living in poverty. Only one
industrialized nation has a worse record than Canada's and that
is the United States. We are second from the bottom in terms of
accepting the reality that there are poor children in this
country.
An hon. member: We are behind Albania.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says “We are behind
Albania”. I do not think we should compare ourselves with
Albania. Of the western industrialized nations we are second
from the bottom. We have been there for many years.
What is the government doing about it? Have things improved in
the last year? Have things improved in the last two or three
years? They have worsened over that time. Since 1989 more than
half a million children have been added to the rolls of children
living in poverty. This is bordering on immorality. This is
simply unacceptable.
I suspect some of my friends will say that this is inevitable
when we are trying to get the fundamentals in order. We hear
that regularly. This is one fundamental that we do not have in
order. When there are 1.4 million children living in poverty this
afternoon, and the number will have grown by the time the weekend
is over, that is not a country with its fundamentals in order.
1540
I know the government will say that it has balanced the books.
We will know the books have been balanced properly when all
Canadians can balance their own books, and that is not the case
today.
We should not rest easy because to accept this number of young
people living in poverty is wrong. It is not to say that this is
necessary. In some countries there are no poor children. In
some western industrialized nations a poor child cannot be found.
The reason a poor child cannot be found is that there are no
poor parents.
An hon. member: Where is that?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Norway and Denmark. No poor children
are living in the country of Denmark today, not a one.
An hon. member: You are wrong.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I challenge the Liberal member who is
challenging me. Let the record show that my Liberal friend is
saying that I am wrong, that there are poor children living in
the country of Denmark. There are not.
My friends opposite do not even know the facts. They do not
know the reality. They are saying that all countries have poor
children. Not all countries have poor children.
I remember when we kicked off our hearings with my hon. friends.
They are honourable friends; they take their work seriously. They
worked hard and they met with all sorts of people. I wonder if
they listened, however. The Minister of Finance kicked off the
hearings by saying that we have now cut up our credit card.
It is easy to resolve the deficit crisis if it is simply passed
on to everybody else, if it is passed on to students. The
average student debt is more than $25,000. It is easy to get rid
of a deficit problem by asking everybody else to take out four or
five extra credit cards.
The government passes it along to the provinces with major cuts
in health care, major cuts in education, major cuts in social
programs, and major cuts in the granting agencies for research
facilities across the country. It puts the provinces in more
debt to resolve its debt load.
There is something even more cynical. One reason we do not have
a deficit today is that the government has been dipping into the
EI fund. The government is letting all working people and
employers contribute through payments to the EI fund. It will
dip into that to pay down the deficit on the backs of working
people. It is easy to do, but does it really solving the deficit
and debt crisis?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says “Yes”. They are simply
fobbing it off on other people, hard pressed provincial
governments and citizens.
We have heard that essentially the deficit war has been won. Let
us acknowledge the real heroes of the deficit war. Is it the
Minister of Finance?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Nelson Riis: As a matter of fact I suspect he is a
lot richer than he was five years ago. Is it members of the
Liberal cabinet?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Is it the members of the Liberal caucus?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Nelson Riis: The real heroes, the real people who
made this deficit war work for the Minister of Finance are—
An hon. member: The Tories.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Somebody had the audacity to say “The
Tories”. Absolutely not. I remember those heady days with
interest rates of 20%, deficits going up by the second, debt
skyrocketing and so on. No, that is not the answer.
Let us say who are the real heroes of the deficit war. They are
the students, thousands of students who leave universities and
colleges with massive debt loads. They are the real heroes.
Another set of heroes are the men, women and children lined up on
waiting lists to get into hospitals for critical surgery. They
cannot get in because of the cutbacks in health care. They are
the real heroes.
The 1.4 million children living in poverty today, their moms and
dads, are the real heroes of the deficit war. The many thousands
of people who declare bankruptcy every single month of the year
are the real heroes. It is not hundreds, not thousands, but
many thousands who declare bankruptcy month after month. Personal
bankruptcies have never been so high in Canadian history.
Business bankruptcies have never been so high in Canadian
history.
1545
I am simply saying these are the people who have sacrificed in
order for this government to say the deficit war has been won.
If these are the real casualties of the war, if these are the
people who fought and won the war, should they not be the people
who should receive the benefits now that the war is over? No.
Are they going to receive the benefits? No.
The government says across the board tax cuts are out. My
friends in the Reform Party say they should be in. It is fair to
say to my friends on the finance committee, it was clear that
Canadians said that they are out, that across the board tax cuts
are simply not what they require or even request at this time.
Some selected tax cuts, yes.
The government decided that the people who need to have a tax
break are the people who pay the maximum into RRSPs. We can lift
the ceiling of an RRSP so that those people who have $13,000 or
$14,000 in loose change at the end of the year will be able to
put more money in. Is this a priority in our country?
Madam Speaker, how many tax filers actually use the maximum RRSP
contribution? One per cent? If you said 2% you would be too
high. Less than 2% of Canadians now use the maximum RRSP
contribution. But the government said we have to raise that to
assist that 1% of tax filers as a priority tax measure. This is
maddening and it is sort insane. No wonder people look at this
place and ask “Who are those folks? What on earth are they
doing? What have they been smoking? Where have they been? Who
have they listened to?”
May I suggest a tax break that would help everybody, that would
help every single citizen of this country immediately. One that
would put money into the hands of every single individual,
particularly those who have been hardest hit during these tough
economic times. It would help every business person, every
consumer, every working person, people dependent on social
services. That break would be to begin to phase down the GST
immediately.
Why would the government not start to phase down the GST? After
all, we all remember when it was said that we need the GST to pay
down the deficit. The deficit has been paid down. Therefore it
would make sense that we start phasing out the GST. Imagine the
kind of signal it would send from this place if the Minister of
Finance rose on budget day and said “We have now essentially
wrestled this deficit lion to the ground. We said we needed the
GST to accomplish this. It has been accomplished and now we are
going to repay the people. We are going to start phasing out the
GST from 7% to 5% in the first year”.
Mr. John Nunziata: Nelson for finance minister.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you. This is a proposal. It is
not a radical proposal. We have heard it from many people. A
number of people during our intervention suggested we do that.
A number of my friends from the finance committee are here. How
many people asked us to raise the ceiling on the RRSP maximum?
Maybe three or four. How many people asked us for goodness sake
to get rid of this GST as soon as possible? Most people. Which
ones did we listen to? We met with them all, but which ones did
we listen to?
We all acknowledge in this House that the GST is one of the most
regressive taxes that has been introduced in many years. It is a
regressive tax which the Tories introduced. They were mean
spirited at the time. They said, “We are going to get those
Canadians”. And the Liberals opposed it. I remember the
current Minister of Finance standing in this House pounding his
desk and saying that it is regressive because it hits poor people
the hardest. Now is the chance to change that.
We heard advice from Canadians and there were some themes that
came through very clearly. One was to increase funding for
health care. Health care is what distinguishes our country from
most others. It distinguishes what Canadians feel strongly about
from others. It is almost a Canadian icon. Canadians from coast
to coast and at least 80% of the people who appeared before the
finance committee said to strengthen our support for health care.
1550
Some said to do it even if it required an increase in taxation.
They said, “We feel so strongly about being able to access
quality health care no matter where we live in this country and
no matter what our incomes, a one tier system, we want you to
take that as a priority in terms of your recommendations”.
What they did not say is to keep funding at $12.5 billion. That
is what the Liberals on the finance committee said but that is
not what people said. That is rock bottom. If there is one
thing that is clear from any province and territory is that our
health care system is in a crisis.
Like many others, I do not believe that providing more money is
the answer. It is only part of the answer. Even if we provided
a few billion dollars more we would still be far below the cost
of health care than we would find in the United States. It would
seem to me that should be a priority we ought to follow.
Education is the second thing I want to talk about. When we are
indebting our graduates as we are today with huge debt loads,
does it indicate that we put a priority on education? Other
countries that really value higher education go the ultimate mile
and do not put up any hurdles to people and have removed tuition
fees. Whether it is in grade 10, grade 12, grade 15 or grade 17,
there is no cost to education.
Those countries make the assumption that if they invest in their
citizens, it enables them to get the training and education they
desire and can accomplish so that they will be contributing
citizens then for the rest of their lives. They will repay the
country many, many times in terms of the contribution they will
make to the country's economy.
This is something we could do if we were bold. Or at least we
could go beyond the minor little steps that we have taken and
tell people that we must have better ways of easing the debt load
and providing better grants to students who are in particular
need. But we do not. We might think of something else when we
talk about the tax system. We might take a lead from certain
countries.
Ireland for example says that it wants to support its cultural
industry, the creators, the composers, the writers. A composer
or a writer, an artist of that nature in the country of Ireland
will not pay any income tax at all. That country values its
creators, it values those people in society who are writers and
composers. Those individuals will not pay any income tax at all
in Ireland. Has this made Ireland bankrupt? No it has not. Has
this encouraged Ireland's cultural sector? Yes it has.
These are things that countries do that are bold. They send a
clear signal to people that they are serious about encouraging
particular investment.
Let us acknowledge a new trend in our country that our tax
system does not reflect at all. The vast majority of jobs
created in Canada in the last three years have been in the
self-employed sector, individuals who are essentially creating
their own enterprise. As a matter of fact, 87% of new jobs in
the last three years have been created in the self-employed
sector. The rest almost exclusively have been created in the
small business sector. I am talking three, four or five people
in a firm. Does our tax system reflect the needs of these new
entrants into the economy? No it does not. Not at all.
I am just saying that in acknowledging the changes that are
taking place our tax system needs a major overhaul in order that
we reflect the reality of our economy and encourage, support and
show our concern for those who are out there creating wealth,
jobs and opportunities.
I do want to acknowledge a good point in the report. There are
actually a number of good points in the report. It recognizes
that without research and development through to production
primarily, Canada continues to fall behind in an ever competing
economy.
We heard from the granting councils that we need to restore
funding in these areas to send a signal to the most creative
elements in our economy that yes, we appreciate research and
development. We appreciate the scientific research that is being
done both in terms of applied and pure research.
We have taken a small step in that direction by suggesting to the
Minister of Finance that funding in some of these crucial areas
be increased. So this is a slight move in the right direction.
1555
I want to emphasize that to say the fundamentals of our economy
are in place is simply wrong. The average family income since
1989 has fallen by 5%. Every other industrialized nation has
seen theirs increase and ours has actually fallen. There are
530,000 more children living in poverty today than there were in
1989. The number of food banks in Canada has tripled and the
proportion of the population relying on them has doubled. The
number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy is at an
historic high. I could go on and on.
When we talk about the economy of Canada, it is appropriate that
we talk about at least two economies, one which is working for an
ever reduced number of people and the other which reflects a
social deficit, an economy where people continue to struggle.
More than one million people are out of work. Seventy per cent
of the young people in this country are jobless. Many who are
working have three or four part time jobs at minimum wage. They
are barely surviving. They are entering the ranks of the working
poor.
We have much work to do. It is time that the government stopped
listening to the bankers of the country and started listening to
the ordinary citizens of Canada, in the rural areas, in the small
communities, in the suburbs of the cities and see what it is they
require.
In closing, I want to wish you, Madam Speaker, and all of my
colleagues in the House of Commons a merry Christmas.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to a
seasoned politician speak on any article of business that we deal
with in the House, although I have to admit that some of the
ideas on which the hon. member was expounding are half-baked.
For the last 24 months our interest rates have been at historic
lows. Quite frankly it took about 18 months for the economy to
kick in because of the low interest rates.
The member talked about tax breaks. That is something which
will cost the government immediately. When tax revenue is taken
away, the government has lost revenue. It has to be replaced in
some way. On top of that, he talked about extra spending. That
is more expenditure.
How much of a deficit would the hon. member like to see the
government incur to implement the half-baked ideas on which he
has been expounding? How much more would he like to put the
country into debt?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, where do I begin?
First, I want to acknowledge that the province of Saskatchewan
reduced its provincial sales tax in its last budget. It was the
first provincial government to have a balanced budget. It runs
the most efficient government in Canada. My friends laugh. I
would ask my friend to suggest a province which is more efficient
in terms of the number of provincial employees per capita.
While the federal government was cutting back drastically on
social programs to fight the war on the deficit, and while other
provincial governments were doing the same, one province was not.
One province decided not to cut social programs and actually
added to the amount of money expended for hospital programs and
health care. That province was the first to balance its budget.
There is a very clear alternative to look at in this country
compared to all of the other provincial governments combined.
My friend's question is legitimate. When we advocate a
particular proposal, we ought to have a way to fund it. Let me
answer by way of example.
1600
We have suggested that the tobacco companies get out of the
funding of cultural and sports programs. The cultural and sports
program says that if they do that, they will then not get the
appropriate funding and will be unable to continue.
By adding less than 1¢ to a package of cigarettes in tax, they
will provide more money than is expended in all those areas right
now. That is for one penny a cigarette pack.
I would say that if we cannot eliminate tobacco advertising from
all sporting and cultural events and the cost will be to impose a
1¢ increase on the taxation on a package of cigarettes, that is
where we would get the money. It is easy for my hon. friend to
say where will they get the money. I should tell him one more
thing. I do not think he is aware of it.
That is, during our hearings—I know some of my hon. friends on
the finance committee will acknowledge this—when Dr. Jim
Stanford came before the committee, he showed that if the
government had merely frozen spending at the 1995 levels and
waited for economic growth and lower interest rates, the finance
minister would have beaten his own timetable and still have
reduced Canada's deficit to the lowest level in the G-7.
Put simply, the cuts that took place were not necessary to
achieve the deficit reduction targets of the Minister of Finance.
I think this is very important to point out. I might just add to
my friend's question that if they are putting on targets to
reduce the debt now, which I think is appropriate, we should also
be putting targets on to reduce the level of unemployment in the
country.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey
made a comment that I have to say was only half true. He said
that the ideas of the hon. member for Kamloops were half baked. I
think they are fully baked.
Unless I misunderstood him, he suggested that artists should be
tax exempt, that they should not have to pay taxes. All I can
say to that is if this is the kind of logic which has been
advanced in the House of Commons, it is no wonder our country is
$600 billion in debt and the Canada pension plan has an unfunded
liability of $560 billion. This is why Canadians are taxed to
death.
Is that the kind of logic that has been advanced in this House
for the past 20 or 30 years? Is that how we got here? That is
my question. I would like anyone who has been here for maybe a
term or two to answer that. Is that what has been going on here?
I am really curious.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I am not used to that
category of question, the scintillating intellectual depth of
such a question. However, I will do my best to respond to my
hon. friend.
He has identified a rather crucial point. That is, over the
last number of years governments on this side, regardless of
whether they were Conservatives or Liberals, have seen fit to
have a tax system that enabled year after year after year tens of
thousands of profitable corporations to pay no income tax at all.
I have been listening now for almost five years to my friends in
the Reform Party and I have never heard a single Reform member
ever once suggest that we should change that part of the tax
system.
Perhaps my friend is extraordinary. He is in many respects, I
suggest, and maybe he holds this progressive view. I have yet to
hear a single Reform member criticize the fact that our tax
system presently allows, in the last analysis, 62,000 profitable
corporations to not pay a single penny in income tax.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, let me say that I always enjoy my friend from Kamloops
when he gets up in this House. Of course, he has decades of
experience to tell us about the issues of the day and the issues
of the past number of decades.
The fact of the matter is that when the New Democrats are in
opposition as they were in British Columbia, and even when they
were in government in British Columbia, they said that they
balanced the budget.
Of course, after the election the balanced budget was not there.
It was an aberration. There are some lawsuits that are going on
regarding, I believe, some recalls.
1605
When we had the New Democrats in the province of Ontario run in
the election, they made all sorts of claims. They had a platform
called “Agenda for People” that they tried to burn after the
election in case anybody took them seriously. Of course, after
one term they were relegated back to their traditional place.
My hon. friend has the best suntan on that side of the House,
and I applaud him for it. That might explain why it may be
half-baked, fully-baked. Let us just settle on the best suntan
on that side of the House.
Further, let me suggest that when he uses some of his rhetoric,
I sit on this side in my second term, thinking to myself that if
we could get the time of their speeches cut in half, as a country
that would make a significant contribution to global warming.
I have a question for the member. He tells the House that there
are no poor people in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I do not
totally accept that. I certainly hope that he can somehow prove
to the House that is the case.
The member talked about intellectual honesty and consistency.
Then he said that we have to give more money for health care
because the Americans spend more money on health care. If he is
going to introduce those countries as a model, he should stand in
the House and say that those countries spend 2% to 3% less on
health care.
I would like the hon. member to reconcile those two points.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Kamloops, a very quick reply, please.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, a very quick reply does
not seem very fair at all to me.
I will be brief and answer my friend's question directly. One
reason that countries like Denmark and Norway, the two that I am
most familiar with, are able to have a first class health care
system and spend less money than we do in Canada on a GDP basis
is because they have a whole set of other social programs that
complement their system. They have a comprehensive child care
which assists children from birth if the parents require it. They
have a whole set of programs that we call pharmacare or elder
care or assistance and support for seniors in that country.
You cannot take health care out of the equation when it is part
of a comprehensive package. Perhaps the member will understand
that by having a decent social system, you do not have to have
poor children in Canada. Those other countries have demonstrated
by appropriate policies there do not have to be any poor parents
and, therefore, poor children.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker,
judging by the atmosphere in the House, I wonder if we could have
unanimous consent to allow this question and answer period to go
on for another 20 or 30 minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the festive spirit of the holiday season is upon us, even
within and around this chamber. Nonetheless, we have an important issue
to debate today. Let us try to do so calmly and seriously, as this is a
very serious matter.
The purpose of this debate is to help prepare the next federal
budget, which will define the rules of the game not only for the budget
but also for the development of our country in the next year. Sometimes,
policy choices made at budget time have long-lasting impact. So, this is
a serious matter.
I do not sit on the Standing Committee on Finance. Many of those
who spoke before me are members of this committee and, as such, have
participated in the consultations held across the country.
1610
However, anyone can read the committee's report, which is
entitled Keeping the Balance: Security and Opportunity for
Canadians. This is the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance.
This is quite a substantial document, reflecting what was said at
the many consultations sessions held across the country.
Like everyone here, while not all of us sit on the finance
committee, I think that all have a say in determining what the main
priorities should be for the coming year and next few years.
We have seen the vigorous action taken by the Liberal federal
government in this last term as well as the action taken by the
legislatures or parliaments of several provinces. I have witnessed some
of the changes of direction the PQ government imposed on the people of
Quebec these past few years.
As a result, today, we are at a point where balance has been
restored or is about to be restored in federal public finances.
A few years ago, in 1992-93, we were saying that the public
finances were in a crisis. Canada was regarded as a country on its way
to becoming a third world country. The worst speculations were being
made about the development of our country.
At the time, Canada was trailing other industrialized countries as
regards the state of its public finances. Now, four or five years later,
it is said to be at head of the pack.
There was a major turnaround. We were on the verge of a disaster,
but we have now set in place the conditions that will give our country
a new impetus to tackle what lies ahead.
Thanks to the strategy implemented in recent years, the deficit
dropped to its lowest level in 20 years, and it will continue to
diminish. In fact, it will disappear. This strategy also brought
interest rates to their lowest level in decades, while helping our
economy pick up again and promoting job creation.
These are all positive factors.
However, the debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product,
remains huge and, as pointed out by others, including the hon. member
for Kamloops, who spoke just before me, some individuals, groups and
organizations have shouldered the burden of this effort to put our
fiscal house in order.
I listened to the hon. member for Kamloops, who has been here for
close to 20 years. He spoke in a very eloquent and colourful way, and he
gave many examples of the price paid by various segments of the
population. We have to be very sensitive to the description he made of
the situation, because what he said does not exist only in his riding,
but everywhere in Canada. It exists in my riding of
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies and in many ridings with a
large number of middle or low income
earners.
The hon. member did not mention it, but many small businesses also
suffered a major shock in recent years and had to find new ways to
organize themselves or had to restructure. Many jobs became precarious
because of all these changes. It is a fact. Some sectors paid the price
and shouldered the burden of that turnaround.
It is not enough to be eloquent, as the members opposite have
been about what has gone on in recent years. Of course, those who
were present can always criticize what the Conservatives did from
1985 to 1989 and from 1989 to 1993; they are perfectly entitled to
do so.
1615
They are perfectly entitled to criticize the Liberals for what
they did from 1993 to 1997. There is nothing wrong with that in a
parliamentary debate. But, apart from criticizing past events and
describing the impact of the changes of recent years, what matters
now is what action we take in response to the present situation.
What should we do and what do we suggest? What are the points on
which we are going to agree for the years ahead?
I do not think that reducing the deficit is the ultimate goal
and I was very interested to see that this was also mentioned in
the standing committee's report.
With respect to reducing the deficit, it said, and I quote
“Balanced budgets, and restrained spending are not the government's
ultimate goals. The same is true of the price stability objective
of the Bank of Canada. They are merely intermediate objectives,
which enable and support the achievement of our ultimate ends:
fostering job creation, economic growth and opportunity for all,
while maintaining the qualities that characterize Canadian society,
particularly a concern about equity and fairness. This is the
balance that characterizes the government's approach and reflects
the values of Canadian society. The difficult choices made in
recent years tried to keep this balance in mind. The choices to be
made in the future must do so as well”.
I think that all members should take note.
The purpose of this debate is to get the House to take note of what
in this report seems of interest to Canadians. I think it is a
step in the right direction.
The pre-budget consultations of the past few weeks have led to
the production of this report. What Canadians want, and what the
Standing Committee on Finance wants, is to have the next budget
keep the balance that has been focused on in recent years, and must
be attained.
I feel it is important to specify what type of balance we
want. Balance in inertia is not what we want, in my opinion. What
the finance committee means is that a balance has been attained so
we can lead our country in the right direction. That is, moreover,
what it says in the foreword to the report of the Standing
Committee on Finance.
It says that Canadians want a balance between the security offered
by debt reduction and the benefits of investing in people,
technology and research and development.
I could go on and on, but I am splitting my time with the hon.
member for Niagara Falls. As the representative of the riding of
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, I am greatly interested in the main
thrust of this report we have before us, which consists of asking
the government to reinvest in human resources, in education, in
training, in health, in our young people, in a youth employment
strategy, and also in developing our businesses.
I will add, of course, that it is also important to revise
certain measures in our tax system with a view to ensuring greater
equity, with particular thought to the most disadvantaged and the
sector of the population hardest hit in recent years.
This report contains a collection of proposals. Others can be added
drawing on suggestions made during this debate. Some others could
be considered as well. That is the purpose of this consultation
within a parliamentary debate. Some other proposals could be taken
into consideration as well, such as those from the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, which is
calling for certain tax mechanisms to be redirected for the benefit
of sustainable development.
I believe we must continue in the months to come to take a
very serious approach to an exchange of views on these very
important matters.
[English]
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am happy to be given the opportunity to participate in this
debate and to speak on the prebudget consultation report.
1620
I would like to express my support for the recommendations
brought forward by the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I
am a member.
I would also like to thank the constituents of Niagara Falls who
responded so enthusiastically to my invitation to debate these
issues. They provided valuable insight in the consultation
process.
During the consultative process we heard from Canadians from all
walks of life and all parts of the country. Canadians took the
time from their busy lives to tell us how they thought the
Canadian economy should progress and what direction it should
take.
Canadians told us very openly and sincerely about their values
and priorities and how the next federal budget should reflect
them.
I support the report. However, one of the recommendations of
the report about which I am concerned is increasing the 20%
foreign investment rule, which will happen over the next five
years. This is supposed to help Canadians achieve a higher
return on their retirement savings and reduce exposure to risk.
I question this measure. I believe the Canadian economy is
performing and will perform as well or better than foreign
economies. In addition, I believe that a dollar invested in
Canada creates employment in Canada. Even with the recovering
economy, which seems to be booming in all sectors, Canada still
needs to create more jobs.
In addition, the Canadian economy is the winner if funds are
invested at home. In my opinion, those savings make it easier
for domestic companies to raise the capital they need to
stimulate economic growth. Growth is vitally important to future
pensioners and workers. When all is said and done, it is the
gross domestic product of the future which will inevitably have
to support them.
People saving for their retirement forgo higher foreign
investment returns and thus are making a sacrifice for the
benefit of workers in the future.
During the budget consultations, in answer to a question on the
subject of opening the door to investment outside Canada, the
governor of the Bank of Canada, Gordon Thiessen, replied that at
the moment the Canadian economy is undergoing a major
restructuring. Canada needs many things, such as investment in
new equipment and investment in plants, to make itself really
competitive.
It is important for Canadian investors to be able to invest in
the rest of the world and, indeed, in growing economies. However,
Mr. Thiessen did not think this would occur in the immediate
future.
I question foreign investment. Often we import the problems of
the host country with the investment. A classic example would be
Korea. It is now trying to withdraw its investments around the
world, regardless of the problem of unemployment and dislocation
that causes. It is often said that capital has no conscience.
Certainly foreign capital is going to look at its own country
before worrying about others.
In this day and age when there is much movement not only of
goods and trade but also investment, it is a concern which we may
have to live with. However, I strongly believe that we should
watch it carefully. There is an old saying that whoever pays the
piper calls the tune.
In the last 50 years important changes have taken place. Some
are even reflected in the way the government does business.
1625
One of these changes has to do with the way jobs are created
today. Nowadays jobs are created not only by small, medium and
big business but by the ideas, thoughts or concepts of people who
are going after a niche in the market or are selling their ideas,
plans or concepts. In other words, more often than not one of
our big exports today is what is set up on a piece of paper or on
a computer. This is unlike a few years ago when technology had
not yet reached the level it is at today.
We have to bear in mind that the big income earners of the
future are found in the minds of Canadians. They are found in the
ability to be innovative and thus able to compete successfully
within the global economy. Therefore it makes great sense that
our resources and a great amount of care funds be directed to the
development of the minds of Canadians. This naturally means
education.
Education will start at a very young age at the preschool level
and progress through post-secondary education. We must start
educating our young minds. We have to start providing our youth
and our parents with the help and tools necessary in developing
their unique resources.
We also have to look very closely at our health care system
because you cannot have a good mind without a healthy body. This
is one of the oldest proverbs known to man. Therefore the
recommendation in the report that calls for increased help for
education and health care is to be taken very seriously. I
concur fully with the report when it states in order to build a
strong society we have to improve our health care system. I also
agree with the recommendation that the government consider
establishing new approaches to health care in full co-operation
with the provinces and health care providers in local communities
As the fiscal dividends grow I am supporting the recommendations
directed toward helping children who live in poverty. I support
the creation of more opportunities for Canadian youth. It is
vital that the federal government in co-operation with the
provinces and territories be able to offer students a debt
repayment schedule based on income.
As I said before, important changes have affected the way in
which government has carried out its business in the last 50
years. Another important change has been in the field of
planning. There are those in our society who say that we have
gone too far and moved too fast toward an open market. We have
learned one thing, that hiring a number of academics, sticking
them into the civil service and telling them to plan our economy
does not work. Therefore if we are to get any input or planning
we must have hearings with the public. It is paramount that we
consult with Canadians.
At least if a mistake is going to be made it will not be made by
some ad hoc think tank dreamed up by the government and removed
from the realities of everyday life. I think it was Chairman Mao
who said let a thousand flowers bloom. This thought is the very
essence of thinking and it is what we have discovered lately to
be within our market economy.
Hundreds of thousands of people thinking and discussing new
ideas are very likely to get as good idea to emerge. This is
much better than having a few selected experts planning and
finding solutions. We encountered all this during our
consultations and indeed we find it in our report. The wisdom is
out there. It is not in the bureaucracy as this report shows.
We have to remember that to have fertile and aggressive thinking
minds we must also continue to support good health care and
education systems. Those are the basics of a society.
1630
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Immigration; the hon. member for
Manicouagan, Rail Transportation.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask the member across: With the cuts to
the provinces and presumably the budget that will be coming up
that is not going to have a whole lot in health care, I would
like the member to explain to me how much—I am going to give him
some calculations.
There is a gentleman in my riding who had a triple bypass about
a year ago. He was sent home with medication and because his
wife was making $6.25 an hour, he could not get the welfare card.
This gentleman could not afford his medication and about two
months ago he ended up back in the hospital and had a triple
bypass and spent 45 days in the hospital.
Can the member explain to me how the Minister of Finance
calculates the cost of having a person in the hospital for 45
days when the doctor said if this person could have had his
medication, he would never have had a second triple bypass.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for her question concerning the medicare system. As a
matter of fact, we have increased the bottom line from $11
billion to $12.5 billion starting this year, a year earlier than
planned. I am not a mathematician, certainly not in answering the
question on how someone is going to get a bypass, but let me say
one thing. We have the best health care system in the world. We
have.
By the increases that will be put in there, we certainly will
continue to have the best health care system in the world. If we
try to throw around facts and figures on how much it is going to
cost, who would we compare it with? Would we compare it with
south of the border to us where they are spending over 16% on
health care and not getting the services that we are getting here
in Canada as universal services? They have over 30 million
Americans without the new services. We in Canada have a service
which is accessible to all Canadians, slow as it might be
sometimes, but we have a system which is enjoyed by all
Canadians.
The hon. member also talked about cuts to the provinces. It is
not necessarily the case that because we put in that $1.5 billion
more in the social transfer, the provinces will be spending this
money on the health care system. The health care system is a
provincial jurisdiction. We do have the best—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): May I remind the
members to address their comments through the Chair, please.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Madam Speaker, my last comment the
hon. member could reply to is that we are in a festive season.
Most of us are going to have a very nice Christmas. I think we
have to consider that there are a lot of poor families in this
country today. We cannot say we are leaving this House very
pleased because there are still too many children who will not
have that gift under the Christmas tree and we have to say that
this government is responsible for some of that.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
exactly correct.
1635
As long as there is one Canadian without a job, there is one too
many. As long as there is one child going to sleep at night with
hunger or waking up in the morning with hunger, there is one too
many. Yes, we have to do much more. Yes, we are doing much
more. This is the role of this government and the role on this
side, to make sure that we care for those who least can afford
it.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
spent one and a half weeks with the finance committee in October,
travelling across Canada and listening to the concerns of
ordinary Canadians. We visited the cities of Regina, Montreal,
Halifax and Charlottetown when I was with the committee. Being
new to this process and perhaps somewhat naive politically, I was
initially impressed that Canadians seemed to have an impact on
this very important legislative process.
During my time with the committee, many Canadians sat before the
five government members and four opposition MPs and expressed
their views on Canada's fiscal policy and the alternatives we now
face as a nation. I was fundamentally disappointed that their
concerns were not reflected wholly in this committee's report.
For this government to engage in an ostensibly consultative
process with Canadians without really taking their opinions
seriously makes Canadians skeptical and indeed cynical.
As a political representative, I am even skeptical and cynical
of this process that led up to the publication of this vacuous
government self-serving document.
The Liberals take every opportunity in this House to blame the
debt and deficit on the former Conservative government. However,
in the 1998 forecast of the Economist magazine which came
out recently, the Canadian section caught my interest in
reference to fiscal policy and deficit reduction. I quote:
Much of the credit for deficit reduction goes to the passage of
time and successful reforms earlier this decade. The fiscal drag
has been offset by falling interest rates and record exports
boosted by the undervalued Canadian dollar to a consistently
prosperous America.
The Economist refers directly to free trade and NAFTA, the
same agreements that the Liberals fought while in opposition, the
same agreements that the Liberals fought against during an
election, the same agreements that the former Liberal leader John
Turner argued against just last night on the CBC news.
These are the Liberals who have allowed greater trade
restrictions within Canada than we have internationally, that
have allowed the insane situation to exist where there is more
trade barriers between Ontario and Newfoundland than there are
between Canada and Chile. Today the government's inaction on
interprovincial trade barriers is costing Canadians hundreds of
thousands of jobs. An increase in interprovincial trade by 10%
would create 200,000 jobs.
The Economist article continued and said:
The imposition of a national sales tax in 1991 and the
deregulation of financial services, transport and energy are now
widely accepted as having contributed to deficit reduction.
Again, Conservative initiatives of which I am very proud.
The Liberals are not responsible for the passage of time. The
Liberals are not responsible for interest rates or increased
exports. We all know the Liberals are not responsible for free
trade or deregulation or the GST, even though the Prime Minister
recently took credit for introducing it internationally. The
Liberals have no problem taking credit for the remarkable
turn-around this economy has made due to the reforms by the
previous Conservative government.
The Liberals would also like Canadians to believe that they are
responding to the public by increasing the Canadian health and
social transfer payments to the provinces. The report, in fact,
applauds the government's decision to increase the CHST floor to
$12.5 billion. In fact, the Liberal government is so excited
about this exercise that it has announced it twice. The first
announcement, I remember it distinctly, was in the opening days
of the election in my home province of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately
for the Liberals, the voting public of Nova Scotia was not taken
in by this smoke and mirrors announcement or fiscal shell game.
Nova Scotians understood, and they still understand today, that
the finance minister is not actually increasing the transfer
payments as he would like them to believe. He is simply pledging
not to cut transfers further, as he has done so dramatically and
drastically in previous budgets.
I should probably thank the Minister of Finance for his
generosity or lack thereof. It helped me and other colleagues
from Atlantic Canada become elected to this House by Atlantic
Canadians who had become cynical with this government.
1640
The Minister of Finance made the same announcement this week
prior to the premiers' meeting in hopes of softening the blow
that the Liberals had given to the provincial governments over
the past four years. The minister forgot to mention the $7
billion cut his government had made that had forced the
provincial governments to inflict draconian cuts on their
constituents across Canada.
In the same section of this finance committee report, the
committee recommends a national home care system. Certainly in
my riding of Kings—Hants the promise of a national home care
system sounds very seductive. With the reduction in transfer
payments, local hospitals in my riding have been forced to close
or reduce the numbers of beds. The Hants Community Hospital has
been reduced from 128 beds to approximately 30 beds. Western
Kings Memorial Hospital and Eastern Kings Memorial Hospital have
suffered cutbacks or have been closed. In some cases the
responsibility of providing health care has been shifted to
community based boards that now struggle just to keep viable
medical services in this area.
The federal government now has the gall to reduce funding to the
provinces, forcing bed closures in communities across Canada and
then recommends this glistening generality of a policy initiative
called a national home care program to make up the difference.
Perhaps the government intends to put the same amount of
resources into the home care program that it has committed to
national day care or to the pharmacare program that it has spoken
of in the past, or will this national home care program simply go
into the annals of political rhetoric which Canadians have come
to expect from this government.
There is a feeding frenzy going on right now in the Liberal
caucus, a feeding frenzy which is akin to that of sharks when
they smell blood. There is nothing that incites conflict more in
the Liberal caucus than the smell of hard currency around the
snouts of Liberal backbenchers.
I remind the members of the Liberal caucus that this feeding
frenzy is highly premature. If the finance minister was not
using the $12 billion to $13 billion surplus in the employment
insurance fund to offset the deficit numbers, the arrival of this
fiscal dividend would occur much later than the date that he is
projecting.
Our leader has made this point clear on a number of occasions.
The fact is that the Minister of Finance is balancing the budget
on the backs of working and unemployed Canadians.
I agree with the report's recommendation that the government
establish clear goals for long term sustainable debt to GDP ratio
in Canada. Our party ran on a platform that included just that.
In our policy document we promised to set a target of 50%
debt-GDP ratio by 2005. The current Liberal strategy is to wait
until the economy grows and see how the ratio falls. This is in
direct opposition to a study released last month by the OECD
which recommended the ratio be put in a clear downward trend with
clear targets.
Canadians know the simple fact that this government has yet to
learn. By paying off the debt all taxpayers will have less
interest to pay and will benefit by reinvestment in programs in
the future. By paying off the debt government funds can be
reinvested in these programs.
Even European countries previously not known for fiscal
fortitude required debt to GDP ratios of 60% simply to comply
with the Maastricht agreement.
Our country is floundering now with debt to GDP ratio of
approximately 70%, the highest of all G-7 nations. This is a
competitiveness issue. A low debt to GDP ratio increases
Canada's global competitiveness, strengthens our economy and
creates jobs for Canadians.
Liberals obviously feel that the status quo is acceptable. While
dilly-dallying and dithering in caucus over how to spend the
dividend, Canadians wear the heavy yoke of government inaction.
Unfortunately, it is those same ordinary Canadians who suffer by
that Liberal government inaction.
The PC Party believes that we need to couple debt reduction with
tax relief and strategic social investment. No one action should
dominate another. Instead, the three should be used to
complement each other and to strengthen the economy. New
strategic investment is needed in areas that will create real
returns for Canadians with measurable outcomes in terms of
quality of life and international competitiveness.
At this time strategic investment in education in particular is
extremely important and addressing the post-secondary student
debt issue is extremely important. I was pleased to see that
there are some members in this House who agree with me and there
has been a committee report to that effect.
In October I met with the Canadian Academic Round Table. They
had their annual meeting in my riding.
1645
I learned there had been a 280% growth in student debt in Canada
since 1989 and a 110% growth in tuition costs. We should
consider the impact on the future competitiveness of Canada of
creating a huge impediment for young Canadians to pursue higher
education. We should consider that we are in a global economy
and the knowledge based industry is leaving most other sectors.
For the first time as a country, Canada has an opportunity to
invest in our competitive advantage and to ensure that young
Canadians have an opportunity to participate in prosperous growth
by having access to higher education. The government has created
huge impediments to higher education and irrevocable damage to
the future competitiveness of Canada.
The third part of our plan for economic prosperity is tax
relief. Current tax levels in Canada run counter to our culture.
Our current tax system penalizes initiative. Wood Gundy reported
this month that Canada's personal income taxes as a share of GDP
are the highest of all G-7 countries. From 1989 to 1993 the
Conservative government reduced the percentage of personal income
tax as a per cent of GDP from 14% to 13%.
Since 1993 the Liberals have hiked the ratio to over 14%. Let
us make it clear that the PC government reduced the personal
income tax to GDP ratio and the Liberals hiked it up.
I like to think of tax relief in terms of a Canadian family that
budgets its money every year. Canadians and Canadian families
have a better idea of how to spend their own money than the
government. The finance minister feels that once the economic
crisis which is being dealt with on the backs of ordinary
Canadians is under control, the government has the right to
dictate to taxpayers how their money should be spent. The
government is fundamentally wrong in its judgment.
Higher taxes reduce disposable income in two ways. The obvious
is the reduction in the paycheques of taxpayers. The second is
the long term reduction in economic growth which results from
weaker incentives to work and to invest and the reduction in the
international competitiveness of Canadians.
The tax gap between Canada and the United States, as well as
that with our other trading partners, continues to increase. The
OECD report warned that unless significant measures were taken in
Canada we were risking a serious brain drain. That has already
begun. Based on the numbers in the House today I would expect
that it is occurring quite rapidly.
Young Canadians are the brightest light in our country. We
cannot afford to lose them to other countries. I see no serious
mention of tax relief in this report. These taxes create a
competitive disadvantage for Canadians relative to our closest
neighbour and greatest trading partner, the United States,
leading to lost opportunities and lost jobs.
Tax burdens are also related to all levels of employment. The
Liberals boast of job creation since taking office, but Canada's
unemployment rate has been consistently greater than 9% for 86
straight months. Canada's high tax burden has been shifted to
the bottom of the wage scale through the payroll taxes the
Liberal government continues to support, most recently with the
CPP amendments.
The report gives additional resources to helping poor children
once the fiscal dividend grows. Everybody in the House feels
that child poverty is an important issue which needs to be
addressed, but the Liberals have no credibility when they
pontificate about programs for impoverished children in Canada.
The children are not the root of the problem. Poor children
exist because of poor parents, unemployed parents and parents who
have had the Canadian budget balanced on their backs over the
past four years. The Liberals simply want to throw money at this
problem because it is politically expedient and does not require
a great deal of vision to do so.
We must address the tax system in Canada. High payroll taxes in
particular create the single biggest impediment to job growth
that we face as a nation. As a small business person I recognize
that when payroll taxes increase I am not able to hire the number
of people I would like to hire. A number of small business
people in our caucus helped lead us to the consensus and the
understanding that high payroll taxes are in fact killing jobs
across Canada.
The basic personal exemption should be raised to $10,000, as we
promoted during the election. This would take two million low
income Canadians off the tax roll and provide them with a fresh
start.
1650
We can draw on other examples when determining what to do in the
future to guide Canada victoriously into the 21st century. We
can look at the Netherlands. In 1983 it had an unemployment rate
in excess of 13%. By reducing payroll, by reducing income taxes
and by reducing regulations which hinder the development of small
business, the Netherlands has been able to reduce its
unemployment rate to sub 7% levels. That is what leadership can
achieve.
The report tabled by the Liberal finance committee is a biased
and unfair representation of what we have heard from Canadians.
It is a direct slap in the face to the process of consultation
and an offence to many Canadians who took time out of their
schedules to create reports and to make meaningful interventions
to the committee. At the end of the report is my party's
dissenting opinion.
The government and its report continue to ignore what Canadians
already know. Debt and tax reduction will lead to a stronger,
more self-reliant and competitive Canadian economy. We can
reduce Canada's 9% unemployment rate, but not until we have the
vision and the intestinal fortitude to implement policies which
create a growth environment to benefit all Canadians.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member
opposite. He suggested that the economic prosperity Canada was
enjoying today was the result of Tory policies of the previous
government.
Obviously the first question he might want to ask himself is why
after the last election the Tory party returned as the fifth
party in the House. If the viewers could see the full Chamber
they would see the small section the Tories occupy.
More important, the member should want to ask some very specific
questions. He expressed frustration in his speech about the
consultative process. Maybe he would want to ask why the former
Tory government had no consultative process when it came to
formulating its budget. It never went out to consult with
Canadians. The finance committee, under the Tory regime, never
has a prebudget consultation. It was simply all done by Michael
Wilson in some backroom when he came up with his budget.
How did it help Canada reach economic prosperity? When the Tory
government took over there was about a $28 billion deficit, but
when it left it was at $42 billion. It had increased by this
massive amount.
The Tories are trying to say that we should look at them as
being the genesis of our economic prosperity. The Liberal
government has been in power for four years and the deficit
disappeared. They were in power for nine years and it went from
$28 billion to $42 billion.
The member talked about the fact that the debt to GDP was far
too high, and it is. What he failed to point out was that when
the Conservative Party took over it was in the 50% range and when
it left it was over 70%. Again I have to ask the hon. member if
that is an example of the type of Tory management which led to
the great prosperity we see today.
They have talked about EI premiums. When the Tories were in
power the UI premiums went up by over $1. When we came to power
they were scheduled to go to $3.30. In reality today they are
down to $2.70. Is this another example of how the Tory policy
has led to the economic prosperity of today?
The member also talked about unemployment, a significant problem
in Canada. It is a challenge for all of us to try to address.
Was the fact that the unemployment rate had increased to 11.3%
when the Tories left office and is now down to 9% today under a
Liberal regime an example of their economic policies that have
led to the prosperity we enjoy today?
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. His depth of knowledge on economic issues is
obviously only exceeded by his height.
The fact is that economic policy takes years to have meaningful
impacts.
I cannot explain an international phenomenon. For instance, the
U.K. is enjoying one of the most unprecedented levels of economic
growth as a direct result of Conservative policy. Unfortunately
Conservatives simply try to help by providing sound economic
policy but sometimes the benefit falls to a government that has
failed to catch on to implementing sound economic policy. It
takes years of vision to put in place the fundamentals for an
economy to grow.
1655
I was not referring to my own opinion about this issue. I was
quoting The Economist, a pretty good magazine, which costs
about $172 a year to subscribe. It is to be considered. If I
felt the Conservative Party of Canada could influence the opinion
of The Economist, that would be considerable for the fifth
party, which would also bode well for where we will be in four
years, which I suggest will be the side the hon. member is
currently sitting on.
The Economist magazine stated specifically that much of
the credit for deficit reduction goes to the passage of time and
to the successful reforms implemented earlier in the decade. It
was not early in the decade in 1984. It was early in the decade
of the 1990s.
The fiscal drag has been offset by falling interest rates and
record exports boosted by an undervalued Canadian dollar to a
consistently prosperous America. I would like to know where the
hon. member stood at that pivotal time in Canadian history on
such issues as free trade.
The government now talks glowingly about Liberalized trade. One
day it signs an agreement with Chile. Another day it is one with
Israel. However it still does not bring down interprovincial
trade barriers within Canada.
When the members opposite speak about consultation, who benefits
from consultation around the country, listening to Canadian
taxpayers spending copious quantities of quid and then ultimately
implementing policies completely opposite to those expressed by
Canadians? Perhaps it would have been better not to have done
that. Maybe we could have invested that money to pay off the
debt or reduce taxes.
Don Blenkarn as finance committee chair actually consulted with
and listened to Canadians. The Conservative government had
enough vision to implement the views of Canadians and to ensure
those views were reflected in policy which led to the more recent
unprecedented growth of the Canadian economy.
Reference was made to payroll taxes. There are times when
payroll taxes need to be increased, for instance during times of
recession when the economy needed sufficient EI funds. There are
times when it is required.
Liberals do not recognize it, but Keynes was actually right in
terms of government spending during times of recession to bring a
country out of a recession. If they listened to Keynes a little
further—they probably did not get to that chapter—Keynes also
advocated paying down the debt when the economy was growing. Now
is the time to pay down the debt.
I may have introduced the member to some facts he was not
previously introduced to when I told him the Conservative
government reduced income taxes as a percentage of GDP from 14%
to 13% between the years of 1989 to 1993, only to see them hiked
under the Liberal government since 1993.
Let us be perfectly clear. We created the environment which led
to a fiscal dividend. We are very proud of that contribution. We
are looking forward in four years to adding further to Canadians
competitiveness by being on the government side of the House.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the
hon. member on an eloquent, low key address.
I noticed with interest his remarks on higher education.
Would he support what is called a functional interpretation of
constitutional powers, where the need exists the power sensibly
should flow? In other words, there is an increasing federal
leadership role in setting national standards in education. That
is a constitutional area that in the strict terms of the
Constitution Act, 1867 was specified as being provincial.
1700
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, in our platform we
actually called for national testing as one way of ensuring that
Canadian children across this great country received the same
educational opportunities. Young Canadians going to school in
Port-aux-Basques should be provided with the same level of
education as children growing up in Toronto. Parents should be
able to know where their children rank across Canada. That
requires leadership to implement and Canadians will have to wait
for four years for that kind of leadership.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
To begin with I must say to the hon. member for Kings—Hants
that I am proud on behalf of all vertically challenged Canadians
to have an opportunity to stand in the House to speak in this
prebudget debate.
This initiative was established by the Liberal government in the
last mandate in 1993. It was to give parliamentarians an
opportunity to gather in the House to debate the budget during
its formulation process as opposed to the previous practice of
having a budget debate after the tabling of the budget. I am
pleased that we as members of Parliament have the opportunity to
be here because of this Liberal initiative to have a prebudget
debate.
I would like to congratulate all the members of the finance
committee, particularly the chair. They did a fine job. They
travelled across the country soliciting views from Canadians from
coast to coast to coast. Members of the committee ensured that
the perspectives of Canadians were brought forward and were part
of the analysis in putting together the report.
During its first mandate over the last four years the Liberal
government made significant progress. Some of the items I
mentioned earlier in debate. When we began our mandate we
inherited a $42 billion annual deficit. I was pleased, as I know
all Canadians were, when the finance minister was able to make
his report to Canadians and indicate that the deficit would be
eliminated no later than the next fiscal year.
In reality, several hundred million dollars have already been
paid on the debt. We will actually be in a surplus position very
shortly. That is a significant accomplishment when we consider it
has been a generation and a half since we have been in that
position as a country.
I talked a bit about setting strong economic conditions, which
we have established in Canada over the last four years. I would
like to take a look at some of those achievements in terms of
maintaining a low, sustained, constant level of inflation to
allow for an economic environment where investment can occur.
Let us take a look at interest rates. If we go back to the
beginning of this decade, in 1900 three month treasury bills were
at 11%. Today they are at 3%. We were looking at a prime rate in
1990 of 14%. Today it is under 5%. Canadians can very much
relate to the rate of interest they pay on their mortgage for
their new home. In 1990 a five year rate was around 13.5%. Today
it is just a little over 7%.
1705
We have made some good progress. Because of that progress,
because this Liberal government has managed the economy of Canada
prudently, effectively and efficiently, we now as a nation, as a
Parliament, as a government have some important choices to make
about where we go from here.
During the election campaign many suggestions were put forward
by many parties and many individuals. This government put
forward the very straightforward proposal that once we get into a
balanced position and we have a surplus, we will take a 50%
portion of that surplus and apply it to debt and tax reduction.
Over the period of our mandate we will use the other half to
invest in the types of programs and priorities wanted by
Canadians.
We have been having that discussion with Canadians in order to
hear their perspective, to hear what they think about our
proposals. Over the past couple of months I had the opportunity
to hold two forums in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka. One was
in the town of Huntsville which was attended by a large number of
individuals from the Muskoka side of my riding. The other
session was held this past week in the town of Parry Sound which
was attended by a large number of people from the Parry Sound
side.
We talked about those options, about debt reduction, tax
reduction and expenditures. I will summarize what some of those
individuals were saying. There was not only a belief but an
insistence that we do not ever return to deficit financing in
government, that we should bring to an end what had been going on
in this country for a number of decades, the deficit financing
where we basically use the assets of today for our use and burden
our children and grandchildren with the cost of that. Canadians
in my riding were very clear to say that must come to an end.
They said very clearly that they understood we were nearing the
end of our battle with the deficit, that indeed the debt was too
high and that we needed to devote some of our resources to paying
down that debt. They talked about tax decreases, and yes they do
believe we need to have tax decreases. But they made the point
clearly that tax decreases must be made in a way that is the most
beneficial to Canadians and most beneficial to our economy.
They are not interested in across the board tax cuts that give
the largest financial gain to those Canadians who earn the most.
They want targeted tax cuts. Tax cuts like what the Minister of
Finance announced in his last budget where he talked about $850
million to low and middle income families with children, where he
talked about the tax cuts of over $160-odd million to Canadians
with disabilities, tax cuts that would help young people with
their education and help the parents who support them. Those are
the types of tax cuts Canadians want, focused tax cuts that will
help those who are least advantaged in society.
They are not interested in large across the board tax cuts. They
are not interested in a suggestion made in the Tory campaign
platform, to reduce corporate taxes which would have seen our
chartered banks receive reduced taxation. They want tax cuts
targeted to those in Canada who are most in need.
They talked about the need for new investment. They talked
about the need to protect our social programs in Canada. They
talked about the need to support programs like medicare. They
talked about the need to support things like post-secondary
education. They talked about the need to try to stimulate
economic activity so it could lead to job creation.
One of the important initiatives that I believe needs to be
addressed in this budget is the whole concept and need to deal
with the issues that involve rural Canada. I represent a riding
that is rural in nature. We are about 30% of the Canadian
population. I think we have accomplished and made the point over
the last few years that the circumstances under which our
constituents live in rural Canada are different than those in
urban Canada.
1710
The realities and the economic conditions we face are unique.
Things like distances, geography, population density are all
factors that need to be taken into account when we develop a
budget.
I made this speech on a number of occasions in past debates when
we talked about the budget. I would hope that as we formulate
those policies, whether they have to do with tax reductions and
the type of tax reductions we undertake, or the types of
investments that we believe Canadians want and we should
undertake, that they reflect the needs and concerns of rural
Canadians and that they reflect the economy under which we
operate and that we as a parliament make sure that the needs and
concerns or rural Canadians are addressed.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to have spoken on the
prebudget issues. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to
share some of these thoughts and concerns with my colleagues in
the House. I look forward to next February when the finance
minister tables his budget in the House and we see another
important step on the way to the economic progress of Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite seems to know what is happening with
the parks. He says that rural communities are important and that
the budget should take them into account. I agree totally. My
riding is highly rural.
I am nevertheless concerned and wonder about my Liberal
colleague's opinion. Does he agree with the decisions to date to
privatize our national parks, which bring us to ASD, which cut
salaries and which complicate life even further?
Often national parks are in rural settings, and the decisions made
by this government department simply compound the economic problems
of our communities. Could he explain to me his thoughts on his
government's approach to parks?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate very
briefly what I said in a speech when I introduced the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence bill. We have not contemplated, are not
contemplating now and will not be introducing into this House any
measure that will privatize Parks Canada.
We as Liberals understand that the maintenance of our special
places in this country is a public trust, a public trust that is
exercised through a minister and overseen by this Parliament.
That is the way Parks Canada operates and that is the way Parks
Canada will continue to operate.
I would be pleased at any time to have a discussion with the
member to clearly demonstrate that that is the way we operate.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the
hon. member, especially when he talked about rural Canada. As a
farmer that is very close to my heart.
Right now we are moving into the next millennium and we have
heard the hon. member for Victoria—Haliburton talk many times
about his rotary dial cell phone. Quite frankly we just do not
have the services in rural Canada that we should have in order to
be viable.
In the last budget there was extra money put into the Farm
Credit Corporation. There was extra money put into the Business
Development Bank of Canada. I would like the hon. member to
enlighten us on what he foresees should go into these good
institutions that are helping rural Canada meet those challenges.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a
very good point. During the last budget there were measures
which were directed at rural Canadians.
The community access program had an extra $30 million put into
it so that rural Canadians could be hooked into the worldwide
web.
One of the difficulties is this. Although that type of
technology is easily obtained in a large urban centre, it is just
now that we are having an opportunity to place that
infrastructure into rural Canada. Those types of things are
important. I would like to see that type of initiative continued
through the next year.
1715
We talked about the investments we made in the Business
Development Bank of Canada. That was an excellent example where
we saw a targeted program aimed specifically at tourism operators
operating in rural areas. That is the kind of initiatives that I
talk about when I say we need to design our programming in a way
that reflects the needs of rural Canadians.
It was the same thing when we saw the extra investment made in
the Farm Credit Corporation, again recognizing the needs of rural
Canadians, recognizing the need to develop programs that are in
the best interest of rural Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore, on a point of order.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent for a motion that has
been agreed to by all parties in this House, seconded by the
members for Ottawa Centre, Ottawa West, Edmonton North, Saint
John, Winnipeg North Centre and Laval East. I move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the request of the Famous Five Foundation to honour the
memory of Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise
McKinney, Henrietta Muir Edwards, the Famous Five, by allowing a
statue commemorating them to be placed on Parliament Hill.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore have the unanimous consent of the House to
propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear no consent.
Resuming debate, the Parliament Secretary to Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of
participating in the hearings of the Standing Committee on
Finance in Vancouver. I was impressed by the line from Flaccus
of fate casting lots for the high and the low. Everybody came
along, the high barons of industry, the trade union bureaucrats,
very powerful people, learned professors and not so interesting
professors occasionally of economics and journalists, but it was
an exercise in public participation.
When I look at the report and try to assess how many witnesses
appeared, how many depositions, the answer is it was an exercise
in participatory democracy. I think that is one of the legacies
of the patriation constitutional process of 1982, the fact that
one took little steps but they are now becoming further steps.
I am reminded of this when I get letters from people saying that
the MAI project, for example, is being hatched in secret and by
an elite. We look at the process with MAI and to become law in
Canada, we would need a signature on a treaty if and when a text
is adopted, we would need a ratification of the treaty, we would
need implementing legislation, federal and provincial I think in
that case. That is a lengthy process, which is still incomplete
in Canada in relation to the Law of the Sea. We are 14 years
away from the first signatures, and still incomplete in many
other areas.
I also look at the witnesses who appeared before the standing
committee of this House on foreign affairs on MAI. I find 35
witnesses again covering the whole spectrum of society and the
whole range of informed opinion on economic matters and 125
separate depositions. That is not a secret process. When we
consider it will be open in the future if and when an agreement
comes back from the OECD on MAI, the same issue will come again,
implementing legislation with public debate.
This is a process we are engaged in with great success and with
a large degree of collegiality if we follow the achievements of
the committees of this House. I sat on the foreign affairs
committee this morning. I noticed on two potentially very
controversial subjects a consensus resolution was met. In one
case it encompassed all parties and in another case all but one.
That is an achievement.
I congratulate the Standing Committee on Finance on an
expeditious process with all deliberate speed, producing a report
and producing some recommendations with considerable substance in
them.
1720
Allow me, if I may, to comment on the first and general ideas
here, the commitment to fiscal integrity which was the key point
in the present government's successful campaign in 1993: balance
the budget and reduce the external debt.
I would essentially agree with the tenure of this report as I
heard witnesses before the committee that Canadians want us to
hold the line on that. We want fiscal integrity. We want a
balanced budget. It will be achieved before the end of the
budget year 1998, several years ahead of our original schedule,
and we are attacking the external debt.
However, Canadians want continued investment in health and
welfare in the community facilities necessary to maintain a
healthy and decent society, which means commitments to pensions
and to medicare, the most single Canadian contribution I think in
this hemisphere. Only the German's Bismarck in the late 19th
century I suppose preceded us, but we have concretized it in a
way other countries have not.
I believe I will concentrate on a point that is in this report
but is worth special attention. The hon. member for Kings—Hants
referred to it previously. It is the investment in knowledge,
the recognition that the next century is a knowledge based
century and dependent on having an informed, trained, talented
and imaginative workforce. The key to job creation is in
investment in knowledge and research.
What is known popularly as the Japanese and German syndrome, the
defeated countries after World War II invested in pure research.
There are no immediate returns in pure research but five or ten
years down the road, you know that you are leading in science and
technology and that your industries that understand this are
beating all competitors.
That shows up in the foundation for innovation, the $800 million
for that, developing the infrastructure and rebuilding it in
medicine, engineering and the sciences, the centres for
excellence networks, the millennium scholarships, the increased
relief to student loans and the post-secondary education debt
relief.
I will mention that I have had communications from the heads of
universities in the last few weeks asking me to make the case for
maintaining the grants to the federal granting agencies, the NRC,
the SSHRC and the Canada Council. There was a time in western
Canada when we complained that these bodies had a certain eastern
Canadian mentality, that the grants seemed heavily weighted in
favour of what we call central Canada. I am happy to say that
the university presidents tell me that this is being corrected
and has been corrected in large measure and they would like to
see the grants returned to full vigour; that is to say, the
equivalent in 1997-98 of what the grants were before the cuts. I
would endorse that.
The intelligent choice of projects in which to invest is the key
to an intelligent and reasoned approach to developing our science
and technology for the next century. I think this is a
recommendation that could come forward from the House to the
government in the elaboration of the next budget.
When we were making the case for Triumph, the $167.5 million
grant to the University of British Columbia base research in
folic physics and particle physics, one had to explain what this
was about, but the most telling argument was the spin-off in high
talent, high intelligence based industries in British Columbia.
We were able to point to a $200 million export contract
enrichment in one year alone and the jobs that it brought.
I think that is the key to what we are talking about. If we are
competing with other countries which have larger population bases
and perhaps larger resources in other areas, we do it by
increasing our investment in education, by making it not really
up to world standards but making an issue of leadership.
This brings us to one other area which I raised in my question
to the member for Kings—Hants.
I think it is necessary to have a federal role of leadership in
education, in science and research. It is not merely a matter of
creating the national standard, it is not merely a matter of
bringing economically less favoured provinces up to national
standards. One remembers Nova Scotia, which is certainly not a
wealthy province, but for many years it was considered the cradle
of education in Canada and there was an extra degree of devotion
among Nova Scotians who were poor but honest, some say, to
education.
1725
But, look, that is falling away when one looks at the position
of the universities and colleges in Nova Scotia. So, a federal
role is necessary and there is a certain sense of equalization in
education, but much more I think the vision for what is needed in
terms of international competitive industry and the research base
in science, technology and engineering that will be the
precondition for that. I think that requires a federal
leadership.
My plea in the budget, as is recognized in the Standing
Committee on Education, is to make sure that this is a
recognition of the knowledge century and the investment we must
make in funding the science, technology and pure research with
the skilled people who bring that to a conclusion.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the hon. member on his provocative discussion about the
importance of education and his position and opinion relative to
the potential of the federal role in terms of leadership in some
areas of education.
The member is quite right that Nova Scotia was a cradle of
education and to a certain extent, perhaps, that led to the
intelligence of the electorate in the recent election. However,
I am not certain of that.
In terms of the disparity that exists in education, not just
between provinces, but between areas and counties in provinces,
we need to recognize that to a considerable extent the investment
in education is based on local tax bases. Wealthy communities
can invest considerably more locally in education than poorer
communities.
I grew up in a wonderful, picturesque part of Nova Scotia, but
an area that is very economically depressed. In that area, there
were 30 students who came out of grade six at the time I did and
only ten ever graduated from high school. For me it is
extraordinarily important that we ensure educational
opportunities exist in very community Canada. I believe the
federal government can play a role in providing leadership to
ensure that is the case.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I would perhaps cite to
the hon. member a remark that the former Prime Minister, Mr.
Trudeau, made when he was still Prime Minister, just before his
retirement when he received an honorary degree from Dalhousie
University. He said with great wit and great truth when he
looked at the record of the alumni of Dalhousie University and
the roles of leadership they held in national politics in Canada,
he wondered how he had got so far himself without having a degree
from Dalhousie University.
In the wit is a large element of truth. The maritimes invested
very heavily in education. But it is time to recognize the
disparities in wealth and financing since it simply operates to a
severe disadvantage today. I do believe that we are into a
system where the federal government may need to deal directly
with the municipal school authorities in this area. This looks
for more imaginative and mannered approaches to co-operative
federalism which was an idea of the 1950s and 1960s, now being
revived. However, I think it needs a little more structure and
sophistication.
I think his plea for the maritimes would be supported by this
side of the House also. I thank the member for that observation.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order.
I am seeking unanimous consent for a motion, seconded by the
member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Ottawa West, the member
for Edmonton North, the member for Saint John, the member for
Winnipeg North Centre, the member for Laval East:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the request of the Famous Five Foundation to honour the
memory of Emily Murphy, Nellie Mooney McClung, Irene Marryat
Parlby, Louise Crummy McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards—the
“Famous Five”—by allowing a statue commemorating them to be
placed on Parliament Hill.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to put this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is not adopted.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order to seek consent for the following
motion:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 24(2) or any other usual
practice, the time provided for Government Orders be extended by
15 minutes, therefore expiring at 5.45 p.m., provided that no
quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the House
after the hour of 5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion to extend
the hours of sitting?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair.
Earlier I saw a member indicate he did not agree. There was,
however, unanimous consent on the motion of my hon. colleague, but
the person who did not give his consent was not even in his seat.
So I do not understand why his remark would be recognized. I
therefore believe that there is unanimous consent and I would ask
you to reconsider the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair holds that one dissenting voice
determines the matter.
[English]
The Chair does not inquire about where a member is sitting in
the House when a question is put seeking unanimous consent. The
Chair asked for unanimous consent. An hon. member said no, and I
am afraid that determines the matter.
The Chair is not in a position to determine whether a member was
in his seat or not for the purposes of that and, indeed, members
do not have to rise to say no. The question is put to the House
and the answers come back.
I regret the circumstances are that I cannot entertain the
motion.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize in about a minute
things moved rather quickly. I wonder if you might agree to
review the tapes of the last five minutes.
What I observed, and I may be mistaken, was that the member
from Etobicoke—Lakeshore asked for unanimous consent and nobody
said no.
I believe you then asked if the motion is adopted. At that
point somebody who was not in the House when the motion was moved
came into the House and essentially voted no, but not from his
seat.
I am just asking, Mr. Speaker, whether you might review what was
said in the last five minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is quite correct.
Because there were other items moved immediately following, the
Chair abandoned because the House seemed to abandon the attempt.
The motion the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore sought to
put before the House was agreed to be put to the House. I then
put the motion and a member said no when I put the motion to the
House.
The motion is a debatable motion. I can put the motion to the
House again if the House is willing to do that. The difficulty
we are facing is that it is going to take unanimous consent.
There is unanimous consent that the motion be put to the House.
Perhaps the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, having obtained
that consent, could have her motion delivered to the Chair and I
will put the question to the House.
* * *
1735
FAMOUS FIVE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.), seconded
by the hon. members for Ottawa West, Ottawa Centre, Edmonton
North, Saint John, Winnipeg North Centre, and Laval Est, moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the request of the Famous Five Foundation to honour the
memory of Emily Murphy, Nellie Mooney McClung, Irene Marryat
Parlby, Louise Crummy McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards—the
“Famous Five”—by allowing a statue commemorating them to be
placed on Parliament Hill.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Under
the rules there is no time to debate this motion unless the House
gives its unanimous consent. I therefore put the question. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you will find consent for the following motion.
I move:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 24(2) or any other usual
practice, the time provided for Government Orders be extended by
15 minutes, therefore expiring at 5.50 p.m., provided that no
quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the House
after the hour of 5.35 p.m.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think I have ever fought this hard before to speak in the
House of Commons but it is a pleasure to rise to speak today
during the debate on the prebudget report issued recently by the
finance committee.
While the finance committee was very successful in hearing from
groups like the Business Council on National Issues and in
hearing from many social activists across the country, I really
believe that where the finance committee failed was in hearing
from the 70% or 80% of Canadians who are in the middle of those
two groups.
I will make my point by reading from a letter. I do not think
we will find the views expressed in that letter reflected
anywhere in the finance committee report. This letter was
originally sent to the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin who
recognized its importance immediately:
I am writing in regard to the increase in CPP. I am a housewife
with two small children.
My husband works 12 hour days, six or seven days a week. Even
with all the hours my husband works we are only making ends meet.
We cannot afford an increase in CPP. This increase only means
my husband has to work even harder. Which means we will see even
less of him. How is this good for my two children? How is this
good for our marriage?
The government borrows or should I say steals from the CPP fund
and then increases it because they can't pay it back. Why do we
have to pay for a dishonest government?
They preach about how they want to save our children. They
preach about broken marriages. Then they turn around and screw
us again. Couples stress about money and it does affect the
children. It does affect the marriage. How can afford to put my
children in swimming lessons or baseball when any extra money we
have the government takes? My oldest son is five and has said to
me “Why can't I Mommy? We can't afford it, right?” This is from
a 5 year old. All his friends at school get hot lunches on
Fridays but he doesn't. How are we supposed to dish out another
$100 a month? I can't work because of all the hours my husband
works. Why should I have to? I want to raise my children not a
daycare.
My husband is 34 and I convinced him to finally vote this year.
We had many an argument about it. He said why should he bother
voting when nothing ever changes.
A lot of people feel this way. I am beginning to think he is
right.
I have rent, house insurance, truck insurance, life insurance,
hydro, gas, phone, food, truck payments. These are basic bills.
As for fun, what's that? Will CPP even be there when my husband
retires? I doubt it.
I have a friend who at 28 is having to declare bankruptcy. She
has three children. I know that it could be us. Kids are in
trouble today more than ever because parents aren't there. They
have to work harder and longer so the kids are on their own. The
future looks bleaker.
Something has to be done about this CPP. Canada is on its way
to ruin the way I see it.
1740
It is signed Margaret Snell of Quesnel, British Columbia.
I want to argue that people like Margaret Snell simply were not
represented before the finance committee. People like Margaret
Snell did not have their views represented in the government's
report on the prebudget hearings. It is not only Margaret Snell.
I believe that there are hundreds of thousands, in fact
millions, of Canadians who feel exactly the same way as Margaret
Snell feels.
What should the government do when it hears letters like the one
I just read from Margaret Snell or the one which my leader read
yesterday from Kim Hicks of Sackville, New Brunswick? If the
government had the sense that God gave the goose, the first thing
it would do is secure the future of people like Margaret Snell,
Kim Hicks and other people who are suffering by first taking the
debt situation seriously.
The other day the chairman of the finance committee rose in his
place to speak about what the finance committee heard. I know
that my hon. friend will acknowledge that we heard representative
after representative come before the committee to say that the
debt is a real problem and that we should do something about it.
In fact, the government report even says that it is a problem.
What was the recommendation? The recommendation was to continue
with the promise made during the election campaign, which is to
allocate 50% of the surplus for more spending. It is absolutely
incredible.
We know that when major polls are conducted across the country
Canadians say that debt is an incredible problem. We have to
deal with the debt. As my leader pointed out yesterday, when
people have a little tax relief, what do they do with it? They
pay down their personal debt. Of course they do. It is common
sense.
What does the government do? It has a huge agenda to start
spending again, but does it have any plan on what to do with the
debt?
The government suggests that maybe it will reduce the debt to
50% or 60% of GDP by some point in the future. What exactly does
that mean? It did not commit to putting a single dollar toward
the debt in absolute terms. The government suggests that maybe if
the economy grows fast enough the debt will look smaller as a
percentage of our economy.
The very first thing the government should do is borne out by
polls, letters and telephone calls which we received. The very
first thing the government should do is secure the future of
people like Margaret Snell, Kim Hicks and hundreds of thousands
of other people by starting to pay down the debt. The government
should have a serious plan to pay down the debt.
The second point I want to make is that the government should
find a way to secure the future prosperity of Canadians. The way
to do that is very obvious. After having read Margaret Snell's
letter and after having heard Kim Hicks' letter, it should be
obvious to the government as well. It needs to start reducing
taxes.
We have a tax burden in this country which is absolutely
staggering. In the last four years, since the government came to
power, Canadians have seen their disposable incomes drop like a
stone. We know that since the government came to power
disposable income for the average family in this country has
fallen by over $3,000.
Why it that? It is because taxes continue to mount.
My friends across the way stand every day and say they have cut
taxes. If people across the country really believe that the
government has cut taxes, I have a bridge that I would like to
sell them.
1745
People do not believe that. I do not believe that. We know
that government revenues have gone up $25 billion in the last few
years. We also know that the government has introduced 37 tax
increases. We know that because income tax is not indexed for
inflation, effectively there is an inflation tax in place which
brings in just under a billion dollars in new revenues every year
because people are pushed up into a higher tax bracket. We know
all of those things. So how in the world can the government find
the courage to say that somehow it has reduced taxes? Frankly, I
do not think anybody believes it.
We know that in Canada today we have personal income taxes that
compared to our G-7 trading partners are 54% higher. I do not
believe for a moment that the government members across the way
in their heart of hearts feel and can even persuasively argue
that the government really has reduced taxes. I do not think
Canadians are buying that at all.
I want to go over a couple of things which were said by my
leader yesterday when he said we provided some tax relief for a
family in New Brunswick. When that family in New Brunswick had a
chance to spend that money, what did they spend it on? They paid
off some personal debt. They set aside about a third of the
money. Then they spent some on essentials like medical needs and
groceries.
Canadians know better than this government what their priorities
are. They should have the chance to direct where that money
goes, to keep it in their pockets in the first place. That is
why the Reform Party has been at the forefront of advocating
lower taxes for all Canadians so that we can start to give
Canadians the real hope that they need, the real hope that they
have been deprived of over the last 10 years under successive
Liberal and Conservative governments.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the Reform Party's finance critic for that
speech.
As usual, using a very personalized example of how taxes, debt
and deficits impact on a family and on an individual makes it
much more meaningful than a long list of statistics. What the
member has shown us today is a fine example, or maybe a very poor
example, of what happens when governments dip into the pockets of
Canadians. The old joke is that it was so cold last winter we
actually saw the finance minister with his hands in his own
pockets for a change.
Canadians understand. They do not buy this idea that taxes have
plateaued, that the light at the end of the tunnel is anything
other than an oncoming tax train.
I would like the member to talk specifically about user fees and
the hidden taxes that the government keeps denying it has
increased. He mentioned several of them, for instance bracket
creep. Who is the biggest bracket creep in Canada. There is the
issue of these hidden taxes whether they be tariffs or other
things we do not see when we pick up the groceries.
In addition there are user fees. I wonder if the finance critic
could talk to us about that problem. It is another hidden tax
that is eating away at a family's ability to look after itself
and has contributed to that $3,000 drop in income the average
Canadian has sustained in the last three or four years.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I will be brief because
my time is running out.
In the last 10 years user fees have increased by about 100% in
Canada. User fees effectively are a tax not only on
corporations, businesses and all kinds of organizations that use
government services, but it is a tax in many cases on
individuals, people who use campgrounds and that kind of thing.
There is no question the government has set about to raise extra
revenues that way and because these things do not pass through
Parliament, it does amount to taxation without representation.
I will say one word on the issue of bracket creep. Recently we
got a letter from a lady in Abbotsford, British Columbia who was
having trouble making it on $16,000 a year.
She pays quite a bit of income tax, even only making $16,000 a
year. In fact she had to mortgage her mobile home in order to
pay the $800 tax bill she owed the government.
1750
I simply want to make the point to my friends around the House
today that tax relief is a viable way to help a lot of Canadians,
people at the low end of the income scale. In the spirit of
Christmas, I urge people to consider this today and to think that
perhaps there are ways to help people other than initiating a new
program.
I want to thank my colleagues around the House for agreeing to
let me speak today. I also want to wish them a very Merry
Christmas and a safe and prosperous New Year. I know we disagree
in this place, very often quite vehemently on various things but
I think we all agree that we all want to help Canadians. I want
to express my best wishes to all my friends in the House today.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.50 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of giving to the members of the
MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with
Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War between 1936
and 1939, the status of veterans under the federal legislation
and making them eligible for veterans' pensions and benefits.
He said: Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks there have
been discussions among the various parties. I would seek
unanimous consent to call it one hour of completed debate after
representatives from all the political parties represented here
tonight who wish to speak to this motion have had a chance to
speak.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the member have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Would the hon. member
please repeat what he just said in order that the members are
well informed about what they will be agreeing or disagreeing to.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, there have been
discussions among all the parties. I think you will find
unanimous consent that after a representative from each of the
political parties has spoken to this motion that we will call it
a full hour of debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Carried.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, thank you to my
colleagues for agreeing to seeing that this first hour of debate
will continue after hearing from the various political parties on
Motion No. 75.
The motion has been put and the general intent has been
indicated. Basically, it is to find an avenue to recognize those
men and women who were part of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion.
Who were these people? In response, the Mac-Paps as they were
often referred to, were a unit of some 1,300 volunteer soldiers
from all parts of Canada who banded together to go abroad to
fight the enemies of democracy, the fascist powers of Europe.
It was 1936 when the Spanish Civil War began, when the forces of
Franco overthrew Spain's democratically elected republican
government. With the help of support from Nazi Germany and from
fascist Italy, the Spanish Civil War was under way.
People from Canada became aware of this conflict. They became
aware of the threat of fascism and the rise of Nazi Germany.
They felt that this was the beginning of what was to be an
eventual major conflict in the free world, a conflict of free
democratic voices against those of fascism.
1755
The call went out. Volunteers from coast to coast in Canada
joined after information rallies and so on and left Canada. They
left their families, left their jobs, left their communities to
fight in a foreign country against what they felt was a threat to
freedom and a threat to democracy.
It was 1936. At the time the government of the day passed
legislation called the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1936. This act
made volunteers who fought in foreign wars criminals. One would
have to know Canadian history to acknowledge that at the time
there were many people within the Government of Canada who were
somewhat sympathetic in particular to the rise of Hitler in
Germany.
The history books will reveal that many political leaders in
Canada thought the rise of fascism was quite fashionable and
quite acceptable. As a matter of fact, in many of the major
cities of Canada fascism was very popular. It was not uncommon
to find fascist organizations organizing fascist meetings with a
great deal of popular support throughout the country.
The Foreign Enlistment Act was passed in 1936 which made it
illegal for volunteers to fight on the side of democracy and
freedom in the Spanish Civil War. In spite of that, 1,300 people
volunteered to go. They felt they had to defy their government in
an effort to stand up for justice and what was right in this
world.
It is fair to say now with the benefit of hindsight that the
Spanish Civil War in many ways was the dress rehearsal for the
second world war. It was an early test of the resolve of the
free world to make a stand against those forces wishing to crush
democracy. We know now in retrospect that certainly was the case.
The forces of fascism throughout Europe rose up shortly
thereafter and it was just a matter of time before Canadians were
involved in fighting fascism in a variety of ways and on a
variety of fronts.
We read these days about the conflict, about the incredible
heroism, the unbelievable personal sacrifices Canadians made when
they went to fight in this war. They often fought with outmoded
weapons and in some cases fought with no weapons at all. They
were fighting against the Luftwaffe. The Nazi Luftwaffe would
sweep over Franco's Spain and bomb the units that were fighting
on behalf of the republic. Mussolini sent his naval forces and
so on to bombard the cities and bombard the trenches where the
freedom fighters were fighting.
It was an incredibly bloody conflict. It was in 1936 and it is
fair to say it was before any sort of modern medical application
was available on the fronts of war.
Interestingly enough, one of the Canadians who distinguished
himself, and there were many Canadians, was Dr. Norman Bethune.
He revolutionized battlefield blood transfusions which saved the
lives of countless of his fellow volunteers and ever since,
future generations of soldiers fighting in war. It was then that
Norman Bethune almost became a legend in his own time. He
travelled from coast to coast to raise support for the republican
forces, to raise finances and to encourage people to enlist. He
almost became a cult figure among those people who were fighting
for freedom and democracy.
The casualty rate was staggering. The suffering was
unbelievable. Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons are
well aware of the nature of those battles. They are documented
in a number of ways. A number of my colleagues are scholars in
this area so I will not elaborate at this point. I know we will
hear others talk about the casualties of the Spanish Civil War
and the recognition that one-quarter of all of the Canadian
volunteers were killed or presumed dead by 1939.
1800
One of the darker sides of the issue was that when many of the
Mac-Paps who survived the Spanish Civil War and later sought to
enlist in our armed forces to continue the fight against fascism
in Europe and elsewhere, they were turned away for being
politically unreliable individuals. They were identified by
government and by the RCMP as being suspect. Their heroic
contributions were overwhelmed by the fact that they actually
experienced outright discrimination when they returned home to
Canada.
The people who prized freedom and democracy acknowledged their
contribution and acknowledge that these folks were fighting for
the things that have made our country great. Nevertheless they
were treated terribly by those in power and influence at the
time. They were subjected to police surveillance because of
their suspected political connections and political aspirations.
Today in Canada there is only a handful of these survivors left.
Remember that this was in 1936. They were young people at the
time. Some were not necessarily that young. Almost all of them
have passed away regretful that their contribution to the fight
against fascism was never acknowledged, recognized or appreciated
in a formal way by the Government of Canada and by other levels
of government.
Not long ago a memorial was erected at Queen's Park in Toronto
on the lawns of parliament in recognition of their contribution.
As we speak, funds are being raised in the city of Vancouver to
erect a statue to acknowledge the contribution these individuals
made in the fight against fascism and the rise of Nazi Germany.
We have not done anything as a federal presence. As a country
we have not acknowledged the fact that these folks made a
contribution that we have later acknowledged and became involved
directly, the conflict now known as the second world war.
My motion is seconded by a number of colleagues from various
political parties. It simply asks that the matter be referred to
the appropriate committee of the House for study. Whether it is
to give full veterans benefits to the survivors, of which there
are probably not more than 40; whether it is to recognize the
contribution these individuals made or some other form of
recognition and support at this twilight time in their lives, we
are open to whatever initiative would be appropriate.
Rather than seal off this issue with a negative speech today, we
should at least keep it open and keep a dialogue happening
between ourselves as political parties and as elected
representatives to find some acceptable way to recognize the
tremendous sacrifices and the tremendous contribution made by the
individuals called the Mac-Paps against the rise of Nazism.
We owe it to these individuals. There are probably no more than
40 left in all of Canada. Therefore the cost is infinitesimal. I
think it would be appropriate to seek some method of saying
thanks to the people who led the way in our Canadian fight
against fascism and their fight for freedom and democracy.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to debate this motion. I
probably find myself in the position of many members of the
House; that is to say I have mixed feelings about it. This is
the type of initiative that many members, regardless of political
persuasion, can have some sympathy with.
On the surface, Motion No. 75 would seem to have merit. After
all, who cannot be sympathetic with the notion of offering some
care and comfort to a small group of elderly Canadians who in
their youth laid their lives on the line to fight fascism in
Europe.
It would surely be an act of generosity for caring Canadians.
After all what harm could it do?
1805
I wish life were as simple as that: make a decision to call
these men veterans, put them on benefits, and that is the end of
it. Of course that would not be the end of the issue. It would
be the beginning.
The motion calls for the government to consider the advisability
of giving these man, the Mac-Paps, veterans status. I assume it
follows that the sponsoring member would wish this consideration
to lead to such a designation. Unfortunately the motion and its
implication is really a non-starter from the beginning.
The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs studied the issue a
decade ago and in its final report stated:
It is the committee's view that while the presentation may
portray these issues in black and white, when all facts are
looked at in perspective the situation is by no means as clear
cut as those who appeared before us wished us to believe.
It is not a clear cut issue at all. My first difficulty is the
tendency to revisit history and through today's sensibilities try
to apply retroactive judgments about who fought on the right side
and who fought on the wrong side.
Although the tide of history would not allow us to say that the
Mac-Paps fought on the right side, the fact of the matter is that
they took up arms on their own volition. Canada was not at war
with Spain. We had laws on the books prohibiting our citizens
from fighting in foreign wars.
The fact is that there were Canadians who fought on the other
side. What about them? We had and continue to have no veterans
benefits for those who volunteered to fight on foreign shores
under a flag that was not their own. Yet the motion would have
us consider that this group of fighting men, out of all other
Canadians who have fought in wars under foreign flags, deserve
the same status as veterans who fought under Canada's banner.
At the end of the day we are left to conclude that acceptance of
the motion implies and would require Canada to pay veterans
benefits to any person who participates in any foreign conflict
because he or she sincerely believes he or she is doing the right
thing. Lest members think that I exaggerate the possibilities, I
suggest that granting of veterans benefits to one group of men
who fought for what they believed to be a just cause would open
the floodgates for many other groups.
If the hon. member's motion did come to pass, are there other
unintended consequences? What would it cost? I am sure there
are less than 100 Mac-Paps left. Perhaps less. One might think
the cost would be minimal.
I do not know what the exact figures are, but to grant them the
same veterans benefits as their Canadian counterparts would not
be cheap. They could be eligible for disability benefits, war
veterans allowances, comprehensive medical care and a subsidized
long term residential care. Would we make these benefits
retroactive? If so, retroactive to when? Which dependants would
be eligible for what benefits? I do not know what the final
price tag would be but it could be a lot steeper than we would
guess at first glance.
This does not even begin to touch the horrendous administrative
implications. Since the Mac-Paps did not serve in Canadian
forces there are no personnel or medical files for them. It
would, therefore, be impossible to verify whether any disability
claims were war service related.
In fact, it would be practically impossible to verify whether any
particular individual even served with the Mac-Paps, given that
the Canadian government kept no registry of the volunteers. Nor
would any of the unit's official records likely have survived the
defeat in Spain.
1810
If therefore the proposed motion were adopted and led to veteran
status for the Mac-Paps, extremely generous presumptive rules
would have to be included in the legislation to allow the
Department of Veterans Affairs to accept the flimsiest of
evidence in any claim.
Canada recognizes as its veterans those who served Canada or its
allies in a war in which Canada was a combatant. That is how it
has always been and that is how it should remain. To widen
eligibility to those who fought for other nations, in other
uniforms, would not be fair to those Canadian veterans who served
their country and to those who continue to do so.
To open the benefits to special cases has terribly serious and
detrimental consequences, not only at home but abroad where we
portray ourselves as an independent and neutral nation. It would
suggest that we are not neutral and that Canadians can fight for
any nation and return home to receive Canadian benefits.
The case for voting in the affirmative on the motion does not
hold up. As the standing committee stated 10 years ago:
It is without regard to the rights or wrongs of the action of
those Canadians who are veterans of the Spanish Civil War. They
cannot be considered in the same light as Canadians who served in
the wars in which Canada was involved as a nation. Consequently,
there can be no thought of treating them in the same manner by
making them eligible for benefits under veterans legislation.
The standing committee's recognition of this fact remains no
less true today than it did when it issued its report in 1987.
Therefore the motion cannot pass reasonable scrutiny. It should
not be passed.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today in my duty as the loyal opposition critic for
veterans affairs. It is an honour for me to address the motion
before the House. I begin by thanking the hon. member for
Kamloops for moving the motion.
It is essential for us to remember our history. As we have
heard so often, those who do not remember their history are
doomed to repeat it. As parliamentarians we have a special duty
to ensure that the past informs the present and helps to shape
the future.
I take this opportunity to celebrate the memory of those
Canadians who fought in Spain in the 1930s. They took part in a
pivotal part of our history. I believe it is appropriate that we
recognize their valour and ensure their memory as part of our
history, but I cannot agree with the motion put forward for the
simple reason that it would not be appropriate for the members of
the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion to have the status of Canadian
war veterans.
Canada was not a combatant in the Spanish Civil War. Indeed the
Liberal government of the day enacted legislation to make
participation on either side an offence. With the 20:20
hindsight provided by almost 60 years, we may object to this and
feel that it was unfair. However this does not change the fact
that these brave men were not members of a Canadian official
force.
We need not think too long or too hard to see what a difficult
precedent could be set by such an action. At any time there are
unfortunately dozens of declared and undeclared wars being fought
around the world. More than almost any other people, Canadians
recognize the importance of world events in their lives. As a
multicultural country, most of us have connections to some part
of the world where conflicts occur.
I would not in any way want to encourage Canadians to feel that
they have some sanction to take part in the conflicts in places
such as Afghanistan, Algeria or Angola, or to promote violence in
places like Ireland.
1815
We need only to think back a few years to the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia. Canada has strong and vital communities of
people of Serbian and Croatian heritage. We certainly did not
sanction any reflection of ethnic tensions here. We value our
role as a sanctuary of peace and democracy. We gave generously
to charities that sought to help the victims of the war. As
always, Canada played a central role in the international effort
of the United Nations in trying to prevent conflict and protect
civilians in Croatia and Bosnia.
I hope we are more enlightened today than in 1936. Canada is
deeply involved in the work of the United Nations peacekeeping
forces that have played an important role in avoiding conflict in
the Middle east, Cyprus, Croatia and Bosnia to name a few. Even
today we insist that those Canadians who want to help should do
so through the proper channels of the United Nations. In matters
of war we do not freelance.
As the opposition critic for veterans affairs, I am proud to
play a role in remembering the sacrifices of the veterans of the
Canadian Armed Forces. This past November I participated as a
member of the delegation of veterans, young people, military and
government representatives that travelled to France and Belgium.
We attended the ceremony and remembrance at the Newfoundland
Beaumont-Hamel Memorial to commemorate the war dead of the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment. We also attended the Ceremony of
Remembrance at the Vimy Memorial.
The ceremonies were very moving and emotional and I would be
proud to participate in efforts to ensure the memory of the
Mac-Paps is part of this heritage. Our level of knowledge about
the first and second world wars is fairly good. Places and names
such as Vimy, Flanders and Dieppe resonate in the Canadian mind.
But Canadians played a role in other international conflicts
going back as far as the Boer War in South Africa. These efforts
are not as prominent in our history books.
The hon. member for Kamloops has provided us with an opportunity
to reflect on one of the pivotal points of the 20th century and
the part played in it by Canadians. The Spanish Civil War has a
special place in the art and literature of the western world as
well as the history. Anyone who has read Hemingway's For Whom
the Bell Tolls or Orwell's Homage to the Catalonia has
an idea of the passion that motivated these Canadians to take
part in fighting the forces of fascism.
For many people on the left of the political spectrum, such as
the hon. member for Kamloops, there is a romantic element in the
principled fight against overwhelming odds. This same spirit
prevailed in 1936 when 1,239 men went to Spain with the full
knowledge that they were bucking the system and going against the
wishes of the government of the day.
What is not so well remembered is what is documented in the
second half of Homage to Catalonia where the communists,
anarchists and socialists turned on each other and destroyed any
chance they had to effectively oppose Franco's nationalists. The
dream of international communism was betrayed by Stalin and
others. Orwell and many other veterans of the International
Brigades felt betrayed and only a few short years later Hitler's
Germany and Mussolini's Italy used the techniques they developed
in Spain like the divebombing of the Basque town of Guernica in
the second world war.
I am sure all members of this House support the important work
of our veterans organizations in educating young Canadians about
their past and about the horrors of war and about the stories of
their parents, grandparents and great grandparents. This is a
role that has been played by the veterans of the
Mackenzie—Papineau Brigade.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, as the Bloc
Quebecois critic for veterans affairs, I am pleased to rise today to
support my hon. colleague from Kamloops in asking that the members of
the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion be recognized as veterans.
1820
The MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion, named after the leaders of the
1837 rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada, was made up of 1,300 Canadian
volunteers who served in the international brigades to support the
Republican government against the authority of fascist dictator General
Franco during the Spanish Civil War, between 1936 and 1939.
In spite of their sacrifices and their individual heroism,
Canadian veterans of the international brigades are still not recognized
as war veterans. As a result, they have never been eligible for
veterans' benefits and, more importantly, their merit in defending the
freedom and democracy that we, in Canada, enjoy and benefit from today
was never recognized.
The purpose of this motion is therefore to ask that official
recognition be given to the courage of the men and women who did not
wait for the government's formal approval to fight for our fundamental
freedoms and against the horrors of fascism. These Canadians went to
Spain, where they risked their lives alongside other brave people from
around the world to fight for freedom and democracy.
Unfortunately, the Spanish Republican forces and the international
brigades, including the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion, did not win that
fight, but history tells us that the Spanish war was the prelude to the
downfall of fascism at the end of World War II in Europe. It seems
appropriate that these fighters and their willingness to fight for
justice and democracy be recognized.
Dare we ask? Why did Canada not accept to provide assistance to
Spain at the time?
Why did it pass the Foreign Enlistment Act on April 10, 1937, one year
after the beginning of the Spanish Civil War? Why did Maurice Duplessis,
on March 24, 1937, pass an act to protect the province against
communistic propaganda, better known as the “Padlock Act”? Why this
discrimination toward our soldiers when they came back? Why give the
status of veterans to those who fought in the Vietnam war, but not those
who did so in Spain?
I will try to answer these questions from a historical perspective.
It may be that, at the time, Canada was a British colony and England,
like France, feared a second world war. It may be because the
battalion's name was MacKenzie-Papineau, in memory of the 1837
rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada. As we know, these patriots yearned
for freedom and democracy, something which may not have pleased Canadian
royalists.
Around 1835, Louis-Joseph Papineau, member of the Patriote Party,
wanted a democratic and bilingual country open to free trade with the
United States, a country where Church and State would be independent. At
the time, each group had its own parliament. Members of parliament in
both Upper and Lower Canada were elected, but they did not have any
executive power. This power was exercised by the governor, who was
appointed by London. This is the main reason why these rebellions took
place. Quebec was hit first. Villages were burned, hundreds of people
killed, 1,000 arrested, 108 tried, 60 deported, and 12 hanged. The
authorities could have hit Upper Canada first, because the rebellions
were just the same but, when it comes to reprimanding, history tells us
that it takes place in Quebec.
The federal Foreign Enlistment Act and Duplessis' Padlock Act were,
to a large extent, adopted in response to requests from the clergy and
the right wing.
It was also to keep the Canadian right happy when these veterans
returned home that they were subjected to job discrimination and
RCMP surveillance, and turned down when they tried to enlist at the
beginning of World War II.
Finally, I do not understand why Canada recognizes veterans of
the war in Vietnam but not the war in Spain. We had no more
business being in Vietnam than we did in Spain.
I followed with great interest the deliberations of the
standing committee on veterans affairs in 1986 regarding the
participation of Canadians in the Spanish Civil War, and the
testimony shows that the sole interest of the veterans who appeared
before the committee was to stop the progress of fascism and to
defend the oppressed. History proved them right. The war in Spain
was the prelude to World War II and the end of two dictators,
Hitler and Mussolini.
1825
These civil wars between the forces of the right and the
Spanish Popular Front government began with clashes over economic
and social structure. The landowning class, often noblemen,
dominated a country that was essentially agricultural, poor and
lacking in social programs. This upper class relied on a clergy
that was very rich and, on the whole, very conservative. It also
relied on an army whose many officers came from its ranks.
The people were primarily farmers, an underpaid agricultural
proletariat, miners or factory workers, and engaged in several
violent struggles to fight unemployment and low wages.
On two occasions, the working class had managed to assume
democratic power and to implement social, military, ecclesiastical
and agrarian reform, early release from the army, the separation of
Church and State, some degree of autonomy for Catalonia, and
universal education. I should point out as well that this was a
time of heavy ideological struggles between communists, fascists
and liberalists just about everywhere, but in Europe in particular.
In 1934, those reforms were abolished after the right assumed
power, but when the left returned in 1936 and these programs were
resumed, the right went into action and the civil war ensued.
During that war, according to the statistics, 52 countries in
the world were involved in recruiting 40,000 people for the Spanish
cause despite the non-intervention agreement.
In short, history proves that these veterans fought for
freedom and democracy.
This civil war was a class struggle between the landowners, the
army and the clergy on the one side, and the people, the
proletariat, on the other. It was also an international
ideological struggle between communism, fascism and liberalism. It
was the prelude to the Second World War and to the downfall of
fascism and its dictators. The Mackenzie—Papineau Battalion
wanted to share that yearning for freedom and democracy.
For these reasons, I am calling on the government to recognize
the sincere contribution of these veterans who enlisted in order to
defend freedom and democracy, and to award to surviving Canadian
veterans or their widows the benefits to which they would have been
entitled if they had been regular members of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the
item is dropped to the bottom of the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
on November 17, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
about the measures she intended to take to fight the extremely
serious problem of the arrival in Canada of a number of war
criminals, people who are guilty of crimes in their country and who
have applied under Canadian law for refugee status.
The issue is of concern, because according to an internal
study by Randy Gordon in the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, we learned that, since his first report in February
1997, the total number of cases of all kinds had increased. He
reported that the total was now over 300 cases, and including the
new files to be considered soon for refugee status, the total would
no doubt increase significantly in 1997-98. According to Mr.
Gordon, if only 1% of the 38,000 new claims pending processing
involved war crimes, the total number of files to process would
almost double in very short order.
1830
You must know that in Canada there are nearly 300 people who
are guilty or could be considered guilty by the war crimes refugee
status commission. There is one thing of considerable concern.
Internationally, Canada has the reputation of giving a special
welcome to war criminals. In saying that, I know the government is
just as concerned as I am about this situation.
I know the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship is not
pleased to discover that we are a preferred haven for war
criminals. However, for more than 20 years we have known that all
sorts of mechanisms have permitted war criminals to come to
Canada. Despite all, we must acknowledge that little has been
done.
You will recall that, in 1985, there was a commission of
inquiry, the Deschênes commission, which looked particularly at
Nazi war criminals. It suggested a number of courses of action,
including amending the Criminal Code, passing tighter measures on
extradition and, of course, the main measure of ensuring that, when
someone applied, it would be possible to identify whether they were
guilty of war crimes. The moment an individual was identified as
a war criminal, without the need for an exhaustive investigation as
is presently the case, expulsion and deportation measures were to
be taken.
What I hope in raising this question is to offer the
government and the Minister of Immigration and Immigration my full
support, my participation and my energy so that we may work
together, outside party lines, because we all know there can be no
justice. We will be able to send a clear message around the world
that Canada will not tolerate war criminals on its soil. A clear
message will thoroughly discourage regimes guilty of such crimes.
I close by saying that currently under the Immigration Act,
specifically subsection 19(1)—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the
member's time is up.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Canada is
constantly making progress in how it treats those who have committed war
crimes or crimes against humanity, but a lot remains to be done.
[English]
The government's approach to such criminals has always been
grounded in our commitment to ensure that justice is done and
that Canada does not become a safe haven for war criminals and
for those who have committed crimes against humanity now or in
the future.
Canada is seen as a world leader in the detection and removal of
modern war criminals and has removed more modern war criminals
than any other western country.
For example, 72 persons have been removed from Canada during the
past few years. In addition, hundreds have been excluded by the
Immigration and Refugee Board from accessing the refugee
determination system.
We have prevented many from obtaining visas to enter Canada. We
are proud of this accomplishment and we are working hard to build
on this success.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, has
taken measures to improve its ability to address the problem of
war criminals. For example, CIC, regions have identified various
co-ordinators to track modern war criminal cases and ensure they
are dealt with expeditiously.
CIC continually looks for ways to enhance its ability to deal
with enforcement issues. CIC works closely with its partners
such as the Department of Justice, the RCMP and CSIS to ensure
that information is shared and acted upon.
Protecting the safety and security of the Canadian public will
always be a top priority for the department. This is one thing
we will never compromise on.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his interest
in this issue.
1835
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am told
I will be the last speaker in the House for 1997. If so, I am very proud
and honoured to end the proceedings for 1997. As my mother used to say,
“the important thing is not to always talk, but to have the last
word”.
On December 4, I asked the minister of Transport a clear question
on the transportation by train of goods to northern cities such as
Fermont and Shefferville. To my surprise, the reply was, to say the
least, off track.
I asked about rail transportation and the Minister of Transport
told me about the condition of Canada's highways. Of course, the rest of
his reply did not make sense. The minister said the provincial
government was responsible for setting priorities to meet the collective
needs of remote communities. Yet, I was addressing the proper level of
government, since I was asking about rail transportation.
Finally, when I asked the minister about what measures he intended
to take in the future, he told me that the federal government has been
involved in assisting the provinces since 1919 in highway construction,
which is utterly useless and irrelevant. All this shows that the
minister never took an interest in the claims made by the chamber of
commerce of Sept-Îles, which were communicated to him personally more
than a month ago.
This is a flagrant lack of interest in helping the people of
Manicouagan and getting things back to normal.
Admittedly, the Minister of Transport realized his error. In
a letter dated December 9, he apologized for not replying to my
question and for having given an inaccurate answer. He assures me
that officials from his department will look into my allegations
and report back.
I could understand that he gave the wrong answer to my
question, but I cannot forgive him, on behalf of the North Shore
Quebeckers I represent, for not replying promptly to
representatives of the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce. I will
therefore reiterate the facts, in the interests of advancing our
cause.
On November 5, in other words a little more than a month ago,
the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce requested the assistance of the
Minister of Transport in its efforts to ensure the survival of the
merchants in the region. It condemned the increase in rail freight
charges.
It was shown, for instance, that it will now cost $154 to ship
35 cases of milk from Sept-Îles to Schefferville, rather than $52.
Since the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway handed the
freight monopoly over to the private sector, rates have more than
doubled. The federal government has an obligation to ensure that
companies receiving subsidies meet their obligations. How can the
government tolerate this, and not act when it knows that IOC is
pocketing money for passenger traffic while allowing freight
charges to skyrocket.
As the member for Manicouagan, I demand that the government step
in to re-establish fair freight rates on the Sept-Îles—Labrador
City route.
I would like to reassure people, whether they are from Fermont
or Schefferville, that they will be able to obtain food as
economically as possible.
To the people in my riding of Manicouagan, and to all
Quebeckers, my warmest wishes for 1998. We will be boarding a
train headed for the year 2000. It is normal for a self-respecting
people to have a country.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in
1996 the Canada Transportation Act, CTA, entered into law. One
of the main objectives of this bill was to help revitalize the
rail sector by eliminating unnecessary economic regulation and to
rely more on commercial arrangements between railways and their
customers. Under the CTA, subsidies for uneconomic branch lines
and non-VIA Rail passenger services were eliminated. This
included the subsidy for the Quebec North Shore and Labrador
Railway.
Although the government eliminated the statutory subsidies for
non-VIA passenger services, a commitment was made to ensue
reasonable passenger rail service to remote communities such as
Schefferville. As a result the government entered into
contractual arrangements with three railways, including the
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, to continue to provide
passenger rail service to remote communities.
1840
The agreement specified minimum levels of passenger service such
as the frequency of trains. They do not, however, cover all
details of other operations since these are best left to the
individual railways that provide the freight and passenger
services.
Recently the hon. member for Manicouagan raised an issue with
respect to a decision by the Quebec North Shore and Labrador
Railway to change its merchandise storage service. Recognizing
that the federal role is restricted to its contract with the
QNS&L; for passenger rail services, the Minister of Transport
noted the concerns raised by the member and has asked officials
from his department to look into this matter.
The minister has made a commitment to respond directly to the
member as soon as more details are known. I would personally
like to thank the member for Manicouagan for his interest. I
lived in Schefferville for a number of years when it was a
thriving mining town. One of my daughters was born there. I
have travelled this particular railroad scores, not tens, scores
of times both before Schefferville closed as a mining town and
since. I know Sept-Iles, Manicouagan and the North Shore very
well.
I congratulate the member on giving the last speech in the House
before the break.
Je vous remercie.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.42 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until Monday, February 2, 1998 at 11
o'clock, pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
Joyeux Noël à tous. Merry Christmas.
(The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.)