The House met at 10 a.m.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reintroduce a
private member's bill that I introduced in the last Parliament.
It amends the Referendum Act of Canada. Its purpose is to allow
the people of Canada to actually do what democracy allows them to
do and that is to rule.
In my view more mechanisms are needed for the people of Canada
to have a direct say in the decisions which are made that affect
their future. This referendum bill sets out a mechanism that
allows the people of the country to play a larger and more
specific role in the legislative process.
I look forward to debate on this bill and perhaps to it being
passed by the House.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I stand yet again for the victims of
multiple murderers and other serial predators to introduce for
the third time a bill to end volume discounts for rapists and
murderers.
Most acutely, over the past few months, Canadians have witnessed
in justified disgust how Canada's courts automatically absolve
murderers and rapists of all but their first offence through the
very legal obscenity of concurrent sentencing.
I would like to thank the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex
for seconding this bill and for joining the members of the House
who place the rights of victims and the protection of law-abiding
citizens ahead of the interests of our most vocal predator
protection industry.
The petitioners state that there
are profound inadequacies in the sentencing practices concerning
individuals convicted of impaired driving charges. They think
that Canada must embrace a philosophy of zero tolerance toward
individuals who drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and request that
Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal
Code that will ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted
of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while
impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero
tolerance by Canada toward this crime. The sooner we act on that
the better.
This petition comes from her sister, Brenda MacDonald, in my
constituency and from deeply concerned citizens. They believe
that the provocation defence as it is currently used in femicide
and wife slaughter cases inappropriately and unjustly changes the
focus of the criminal trial from the behaviour of the accused
to the behaviour of the victim who, from then on, is
identified as the one responsible for the accused violence. It
is shameful and it is not right.
More specifically, it is not consistent with the
constitutional rights of women, including their right to equal
protection and benefit of the law and the right to life, liberty
and security.
Thousands of people pray that the defence of provocation
be dealt with in the Criminal Code just as soon as possible. I
urge the justice minister to do that.
The petitioners are very concerned about the pricing of gasoline in
this country. They feel that the price of gasoline is set by all
companies in an unjustified manner. They believe that since
energy is a key component and the most fundamental component of
our economy, there should be some control of its
pricing.
They call on Parliament to set up an energy price
review commission to keep gasoline pricing and other energy
products in check.
This group of people are very concerned about the unity of our
country. They ask Parliament and the Prime Minister of
Canada to confirm that Canada is indivisible and that the
boundaries of Canada may be modified only by a pre-vote of all
Canadian citizens or through an amending formula stipulated in
the Canadian Constitution.
I hope the Prime Minister is watching and will pay attention to
the prayer of these petitioners.
It is my honour and privilege to present them on her behalf.
There are some 500 signatures from her riding, another thousand
from the lower mainland and several hundred from the prairie
provinces. It has to deal with the issue of age of consent.
These petitioners ask Parliament to consider changing the age of
consent from 14 to 16, which could assist in the prosecution of
adults who buy sex from young people because the adult could then
be charged with sexual assault. It would not be necessary to
prove some of the other things that are necessary under the
current Criminal Code.
The efforts of these people to try to make the streets safer for
young people and to try to make it difficult for predators to
prey on young kids are a laudable effort. I support their goal.
It is interesting that many of the people who signed their names
here are teenagers who feel that the current law needs to be
changed.
Therefore these petitioners request that Parliament review and
amend the charter of rights and freedoms and/or the Criminal Code
of Canada to include this practice as being illegal, except in
special circumstances such as breast feeding.
I would like to apologize to the House. I was to introduce a
bill today but I was delayed at the session on parliamentary
reform in West Block.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I am introducing
this bill in the House. This bill would repeal section 745 of
the Criminal Code, and in the result all those convicted of
murder would have to serve a minimum of 25 years in prison before
having the opportunity to seek parole.
In the last House this bill passed at second reading and it went
to committee. I would hope that in this Parliament, the 36th
Parliament, we will have the opportunity to have this bill
debated again and ultimately passed by this House because that is
the will of the people of Canada.
Rather than the previous motion which was to pass all stages and
refer to the Senate, in light of what was approved in the last
Parliament and with broad consent in Canadian society, I wonder
if we could have the bill from the member from York South—Weston
referred to committee for study immediately rather than go
through the private member's process.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
enter this debate on the first NDP opposition day not just of
this parliamentary session but the first NDP opposition day in
four years since the New Democratic Party was re-established as
an official party in the Parliament of Canada.
The motion has been read into the record. A short version of
the motion is simply that this house condemns the government for
its failure to make jobs the number one priority, to make jobs
the real priority of its economic policy.
The essence of the argument is quite simple. It is quite
straightforward. It will not be the first time that members have
heard me say this and it will not be the last time they will hear
New Democrat members of this Parliament say it.
If the government can set and meet targets to reduce inflation,
to reduce the deficit, then the government can set and meet
targets to reduce unemployment. It is such a straightforward
argument that it is of increasing concern and an increasing
puzzle to Canadians why the federal government just does not get
it.
For 84 consecutive months unemployment in Canada has been at or
above 9%. Yet a couple of weeks ago when inflation reached 1.8%
the government decided that this called for decisive action. The
government rushed to support the Bank of Canada in its decision
to hike interest rates to prevent the boom and bust effect of
economic growth.
One Canadian said something to me which I think expressed the
sentiment of a lot of Canadians: “Doesn't the federal government
get it that for a lot of people in this country the economy has
been a bust-bust economy for a good many years?” They do not
recognize any signs at all or any threat of a boom and bust
economy.
Canadians are asking themselves if the government feels
compelled to act decisively when inflation reaches 1.8%, what
level would unemployment have to reach before the government
would finally act decisively on the unemployment crisis? With
inflation at 1.8% and unemployment above 9% it does not take an
accountant or a statistician to see which is the bigger problem.
Last week the Minister of Finance took time out from his hectic
schedule of meetings with the business community to tell
Canadians that the books are in the best financial shape they
have been in in 26 years and that Canadians should be grateful.
The Halifax Herald, the daily newspaper in my city, said it
all in the headlines: “`The books are fine”, says Martin, but
the real question is whether the lives of Canadians are fine”.
If we look at the Liberal rhetoric and set it aside and look at
the actual Liberal record, it is a very different picture.
Since the beginning of this decade 320,000 more Canadians are
unemployed. The average family income has dropped by $3,000 and
52,000 more Canadians every year are declaring bankruptcy, and
child poverty increased by 25%. That is not only a national
disgrace, it is a national tragedy.
While the minister's friends at the BCNI applaud his slavish
devotion to deinvesting in health care and education, he is not
winning applause from Canadians who are battered and bruised by
the single minded obsession with inflation, or from Canadians who
are enduring the pain of the reduction of health care services,
or from Canadians whose access to education is being blocked
because of the government's withdrawal of support to education
funding.
It is perverse that this government continues to use high
unemployment as a deliberate strategy as a specific means to meet
its targets on deficit and inflation.
The government's policy of choking off economic growth, which is
why the Minister of Finance says we need to hike interest rates,
is surely madness and shortsighted.
It is time once again to reinvest in our important health and
education programs which after all are the key to a highly
productive economy and a healthy workforce. It also is one of
the most important, most efficient, most effective ways we can
produce jobs.
There is no shortage of ideas on how we can produce jobs in this
country. There is a severe absence of the political will to make
jobs the number one priority, which Canadians desperately need
this government to finally do.
What would be wrong with working together with the managers of
worker pension plans to invest in environmental retrofit of both
public and private buildings? The energy savings that would be
effected would repay the loans from such a pension fund, enjoying
a fair return to the fund. The use of fossil fuels would be
reduced to protect our environment.
What would be wrong with eliminating the GST from a selection of
essentials and increasing the tax credit? Such tax relief of
just over $1 billion would result in the creation of 19,000 jobs,
a far more effective way to achieve jobs than any proposal that
has come from either the Reform Party or the Conservative Party.
What would be wrong with requiring banks to reinvest a
reasonable share of their deposits in the communities where they
originated? More investment in our communities means more small
and medium size businesses and more jobs for unemployed
Canadians.
What would be wrong with a community reinvestment act similar to
that in the United States which could create as many as 60,000
jobs a year without the government's having to spend one red cent
of public money?
What would be wrong with the government's recommitting itself to
support social housing, co-op and non-profit housing?
We heard the Minister of Finance say last week in his statement
to the finance committee that there are some things the
government can and must do. Surely addressing the need for
Housing when it is particularly job intensive is one thing the
government must and can do.
Mr. Speaker, I want to share my time with my colleague from
Qu'Appelle so I will wrap up at this point in this very important
debate by referring to a forum that took place in my riding last
week. It was sponsored by students at Saint Mary's University in
consultation with students from throughout the Halifax
metropolitan area. The forum's theme was “you have the power to
make the difference, now use it”.
It is extremely gratifying that more and more students, more and
more young people and their families, more of the 1.4 million
unemployed Canadians, more of those who are underemployed, and
there are more underemployed than unemployed, that all of these
Canadians increasingly are understanding that they do have the
power to make a difference and they are going to use it. We look
forward to working in collaboration and in consultation with them
to ensure that we make a difference in forcing this government to
finally make jobs the number one priority in its economic
policies.
Numerous constituents have contacted me over the last year or so
to say they have heard reports that it is easy for the hon.
member to be a socialist because she inherited a significant
amount of money, that she is actually quite wealthy and it is
very easy for her to go around the country saying all these
wonderful things about how the government should spend more money
when she does not have to worry about anything herself.
I would like to ask her a couple of questions. Is it true that
she indeed is quite wealthy? If she is, why does she not spend
some of her own money as she suggested the banks should do to
create jobs and relieve poverty?
It is very tempting to say to the member that it is not his
business to know what the personal circumstances are of
individual members of Parliament. Let me take the opportunity
since that member has had the audacity and frankly the ignorance
to stand up in this House to ask that question to make it clear
that it is not his business.
It is a matter of public record that when my father died four
years ago after a desperate struggle with Alzheimer's I did not
inherit one single cent. I did not inherit any money because
my father believed in a country that is not based on herited
wealth. He believed that we should have a fair tax system in
this country that redistributes wealth in a way that would
enable, in fact require, the Government of Canada to invest in
health care for all, not just for the privileged, to invest in
education for all, not just for those who can pay high tuition
fees, to invest in jobs for all, not just for those who happen to
come into their jobs through nepotism or patronage or through
being well connected with the corporate elite.
I make not one single apology for my father's success as a
businessman in this country who was absolutely committed to
working in effective partnerships between the public and the
private sectors. Nor do I make one single apology for the fact
that my father struggled and worked throughout his lifetime to
try to advance a social democratic Canada and the policies for
which we continue to struggle in this Parliament.
I am happy to address any sensible, reasonable question this
member or any other member may want to ask, but I hope that this
is not an indication of the small mindedness, the petty
mindedness of that member or his party and an indication of what
we can look forward to in this Parliament.
I would find myself not agreeing in many instances with the hon.
leader of the New Democratic Party but I at least respect the
legacy of the New Democrats having come from a labour family. My
father was the national director of the United Steelworkers of
America for 20-some years. I know the dedication and hard work
which were put into developing social policies.
We should give credit where it is due. The New Democrats can
indeed take some credit for some of the social programs which
exist in this country, not the least of which is medicare.
Having said that, I would ask the leader of the New Democratic
Party to explain to this House how that party's policies will
work for Canada. We have seen what happened in the province of
Ontario from 1990 to 1995. We have seen the devastation that
occurred as a result of some of those policies which may have
seemed good on paper but in reality did not stand the test of
good government.
I would ask the member to respond.
One is that some of the difficulties which the New Democratic
Party encountered in its five years in office in Ontario had to
do with the financial chaos and some of the failed policies which
it inherited from the Liberal government which preceded it.
Second, it has to be recognized that as a result of the free
trade deal into which the government plunged us with the Liberals
giving their endorsement having initially said that it should be
renegotiated, the province of Ontario suffered the largest job
loss of any government in the history of this country in a short
period of time. That of course had immense implications for a
government trying to deal with that situation in the midst of a
recession, at the same time that the federal Conservative
government, followed and accelerated by the Liberal government,
was offloading and downloading federal responsibilities left,
right and centre.
Yes it is true that Ontario was reeling. The tragedy that we
see today is the hardship which was created by the current
Conservative government. It effectively has been a partner in
crime with the federal government in its continued offloading and
downloading of costs and services to the municipalities and on to
the backs of individuals.
There is no short answer to this question, but I look forward to
many weeks and months of debating the real issues which underlie
the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the federal and
provincial governments in this country.
I will say at the outset that I am an optimist.
We have an opportunity now. We have turned the corner in terms
of the fiscal crisis in the country. We can now turn our
energies and resources toward setting goals and targets to put
the Canadian people back to work and to build a strong and robust
economy to make this country the greatest country in the new
millennium. This is the challenge and that is what we have to
do.
It is a sad commentary in our country when we have more food
banks than we have McDonalds, when we have people who are living
on welfare, in poverty and without decent housing. Farmers are
going bankrupt. Students are dropping out of universities because
they cannot afford the tuition fees. It is a sad commentary when
we come from the wealthiest country in the world yet so many of
our people do not have an opportunity to do what they want in
life, to have a decent job, a decent trade and a decent skill in
order to raise their families. This is a national disgrace.
We should have the same determination and zeal to fight the war
on unemployment and to set targets and goals as this country has
had on the war on the deficit and setting targets and goals over
the last five or six years. This makes sense.
I disagreed with many of the ways the government tackled the
fight on the deficit. I disagreed with many of the provinces in
the way they fought the deficit. But at least there was a plan,
there was a goal and a timetable. Now we should do the same
thing when it comes to fighting for jobs in the country and for
putting the Canadian people back to work.
Mr. Blair has targets and timetables in terms of youth
unemployment in Great Britain. The same thing is being done in
other countries around the world, so why can we not do that in
this country? I am afraid now that the finance minister has
wrestled the so-called inflation demon to the ground he is going
to allow interest rates to rise and slow down the economy and add
to more unemployment in the country.
When we look at what happened in the past, it was not government
programs that caused the debt in this country, it was the
interest rates. A couple of years ago a study by Statistics
Canada showed that 50% of the debt was caused by high interest
rates. Only 6% of the debt was caused by government programs.
The other 44% was caused by tax expenditures and tax loopholes
and the failure to have a fair tax system in Canada.
It worries me when I see stories in the paper about the
possibility of interest rates rising once again. We have this
great inflation demon raising its head again. Inflation is 1.8%.
With inflation at 1.8% and 9% of our people unemployed and the
Canadian dollar sitting at about 73¢ American, why is the
government now concerned about fighting inflation?
What the government is going to do is cool down the economy. It
has already raised interest rates twice this year. In all
likelihood it is going to increase interest rates again in the
next few days, certainly within the next week or two. When it
does, the banks increase their lending rates to small business,
homeowners and farmers and the whole economy slows down. People
lose their jobs, people are laid off and the wage fare is once
again going to remain flat and stagnant in the months and years
ahead.
The challenge is to get out and do whatever we can as a nation
to put our people back to work. To make sure, the Minister of
Finance in his talks with Mr. Thiessen, the governor of the Bank
of Canada, should say that a 1.8% inflation rate is not too high,
it is not too dangerous and it will not hurt the economy. Instead
let us keep interest rates in the country low so we can stimulate
the economy and put Canadian people back to work. This is
extremely important.
I want to look at the negative part in the manner in which the
government fought the debt and deficit. Only 6% of the deficit
is caused by the government's programs. About one-half of the 6%
was spent on social programs. Because of the cutbacks of
billions of dollars we have many needless victims of the war on
the deficit. I think of the people who go to the food banks,
those living in poverty. There are the cutbacks in the health
care system, the line-ups in the emergency rooms, people waiting
to get into hospitals and the cutbacks in transfers to the
provinces for health, education and social programs. There is
tremendous poverty and third world like conditions on many of our
First Nations reserves and in the inner cities.
These are the victims of the war of the Minister of Finance on
the deficit. It did not have to happen. The natural growth in
the economy because of the drop in interest rates in the last few
years would have been enough to bring down the deficit within the
targets the Minister of Finance set two or three years ago. He
did not have to leave a carnage of victims across the country.
Once again I warn the government that if it listens to the
Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance we
will be back in the same old vicious cycle of higher interest
rates, fewer jobs, flat wages and people suffering because of the
monetary and fiscal policies of the government across the way.
Instead we need more money spent on health and education. We
have to restore at the minimum the funding that was there two or
three years ago before the beginning of the cutbacks. We have to
restore transfers to the provinces in these important areas. We
also need a sensible targeted tax cut.
We are suggesting dropping the GST entirely on some essential
goods in Canada such as children's clothing and books and
increasing the tax credit for low income people, an expenditure
that would cost about $1.2 billion which would not only be a
relief to people who need it the most but would create jobs in
terms of stimulating the economy. These are some of the things
that need to be done.
I will be introducing a motion very shortly in the House to
establish a community reinvestment act, an act that is very
similar to what we see in the United States. It would require
banks and financial institutions to invest a certain proportion
of the money they take out of a community back into the
community. That is a way of creating jobs. More important, it
is one way of trying to rectify some regional inequities in
Canada.
Today we have a recovery, so they say, but the recovery is very
unequal. The recovery is primarily in four or five regions of
the country: Alberta, southern Ontario and two or three other
regions. In much of the country there is no recovery. In much
of the country there is still a great recession. In much of the
country people are still going hungry and there is still poverty.
One way of trying to redistribute income and opportunities a bit
is to have a community reinvestment act where banks and financial
institutions have to invest a certain amount of the money in
deposits they receive from a community back into the community.
Those are some things that can be done.
We have a great opportunity. We have turned the page. We have
a new parliament that is much more balanced than the parliament
we had in the last three or four years, a parliament that can be
much more progressive. The government must change its ways and
get off that neo-conservative agenda of the Margaret Thatchers
and the Ronald Reagans it has been following in the last four
years.
The government has to stop listening to the Reform Party which
wants to make it more conservative than Conservatives and start
listening to the people who want a good, progressive government
which gets involved and shows some leadership from coast to
coast.
Canadians want a strong government that tries to correct
inequities. They want a strong government that supports social
programs and social spending. They want a strong government that
once again will show some leadership in making the number one
issue in the country the creation of jobs by setting targets and
timetables; by keeping down interest rates; by having targeted
tax cuts; by investing in people, health, education and social
services; and by investing in research and development. Then we
will build a strong and competitive economy and make Canada the
best country in the 21st century.
First, with respect to the additional spending he mentioned in
certain areas that obviously could use that kind of assistance,
does he have any indication of the costs involved? He mentioned
a number of proposals.
Second, with regard to reductions in certain tax measures, how
much would that cost the federal treasury? If we were to look at
both the expenditure levels and the dollars lost in terms of the
adjustments to some programs that he suggested, could he put them
in the current framework of the deficit and the debt?
I also have two very brief questions with respect to his
intention to have banks invest some of their profits. Has he,
his party or anyone else done an analysis of how much money is
involved, what it would produce in actual tangible results and
what impacts there might be on the operations of banks?
For example, might they need to or feel they need to do
something in terms of reduction of employees?
I have a final question. Are there lessons to be learned from
the New Democratic governments in power today? I do not say that
facetiously or tongue in cheek. For example, in British Columbia
and Saskatchewan, unless I am badly informed and I do not think
that is the case, there are opportunities in terms of some
proposals made by my colleague that have not been followed up.
Perhaps he would answer those questions.
What can we learn from the NDP government in Saskatchewan?
Indeed we can learn from most governments across the country. In
Saskatchewan, in particular, when the cutbacks came from the
federal government in health and education, the provincial
government backfilled those cutbacks so that spending was at
least stable in those areas.
Spending has not increased in constant dollars or in real
dollars because inflation has gone up. We still have a problem
in that province in terms of spending on health and education,
but that problem is not as severe as elsewhere because the
Saskatchewan government backfilled the lost federal dollars.
The same thing happened when it came to some cutbacks in areas
involving Indian and Metis people. Again the provincial
government tried to backfill some of it.
As a consequence, along with Alberta we have the lowest
unemployment rate anywhere in the country. It is under 6% and it
has been consistently under 6% for a long time. That is better
than my hon. friend's province of Manitoba which has a similar
economy. One reason for it is investment in social programs.
Recently Saskatchewan is the first province in the country to
balance its budget. That happened three or four years ago. There
have now been four successive surpluses in the province and a
commitment by the province to spend a third of a surplus on new
spending for health and education, about a third on tax cuts and
a third to pay down the accumulated debt.
We can learn from the Government of Saskatchewan that investing
in social programs is a good idea for helping the people and for
creating jobs. That is a legacy of the Saskatchewan CCF and NDP
with Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney. I know the
member in a previous incarnation was very proud of some of those
programs in terms of the ideas he promoted in the province of
Manitoba, and I hope he still is.
Now I will go to the banks. I am not talking about an act that
would force banks to invest a proportion of their profits in
communities but an act that would force banks to invest a certain
percentage of their deposits in the community where its deposits
were drawn from. We would tailor it after what exists in the
United States. Economists who have looked at say that it would
create about 60,000 new jobs.
I will make one final point. Just reinvesting money again into
health and education to bring us up to the levels of the federal
government before the cutbacks would cost about $7 billion. That
would be a very positive thing for the government to do.
When the government took office we had a deficit of $42 billion.
In just three short years we were able with the support of
Canadians to bring that deficit down to $8.9 billion.
During that period we have seen our national debt peak at $583
billion. In the last year we have been able to pay that down by
$11 billion. This is not an abstract exercise in dealing with
the deficit and debt. We have seen very practical results.
As a result of our prudent fiscal management, monetary and
fiscal policy since we first took office, we have seen interest
rates fall by a full five percentage points. From two percentage
points over the American rate to below short, medium and long
term U.S. interest rates.
A couple of weeks ago when interest rates went up only 25 basis
points, mortgage rates continued to fall, showing that these
policies are working.
The hon member for Qu'Appelle said that high interest rates cost
us jobs. How does he think we got the low interest rates which
are starting to produce jobs? It is because we have been
responsible fiscal and monetary managers.
We have also seen the pay-off in terms of low interest rates and
growth of our economy. Our economy is now growing by OECD and
IMF estimates over the next few years at the rate of 3.7%. This
is the highest of G-7 countries. In the second quarter of this
year we saw how our economy grew at an annual rate of 4.9 per
cent. This is the way that we are going about the important task
of creating jobs.
No one in the House on any side, I would venture to say, does
not realize that probably the most difficult thing we as members
of Parliament go through as individuals is seeing qualified
people who want to work and have the capacity to contribute not
being employed to the full extent of their capacities. If any
one of us had a wish, I am sure we would all agree it would be to
ensure that every Canadian had a job commensurate with their
abilities and capacities. How do we do that?
We are seeing the results of our prudent management of the
economy now paying huge dividends. When we took office there was
11.4% unemployment. It has come down to 9%. We know that is not
good enough but in the private sector in Canada, which is the
only place where jobs will be created, we have created 1.1
million new jobs. This is an extraordinary record of
accomplishment.
In the first nine months of this year we have created 279,000
new jobs. Estimates are that over the next two years we will be
creating them at the rate of at least 300,000 new jobs a year.
This is the pay-off for what we have introduced.
I am very sympathetic to NDPers when they talk about the need
for jobs. They are telling us that we have to set targets. Did
either of their two speakers today tell us what the targets
should be? No. Here is how they told us they would achieve
them. Let me go through them.
They said that labour sponsored venture capital funds should be
forced by the federal government to do retrofits. They cannot do
retrofits. Are they talking about increased tax incentives for
these funds?
They talked about further tax cuts. I will just go through the
list the first two speakers put before us. At the same time they
called for increased spending on health care, education,
training, culture, environment, child poverty and housing, as
well as a major expenditure program on the GST tax break. They
were talking about eight new expenditure programs.
They also said “Let inflation go, just let it go. We do not
have to worry about inflation”.
The actions taken to date do not have an effect on monetary
policy until a year to a year and a half down the road.
The member for Qu'Appelle said that high interest rates cost us
jobs. How do we get high interest rates? By allowing inflation
to go amok. It was when interest rates were at 22% that
inflation was in the double digits.
We are never going to allow Canada to go that way again. We are
going to keep interest rates low by managing the economy
sensibly. Members of the NDP have come out—we will see the
details of it later—with a program they think will create jobs,
60,000 they say. The community reinvestment act, which they are
going to enact in Canada, will require funds taken as deposits in
a community to be reinvested at least to a certain extent in that
community.
We have looked at this. Do members know who the net losers
would be? They would be the Atlantic provinces and a couple of
the prairie provinces because they are now the net beneficiaries
of the lending of our banks.
More money is lent to these poorer areas of Canada than is taken
from these provinces in deposits. If that is the type of policy
that they are advocating for Canada, either their research is
wrong or they are on a totally wrong track in trying to give hope
to the areas of Canada that most need it.
We are not unmindful of the need to keep fighting to get
unemployment down. We are particularly concerned about youth
unemployment, which is almost double the rate of unemployment in
other areas of the economy. That is why we introduced the federal
public sector youth internship program. That is why we have
brought in the youth employment strategy which involves summer
placements, international internships and science and technology
internships.
I am particularly proud of the 6,000 jobs that have been created
for the First Nations and Inuit peoples through the internship
program that has been provided there.
Yes, regrettably in our quest to deal with the tremendous
deficit and debt problem, unfortunately we have had to make cuts
in transfers to the provinces, cuts in health care, which when
analysed in total, including tax points that have been
transferred and cash transfers, is an overall cut at its maximum
of $3 billion.
If half of that was allocated to health care, it would be less
than 3% of the total health care budget in Canada. We do not like
to have to do that but we did have to cut. Our cuts to the
provinces were at the level of 8%, whereas cuts to program
spending were in the order of 13%.
At the same time, needs have been recognized and increased funds
have been allocated in the 1997 budget for health care, $150
million for better approaches to providing health care, $50
million for the health care information system and $100 million
for children's health initiatives.
We are very mindful of the fact that education is the key to
future prosperity. That is why we have taken recent measures.
On Canada student loans, which have a 30-month grace period, the
limit has been doubled to $4,000 for registered educational
savings plans. We have increased the amount that is deductible
for student tuition fees and tuition credits are up. We are
conscious of how that has to be done.
We are criticized by the NDP in terms of culture. Yes, our
cultural industries are key, not only a major player in the
economy, employing almost 900,000 Canadian, but also in defining
who we are as a people.
That is why new moneys are allocated, $25 million a year, to the
Canada Council starting next year, with another $10 million to it
to help us honour the millennium.
One of our most important initiatives in health care, education
and the cultural sector was to recognize that as governments have
to cut back, perhaps the private sector could contribute more.
That is why in so many areas tax incentives have been enhanced,
to allow the private sector to help contribute in these areas.
We are going to continue our responsible course. We are not
going to inflate ourselves into joblessness and high interest
rates. Our path is working. Let us stay the course. Let us
finish the job.
Last weekend when I returned home—this hits both the opposition
and the NDP—an 80-year old lady who is very close to me fell and
broke her hip and her shoulder. She had just finished waiting
six days, not six hours, in agony to get a post-operative bed. I
would like to inform the members to my left that these are some
of the horror stories in Saskatchewan at the present time. I
know there is restructuring and I know they are trying to make
amends, but do not ever let it be known that all is well in the
province that initiated medicare because it certainly is not.
Every day horror stories cross my desk from my constituency and
beyond. Which province probably has the longest waiting list for
hip surgeries? Saskatchewan. Which province has cut more beds
per capita than any other province? Saskatchewan. Which
province at the present time has the longest waiting list for
access to an MRI machine? Saskatchewan.
Let it be made known that in order to get to the point they are
at today with the cuts from this government, all is not well in
the socialist medicare system of Saskatchewan. As the result of
the delays for MRI machines, people are now going to North Dakota
where they can get an MRI diagnosis within two days once they
apply.
The following statistics just came in. The trans-Canada highway
in Saskatchewan is a national disgrace and some of the blame has
to be borne there. There is no question about that with the
robbery of the excise tax and Saskatchewan getting about 4%.
Hon. members know that when they put 50 litres of gas in their
gas tanks, $5 goes to the federal government through its excise
tax, and about 40¢, that is all, is returned to Saskatchewan.
While the provincial government has been a little better, the
eastern and western sections of the trans-Canada highway that
runs through Saskatchewan are presently untwinned. Already this
year that highway has claimed seven lives unnecessarily. That
same small stretch of untwinned highway has claimed 38 serious
accidents. Do not tell us about all of the glories, about what is
happening across Canada. In Saskatchewan alone these are the
facts and no one can get around it.
I listened with interest to this speech because we do not hear
much in the House about my province. I will leave that with hon.
members. While I congratulate them for some of things that are
being done, let us not deceive the people that all is well in
socialist Saskatchewan.
In spite of the difficulties we have faced, last year we
increased by $1.5 billion the cash floor for transfers under the
CHST going to health care. We have ensured that over the next
five years an additional $6 billion will go into this area of
provincial jurisdiction.
The principles of the Canada Health Act are very important to
Canadians. That is why we are not going to sacrifice, as the
Reform Party would have us do, the five essential principles of
the Canada Health Act. We will defend those principles in every
way possible. Canadians do not have to worry about that. We are
not a Reform government.
I was pleased to hear the hon. leader of the NDP clarify the
question which I asked on behalf of my constituents. I realize
that a number of members of the House were a bit upset by the
question. The leader herself seemed a bit agitated. However, I
make no apology for asking the question on behalf of my
constituents.
I am a great believer in not putting up with rumours that go
around. I would rather go to the source and ask for actual
information. That is what I did today.
I am pleased that the member had a chance to put something on
the record. It means that I can mail out that Hansard to
those constituents and that will put an end to the matter. I
thank her very much for doing that.
To get on to the matter at hand, I was happy to hear that the
hon. leader of the NDP was pleased with her father's
contribution. By being a successful business person he was able
to support the political philosophy of which he was in favour.
It reminded me of another famous socialist from a different
country, the Hon. David Lange, who was prime minister of New
Zealand. I had the good fortune to meet with him for about two
hours in 1995. He told me about the terrible problems he went
through in 1983 when New Zealand was on the verge of bankruptcy
and the awful decisions he had to make as a Labour Party prime
minister, which is equivalent to the NDP.
He told me that he had come to recognize that you cannot have
good social programs unless you have a vibrant private sector. I
believe that relates very well to what the leader of the NDP said
when she said that by her father having a successful business he
was able to contribute to the goals of his political philosophy.
I think that is something that we really need to remember here.
If we treat business as the enemy in trying to achieve the things
that the NDP are trying to achieve, then we are really not going
to get any progress down that road at all.
Reform unfortunately is not in a position to support the motion
as it is written because we really feel it is illogical. It
mixes the cause and effect and really contains a lot of erroneous
assumptions that do not tie together.
For example, the motion suggests that measures to bring
government spending under control lead to high unemployment. I
would venture to say that the evidence throughout the world is
exactly the opposite.
If we look, for example, close to home at the Klein government
in Alberta, by reducing government spending dramatically, running
surpluses and reducing taxes, the unemployment levels in Alberta
have plunged. It is the place in Canada right now that is
generating a huge number of jobs and the economy there is really
barrelling along.
We can look at the Harris government of Ontario and see similar
sorts of things beginning to happen now. The Harris government
was preceded by an NDP government which followed the sorts of
policies that are being proposed by the NDP where this tax and
spend philosophy actually kills jobs. It creates unemployment.
We can look to the United States where any of the states that
have cut taxes and reduced government spending have created jobs.
In New Zealand, where I am originally from, the unemployment
level there now is below 5%. Yet the government is only
one-third of the size it was in 1983.
The evidence is overwhelmingly opposite to what is being
proposed by the NDP in the motion.
I did mention the NDP government in Ontario. In 1990 it tried
to spend its way out of the 1990 recession. All it did was bring
the province to the edge of bankruptcy.
We see the same problems happening in B.C. where the NDP
government there was the beneficiary of enormous amounts of
inflowing foreign investment for a few years and it disguised its
inability to get control of the spending, but now those pigeons
are coming home to roost and we are starting to get into a much
more difficult situation in B.C.
Also, if government spending on job creation could create jobs,
we already have a $600 billion debt in Canada, enormous deficits
that have been run up starting with the Liberal government in the
late seventies; enormous debt that has been incurred in the
lifetime of the average 20-year old who is out working right now.
With that huge terrible debt of $600 billion, if government
spending created jobs we would all have three by now because that
is an enormous amount of money.
What we see is that the government pours money into programs
that create short term temporary jobs that really go nowhere such
as heavy water plants that produce a product for which there is
no market, grants and subsidies to steel mills or coal mines that
cannot market competitive productss, airports which are beautiful
facilities that have no flights coming in.
There is a famous company in my area of the country. Ballard
Technologies, which everyone is in love with at the moment, has
received huge infusions of government money. It is disguising
what the truth is about fuel cells. Nobody ever asks where the
hydrogen comes from to run all these fuel cells. When we ask
that question we discover it comes from the decomposition of
natural gas, from fractional distillation of air, from hydrolysis
or some other process that uses enormous amounts of energy to
create the hydrogen in the first place. It is very convenient to
ignore the fact that pollution is being created somewhere else to
make all this hydrogen to run a fuel cell so that somebody can
say this is a nice little non-polluting fuel cell. It is only
half the story.
If we really look at the whole process we find that it is
completely uneconomical. It is cheaper, more efficient and
cleaner to run a bus on a natural gas engine than it is to
generate hydrogen somewhere and run it on a fuel cell.
Yet no one asks the question. The government blindly runs in
huge grants to this company, ploughing money into it, buoying up
its reputation. Now its shares have shot up to something $85 a
week or two ago and yet I still do not think people are asking
the right questions before they put government money into a
company that has never made a profit and has no hope of doing so
for a long time, maybe never.
These are the sorts of ways the government wastes money,
claiming to create jobs when all it is doing is giving certain
companies unfair advantages in the marketplace and moving jobs
from one place to another.
Another flaw in the motion is that it trivializes the negative
consequences of the monetary policy we have with regard to
inflation. It was not long ago that Canadians were facing
mortgage interest rates of 16% or more because we had run up such
huge government debt. In 1993 when the Reform party was trying
to get governments to start controlling their spending, and we
should take a lot of credit for moving the Liberal government in
that direction, 80% of the new money we were borrowing was coming
from overseas. Those lenders were demanding high interest rates
because of the huge debt that had been built up by the
government.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You have to get to a
low inflation and low interest rates by controlling government
spending. It ends up creating jobs.
A couple of speakers from the NDP mentioned that banks should be
forced to plough more money into the community. Credit unions in
British Columbia do exactly that and I assume that credit unions
in other parts of the country would do the same thing. Surely we
do not need to change the rules. We just need to encourage
people to switch from a bank to a credit union. I think the
credit unions are already trying to do that. Instead of having
more government interference, we should let the marketplace make
that change.
I have a huge amount of material here on health care and things
we could do to create new jobs. For example, the U.K., New
Zealand and Sweden have all allowed some choice in health care.
They have managed to increase the number of jobs in health care
tremendously. We could certainly benefit from the experiences of
those countries.
I realize my time has expired. It is unfortunate that we do not
have more time to spend on this. I look forward to perhaps being
part of questions and comments later in the day.
The member for Souris—Moose Mountain was complaining about the
lack of money going into health care and highways. The Devine
government in its nine short years ran up the biggest per capita
deficit of any provincial government in this country and the
second largest per capita debt, second only to Newfoundland, of
any government in this country.
The Devine government was a soulmate of the Reform party. It
spoke one way before an election about fiscal responsibility and
after the election was the most irresponsible spender in the
history of this country, almost bankrupting my province. That is
one reason why we do not have the flexibility today we would want
to have in terms of the programs the people of the province
require.
I ask the member how he can get up in this House and talk about
fiscal responsibility when his soulmate in Saskatchewan, Grant
Devine, leader of the most corrupt government in the history of
this country, was the biggest spender we have ever seen in terms
of driving up the debt and deficit and burdening the people for
generations to come. That is sheer hypocrisy.
The Devine government made promises about fiscal responsibility
and when it became government it was irresponsible. We saw the
same thing happen with the Mulroney government. There is no
doubt that these traditional old line governments like we have on
the Liberal side of the House make these promises and they feel
quite happy to break them.
That is the reason the Reform party is here. In 1983 when
westerners voted for the Mulroney government it made a promise
that it would get the deficit and spending under control. The
Tories promised us they would do it and they did not. They got
into government. They lost their nerve and went on the usual tax
and spend. Liberal-Tory, same old story. They were all the
same. That is one of the reasons the Reform party came into
being. We were the ones who made it fashionable to get
government spending under control.
Nobody can deny that in 1988 and 1993 in the election campaign
material we had information on digging the debt hole, everything
was focused on making governments become responsible. Reform
needs to take all the credit for what has happened from coast to
coast across this country.
I hear the Liberal members across praising what the government
has achieved. Those same members a decade ago were saying exactly
the opposite. We have managed to convince everybody in this
country, every level of government, that we cannot have good
social programs, prosperity, good employment levels and low taxes
unless we have government spending under control.
We will say one thing for the Liberals. It is well known that
they always follow the trend and Reform managed to push them into
some fiscal responsibility.
In answer to the member, like him, I condemn the Devine
government for what it did. I condemn the Mulroney government
for what it did and that is why Reform came into being.
The issue here is the setting of realistic deficit targets,
realistic debt targets and then going on to set employment
targets. When one has revenue coming in one knows what the
revenues are. When one knows one's expenses one knows how to set
realistic targets. That in my view is the central thesis of the
fatal flaw of the NDP's position, namely that to set an
unemployment target is simply an exercise in futility and
something with which the government cannot possibly cope.
I ask the members opposite how, without entering into massive
deficit spending, increasing debt and entering into programs that
are utterly useless, will they be able to set realistic targets
and achieve that.
I agree with him that the NDP fatal flaw is that it thinks that
we have to increase spending by massive amounts to create jobs
when all the evidence is that type of spending does not create
long term jobs. It creates unemployment instead.
I agree with the member's observation that massive spending is
not the way to prosperity or to lower unemployment levels. On the
other hand, I see no harm and I think Reform sees no harm in
setting a general wish to move the unemployment levels down, not
a specific target I agree. We cannot pick a number out of the
air like 3% but we want to move it down. We have seen other
jurisdictions get below 4% and 5% where they have these low tax,
low deficit or surplus regimes and we should be aiming for the
same sorts of achievements.
While not agreeing with all of its details, this is
nevertheless a motion which points out that the battle of the
deficit, in which the government is proudly proclaiming great
victories, has been won at the expense of the workers, the
employers, all those who have paid into the employment insurance
fund and who have generated the surpluses we have today.
Today, the surplus is $12 billion. In the NDP motion, when
they refer to the imbalance between the battle against the deficit
and the way the unemployment issue is being addressed, I feel a
clear message is indeed being sent to the government, that it must
readjust its sights and correct the way it is expending its
energies, whether the energy it is focussing on unemployment is
sufficient, and whether it is taking the right approach. I
believe, in this connection, this will be a worthwhile motion.
It is also important to see that the battle of the deficit, as
the motion states, has been waged by cutting transfer payments.
In this connection, when the NDP states that it condemns the
federal government for:
1130
So, in the view of the New Democratic Party, the federal government
should perhaps bypass the provinces to invest in these areas, a bit like
the Liberals tend to want to do now that they have financial manoeuvring
room.
However, the solution is much more to open the tap and allow
transfer payments to find an adequate level of equilibrium. On this
subject, they might say: “You sovereignists are always going to oppose
the federal government's investing money in the provinces, because you
want to withdraw”. However, the effect of the cuts in transfer payments
is not felt just in Quebec.
The same situation is also hurting Ontario, given all the changes in the
health and education sectors. As we can see these days, there is even
the threat of general strike of Ontario teachers. The same sort of
criticism has been made by the other provincial premiers.
Thus, as far as the motion is concerned, we can agree with the fact
that, when there are budget surpluses, the federal government's secret
for remaining in control of its budget is to ensure that the additional
money that could be invested in these areas is invested through transfer
payments, that is, the provinces should be given the necessary sums the
equalization system may generate and allowed to manage them and use them
as they see fit, since they are the experts in these various sectors.
The third sector contributing to the deficit is the cuts in the
federal bureaucracy. However, as luck would have it, this is the sector
where objectives were not met. Contributions by employers, employees and
the unemployed to the employment insurance fund exceeded the objective.
They were asked for more, and more was contributed than was asked for
initially. In the matter of transfer payments, screws were tightened to
the hilt, and the provinces were forced to live with the constraints.
However as far as the contribution by the federal government machinery
is concerned, the objectives were not met.
I think, in fact, a deeper look is needed, and I think the
government's current prebudget consultations will reveal that people
want tighter management in direct government program expenditures.
For too long the bureaucracy in the national capital region, that is to
say the Ottawa area, has been growing, somewhat at the expense of other
regions in Canada, and I think that no one in Canada or around here
wants this model to spread. Efforts will have to made to ensure that,
thanks to the room for maneuver being created, the money will be used in
federal areas of jurisdiction or, through transfer payments, that the
provinces have the necessary room to maneuver, fiscally speaking.
The NDP motion also deals with a very important issue: the economic
choice that always has to be made between inflation and unemployment.
Whether we like it or not, a balance has to be struck there and, looking
back on the past as an indication of what might lie ahead, the Bank of
Canada's tight money policy in recent years has slowed down the economy,
leading to the economic crisis of the early 1990s under the
Conservatives. Even now, we must ensure that the government will
maintain a positive attitude.
For instance, how high can the rate of inflation be allowed to rise
so that, on the other hand, the rate of unemployment can be reduced to
a more reasonable level? The current rate of unemployment in Canada is
not acceptable.
The effects of the squandering of human resources will be felt for
decades because the 20, 30 or 40-year olds whose jobs do not match their
skills today are not gaining the experience required to contribute to
society adequately in the future and build an interesting future for
themselves.
There are several unanswered questions which, I think, should be
brought to the attention of the government and it would certainly be in
the interest of the government to decide whether to change course or to
stay the course. The Speech from the Throne was rather significant in
this respect.
1135
The first thing the Liberals did when they realized they would have
some room to maneuver was to pour money into projects that are in areas
under provincial jurisdiction. This is what I call not learning from
past mistakes. The government cannot see that it is once again setting
in motion the same big machine that generated the deficits of the
nineties and that formed the basis of the Trudeau government's
philosophy, which was to try to get involved in every sector, because
the federal government was the one that could find solutions for people.
However, we came to realize that this philosophy did not work at all.
In our debates, we can do a critical review of the past—I think
it is important to do so—but we must also learn for the future. It is
true that if we have budget surpluses, we will have to ensure that we
slowly reduce the debt, that we allow the pressure on interest rates to
remain low and even to diminish, so that economic activity can regain
momentum.
However, we should also think about rewarding those who helped
reduce the deficit.
For example, since those who contribute to the employment insurance fund
generated a $12 billion surplus and since nowadays 30% to 35% of those
who contribute are eligible for benefits, compared to 60% in the early
nineties, this so-called employment insurance program, which in fact is
meant to provide an income for those who are between jobs, no longer
meets its objectives, because the government applied too much pressure
to ensure that the surplus of that fund went to reduce the national
deficit.
Since employers and employees made a tremendous effort, it would
now be in order to reduce employment insurance contributions.
It would also be important to improve the living conditions both of
seasonal workers and of new arrivals on the job market. Right now,
it is discouraging for young people, particularly in seasonal
sectors, to be required to work 910 hours, the equivalent of 26
35-hour weeks, to be eligible. The risk is that the young person
will ultimately be unable to accumulate enough hours to qualify for
employment insurance. He will have paid premiums, but will not be
entitled to reimbursement, which is completely unacceptable.
In order to compensate those who have helped to lower the
deficit, the federal government must, over the coming years, stick
to the areas over which it has jurisdiction, managing them as well
as it can and not opting for certain measures just because of their
possible impact on a future election.
When it comes to the areas of health and education, the provinces
are the experts. The government's contribution must take the form
of transfer payments.
In this sense, the government will have to learn from the past
so that, in five or ten years, we do not find ourselves back in a
debate like the one we have been mired in for the past five years,
with those members of our society who were not the most well off
having to play a disproportionately large role in lowering the
deficit.
I hope that the government is listening to this motion.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for recognizing me so quickly.
I am pleased to put a question to my distinguished colleague,
the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, since his riding is similar in every respect to that of
Frontenac—Mégantic.
I would like to tell him about an encounter I had last week in
my riding. Last week was a week set aside for members who wanted
to touch base with people in their ridings. That is what I did
during the seven days available to us to meet with our
constituents.
In Lac-Mégantic, at the Sears store, I met a saleswoman who
told me a rather sad tale about her daughter.
Her daughter had left university and worked hard to find a job.
Unfortunately, three weeks ago, she received notice that she was
being let go.
1140
Naturally, because she had to live, she left home. She had to pay
for rent and for food. She had to make payments on her furniture and her
television. She had to pay for cable, the telephone and so on. So she
went to the employment insurance office. The good Government of Canada
had played with the terms so it is no longer unemployment insurance, but
employment insurance. As she was short some ten hours in order to be
eligible, she will have to turn to social assistance.
When the government says that the rate of unemployment has dropped
since it came to power on October 25, 1993, it is not telling the truth,
it is playing with the figures.
Accordingly, when a person is not actually receiving employment
insurance or actively looking for a job but living off social
assistance, they are not counted. The same head cannot be counted twice.
You can only count one person once.
I would ask my distinguished colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, since I managed
to remember the very complex name of his riding, to tell us whether I am
mistaken or whether I am right and whether in his riding, which is
identical to Frontenac—Mégantic, unfortunate situations like the one I
described keep occurring.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the question from my
colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic. In fact, his is a clear example of
the unacceptable disparity.
Prior to the employment insurance reform, a person entering the
labour market for the first time worked 15 hours a week for 20 weeks for
a total of 300 hours of work and could then receive benefits. Now the
requirement is 910 hours. The difference between the two is 610 hours.
That means that the number of hours required for eligibility has been
increased by 600%.
You gave a specific example. The young person you were speaking
about will have made contributions but will never be entitled to them.
At the end of the year, the counter returns to zero, and so hours worked
in the first year do not count in the second year.
This is one example of an area in which the Government of Canada
ought to show some humanity and ought to remedy the situation,
ought to ensure that we have in this House, as soon as possible, a
bill to change the unacceptable aspects of employment insurance
reform. We are not saying that the reform should be done away with
completely, just that errors need to be corrected.
In his address, the hon. member made me think of my meeting
yesterday with some women who are involved in community kitchens,
who prepare meals together because they have very limited means.
That was the reason they set the kitchens up. Now they are faced
with a situation where the regional health authority, which sets
the budgets, is being forced to make cuts, thus obliging them to
regroup and adopt a less efficient way of operating.
When it comes down to the bottom line, the fundamental cause of
this situation is that each of the organizations, each of the
regional health authorities in Quebec, gets its budget from
the Government of Quebec. Part of that Quebec budget comes from
federal transfer payments.
It is not easy for someone on welfare, someone trying to get
off welfare, to see all these long term effects happening, and to
realize that they originate far away from them. I think, however,
that it is important to know this, and it is important to be able
to judge what actions the government will be taking in future
years, whether a very significant portion of the $42 billion that
have been cut in transfer to the provinces since the early 1990s
will be reinstated.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am certainly pleased to speak on this issue.
I have a unique perspective from most members in this House in
that I served here for five years from 1988 to 1993. I was
defeated in 1993 and was resurrected again in 1997. It is kind of
like a time machine. I was out for four years but all of a
sudden I have been thrown right back in.
I have a perspective where I can see the effect of the changes
perhaps more dramatically than others. Others who have served
here have seen the incremental changes resulting from the
government policies over the years. I see a dramatic change. I
see a very dramatic change in almost every social program, every
issue that deals with people who need the most help, every area
that needs the most help.
1145
It has impressed me a great deal that even in our jobs as
members of Parliament we are much more active and much busier
trying to help people through the system. When I was here
before, people who had reasonable requests received reasonable
reception and it took a reasonable time to get through the
system. Now it seems to take forever to get through anything,
whether it is employment insurance, job training, health care,
education, or any aspect.
It is interesting that a few minutes ago the hon. minister for
foreign trade said in his speech that we made these cuts and we
made these changes with the support of Canadians. He said that
Atlantic Canada was one of the cheap beneficiaries of these
policy changes. We ran out of time but I wanted to ask him if
Canadians supported him, how could he possibly interpret what
happened in Nova Scotia as support.
In May there were 11 MPs in Nova Scotia and every single one was
a Liberal. In the 1997 election every single Liberal member of
Parliament was defeated. I do not know how that is interpreted as
support but I am sure the hon. minister could come up with an
interpretation that 100% defeat is support. I am not sure how to
do it but I am sure he can do it. As he spoke I thought he must
have the map turned upside down because certainly the people in
Atlantic Canada sent a strong message that we do not support the
cuts to all the social programs and all the things that help the
people most in need.
All social aspects were hit. My area has one of the highest
unemployment rates in Nova Scotia. Our unemployment rate falls
between 15% and 40%. There is no program. There is no strategy.
There is no job training of any consistency to help people. This
coincides with and certainly supports the NDP motion in that
regard.
It is not only unemployment but there are cuts to health care.
Our health care system is in chaos. Doctors are leaving faster
than we can replace them. We have band-aid solutions. We kind of
bribe doctors to come in and set up in our area but it is just a
band-aid solution and the problem again is cuts to our social
fabric and the social programs. It seems to me to be totally
contradictory to the Liberal philosophy of helping people which
was always there but seems to have completely disappeared.
In education the government has come up with this new idea of
public-private partnerships to build and replace schools that are
now dilapidated and deteriorated beyond repair and really need to
be replaced. They have started a few of these public-private
projects to try to save money to keep the province and the feds
from borrowing money because the transfers to the province were
reduced. All of a sudden they are packing up. They are not
working. There are all kinds of problems with them. They have
bypassed the tendering system. There is patronage and
favouritism. There is false economy wherein the government may
save borrowing a few million dollars but the obligation to the
people of Nova Scotia is incredible.
On the issue of highways, my area has one of the most dangerous
highways in Canada. Forty people have died on that highway. It
is in drastic need of replacement so the government says “Well,
we do not want to replace that dangerous highway. We will
propose a toll highway”. Even in a report submitted by a group
of lawyers who worked on this project they say “One is
immediately struck with the realization that this region of Nova
Scotia is not one which should be conducive to a successful toll
road. Highway 104 is anticipated to handle only 6,000 vehicles a
day in a rural and economically challenged region of the
country.” In effect they say that it should not be a toll
road, that the government should pay for it.
It then goes on to say that if we can control the tolls totally
and put them up whenever we want to, if we can direct traffic,
prevent people from taking other roads and force them to take
this toll road, we may be able to make this economically
depressed region of Nova Scotia work. It says that if we can
relax construction standards, make narrower asphalt, no shoulders
and all these sorts of things, maybe we can ram it through and
maybe it will work. Well, I do not think it is going to work.
I believe it is false economy. In order to save $60 million on
that road the government is obligating the people of Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland to 30 years of paying tolls that will total $538
million. They are going to cause the people of Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland to spend $538 million while pretending that it will
save $60 million. It will create an interprovincial trade
barrier. It is in every way just false economy to obligate the
people to spend $538 million to save $60 million.
1150
In my region all employment is done by small business. There
are no large employers, no giant international corporations. It
is all done by small business. The overcharge on employment
insurance is costing jobs. There is also the fact that there is
no money being put into retraining, nor is there any consistent
policy which would help to address the tremendous unemployment
problem. In certain pockets of my riding as I said before it is
as high as 40%.
Basically the small business employers in my riding are being
fined by being overcharged on employment insurance premiums.
There is still no plan, no consistent retraining programs and no
strategy.
As I said before, I was away for four years and now I have come
back. The thing that hits me the hardest is what is happening to
our Canada pension plan and to the people who need disability
benefits. When I left, if a doctor said a person was disabled,
within a reasonable length of time if the person qualified for
CPP disability, if they had paid the premiums, they could get
disability benefits. Now I do not know how disabled a person has
to be to get disability insurance. It is incredible. I have a
couple of examples which reflect on the impact the policy changes
have on the people who need help the most.
Mrs. Marjorie Newman of Oxford Junction, Nova Scotia applied for
Canada pension disability benefits in March 1995. Through 1996
and all the way through 1997 she has been stalled and given
excuses. There have been all sorts of delays. Now she is told
that she will not have a hearing until late 1998. She applied in
March 1995. We cannot imagine the stress on this poor woman. We
cannot imagine the frustration and the fear which this lady has.
This just should not be.
The doctor's report said “Marjorie Newman is totally disabled
and unable to work”. Mrs. Newman is clearly disabled and unable
to work at any job and it puzzles me how her application for
Canada pension disability has been refused. It started in 1995
and now she is looking at late 1998.
Here is another example which I find shocking. I do not
understand how people can be expected to pay into the Canada
pension plan and then have this happen. This case concerns
Archie Black. He lives in a place called Shenimecas in my
riding. I have known him all my life. He comes from a long line
of dedicated, hard working people. He can no longer work. He
wants to work. His doctor said “Mr. Black is completely
disabled from any form of employment”.
He applied in September 1994 for Canada pension disability.
Through 1995, 1996 and 1997 they kept asking him for more
information. We cannot imagine the mental anguish and stress
which have been placed on this man. Now he is fearful of losing
his home. I do not understand how this can be allowed to happen.
A disabled person has to wait three or even four years for an
answer as to whether they qualify for Canada pension disability
benefits.
It is incredible. All of these things indicate the philosophy
of the Liberal government. It does not matter whether it is
unemployment, education, health care, the Canada pension plan or
even killer highways. The present Liberal approach hits the
poorest regions the hardest and it hits the people who need help
the most the hardest.
I will support this motion today because it reflects on the
overall policy of the government. I agree with deficit
reduction, but I do not agree that it should be achieved on the
backs of the people who cannot help themselves and who need help
the most.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester. It seems to me that the government has
turned the corner with respect to what it has done over the past
number of years in getting its fiscal house in order.
I would simply ask him to consider the evidence. Low interest
rates and accelerating job opportunities. Housing starts and
resales are up. Business investment is surging. Consumers are
spending again and growth is taking off. Yes, while there have
been sacrifices, we have now turned the corner and are on our way
to an economic renewal which we have not seen since the 1950s and
1960s.
Will the hon. member agree that it was his government between
1984 and 1993 which caused the mess that our government has now
had to clean up?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I often
think that in the Liberal caucus there must be a great big
picture of Brian Mulroney.
They must all come in and worship at the altar of Brian Mulroney
every day because he is the one that brought in free trade which
has allowed our economy to expand. It was Brian Mulroney's
government that brought in free trade which the Liberals opposed
vehemently all night and all day for a long time in this House.
However as soon as they were in, not only did they embrace it but
they enhanced it and expanded it.
1155
It is the same with the GST. The Liberals opposed the GST hour
after hour in this House. They vilified Brian Mulroney and his
government for bringing in the GST but as soon as they were in,
what did they do? They embraced it again and in our part of the
country they enhanced it. They talked the provinces into turning
the provincial sales tax into GST as well. Not only did the
Liberals follow what Brian Mulroney and the Conservative
government did but they enhanced it.
The low inflation policy was started by the Conservative
government. That is a policy which was carried over. We started
that and I am really proud of it.
There is no question that the success we are having today, and I
am sure the Liberals know it, started with the foundation that
was built by the Conservative Party from 1989 to 1993. The
Liberals can say everything they like but actions speak louder
than words. Their actions are screaming “We love Brian
Mulroney's policy on free trade. We love Brian Mulroney's policy
on GST. We love Brian Mulroney's policy on low inflation because
we endorsed it, we enhanced it, we embraced it and we love it”.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time today with the member for Churchill.
Today I rise in favour of the motion. I am proud of the
initiative and leadership taken by my party with respect to this
motion.
I am honoured today to stand in the House of Commons as the
member of Parliament for Bras d'Or, a riding that takes in much
of the island of Cape Breton. It sweeps from the coalfields of
Glace Bay and Donkin where my father began as a coal miner and
where I grew up, down past the historic site of Louisbourg,
through the fishing communities to the south and then up again to
Cheticamp and the beginning of the Cabot Trail.
My riding is diverse. French, English and aboriginal
communities live side by side. There are families who came here
from many of the world's nations to work underground or in our
steel mills or on our oceans. These are the people of Bras d'Or.
One hundred years ago Glace Bay was the fastest growing town in
the British empire. It was a magnet for people from around the
world, for people who wanted to make a better life for themselves
and their families.
We fought for decades to make conditions better for the workers
in our communities. The miners went on strike to fight for a
living wage, for safe working conditions. They had to fight tooth
and nail for every scrap, for every little advantage that today
we would take for granted.
So I come from a region where we are used to fighting, where we
are used to having to work hard for everything we have. It has
always been a tough place to live and our history is full of
hardship and sacrifice.
Cape Breton helped build our country, feeding the people and
industry as we expanded to the west. But somewhere over the
decades as our success turned into Canada's success, we started
to slip away from the centre of national life. The handful of
rich men who owned our industries moved on to new ventures in new
regions and we were left to cope as best we could.
And cope we did. Cape Bretoners are an industrious people who
are used to hard work, who enjoy hard work, who are good at the
task they set their minds to. One of the great tragedies of the
last two decades has been to see these people deprived of the
work they love.
While the rest of the country went through booms and busts, Cape
Breton was on a slow decline. Even in the days of big government
no thought was given to reviving our island. Instead we saw
millions of dollars thrown away on megaprojects that made a few
people, often strangely enough, friends of the government of the
day, into millionaires and left the people where they had been,
increasingly desperate, increasingly isolated. Many left.
1200
Since I was elected in June, I have been amazed at the number of
Cape Bretoners I have met across Canada. Nearly all of them left
home to find work. Nearly all of them would love to go home
again if work was there for them. Of course, there is no work in
the late 1990s.
In his town hall meeting last December the Prime Minister told
Canadians that people who lived in places like Cape Breton were
basically out of luck. Just last week the finance minister spoke
at great length about the Canadian economic miracle. But just a
few months ago he said that any economic recovery in Canada would
likely pass Cape Breton by.
We are not asking for special favours from the government. We do
not want any more heavy water plants or other white elephants
dreamed up by bureaucrats. All we want is help to get back on
our feet, help so that we can do the things Cape Bretoners are
best at: hard, honest work.
We have had many promises from the government. We were promised
that the Donkin mine would open, a mine built at public expense.
It still has not opened. We had a promise that education would be
made a priority. Instead, we had the slash and burn budgets of
the last three years, budgets that forced the provinces to accept
fewer teachers, larger classes and lower standards.
We were promised a fair deal on taxes. Instead, the tax burden
went up for working and middle class people, especially in
Atlantic Canada where the federal government held hearings with
its provincial counterparts and gave us the BST, a good name for
a tax I must say.
We are paying more, getting less and the government has told us
it is our fault. When offices are closed down, making it
impossible for Cape Bretoners to access the services other
Canadians take for granted, we are told that we are to blame.
We were promised accessible health care. Instead, we see
transfer payments reduced and hospitals closed. We see patients
dying because they cannot get access. That is not something I am
saying to inflame the members of the government. That is a
message straight from more than a dozen doctors in the town of
Glace Bay who held a press conference this past May to say that
approximately 40 deaths had been directly related to health care
cuts. What a disgrace.
Every time I go home I hear about more cases, of patients turned
away, of waiting lists, of doctors and nurses so overwhelmed with
work and so fatigued that they cannot properly do their jobs, of
Canadians dying because they live in Cape Breton. As the Prime
Minister put it, I guess they are just not lucky.
This is the human side of the government's action. While the
American bankers pat the Minister of Finance on the head and give
him extra brownie points from the world finance candy store, my
neighbours are sick and sometimes dying.
While the Prime Minister travels to Russia and speaks about the
need for the country to reform so it can rise to our level, there
is a community in my riding where raw sewage flows through the
streets.
The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister in waiting can talk
all they want about growth, and the government backbenchers can
happily bleat the party line about unemployment. But tell those
lines to the people of Birch Grove where the children cannot play
outside because of the danger of contamination. Tell that to the
man who lost his wife because the doctor did not have time to
properly diagnose her.
Some towns and village in Bras d'Or have a real unemployment
rate of over 50%. Half the people in the communities are out of
work. Many people have given up, finally crushed by decades of
struggle that seem to get them nowhere, by odd jobs and
government work schemes that promise to lead them back to
security but led them instead to their Prime Minister telling
them that they had better move if they wanted to get ahead.
We in the New Democratic Party believe we need to improve health
care and other social programs, not just because it is the right
thing to do, but because it will also create good jobs and enable
many more skilled and talented Canadians to participate in the
workforce in every part of Canada. Money invested in health care
produces three times as many jobs as the money being used for an
income tax cut.
1205
I call on the government to expand medicare, to cover home care
and prescription drugs so community based and non-hospital care
is available to all without an American style, two tier system.
It would create meaningful jobs in Canada.
Enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act: universality,
accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public
administration. It would create meaningful jobs in Canada.
Promote a community based health system which is driven by the
health care needs of the people rather than fee for service
medicine. It would create meaningful jobs in Canada.
Establish a special funding for research and development and
pilot projects in the health care field. It would create
meaningful jobs in Canada.
Support the development of community based facilities for
primary care, for health care and for health support services
such as shelters for battered women and women's health centres.
It would create meaningful jobs in Canada.
Establish an aboriginal health institute to support aboriginal
communities in taking action to improve their health, broaden
research, identify culturally relevant approaches to aboriginal
health issues and increase advanced education for aboriginal
students in the health profession. It would create meaningful
jobs in Canada.
Support a national strategy for research treatment and
prevention of AIDS. It would create meaningful jobs in Canada.
Canadians deserve a more balanced approach to getting people
working. Reducing the deficit does not have to mean the old
style slashing pushed by the Liberals, Tories and Reform. It
could have been done without threatening health care for
Canadians and education for our children.
What is it going to be? Is the government going to own up to
its responsibilities in times when questions are tough or is it
simply going to duck and weave, dodging blame and grabbing credit
wherever it can and thinks it can get away with it?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this is my first time speaking in the House and it is indeed a
privilege.
I have listened to the motion of the NDP and to the response of
the Liberal government. I represent a riding which is not very
well off. A lot of people are looking for government assistance
and are on government assistance.
The general thrust, as I listen to the members of the NDP and of
the Liberals, is that with the spending that will take place,
jobs will be created. However, the evidence is to the contrary.
Yes, we do need to spend money on many of our social services but
that is not going to create meaningful jobs. It is going to
create jobs that are there but are not meaningful jobs.
What is important for the economy is to reduce the deficit. I
have business experience. I am a small businessman and in the
last 15 years the tax burden on my business has exceeded to the
point where I have had to cut staff in order to balance my books.
It is lower taxes and the proper environment that will create
the investment and create meaningful jobs.
I have two daughters in university who will soon be going into
the job market. They are looking for training in jobs that will
be meaningful and help in our prosperity.
The economy is changing into an information age and moving into
a global economy. That is where we will excel in the job
training aspect by retraining our youth. It is not in spending
money but in creating the environment for the business sector. We
all know it is the business sector that will create the jobs, not
the government sector. The government sector is always
inefficient so we must create an environment for the businesses
that will create the jobs.
I do not disagree with some of the points that she has made
concerning spending money on training which will create jobs.
Yes, it may create jobs but it will not create ever-lasting jobs.
1210
All we hear from the NDP is that there are many unemployed and
we should be spending money to create jobs. I differ on that. The
spending of money is not going to create jobs.
Some of the proposals which were just mentioned may create jobs
and may be necessary. It is not going to make a big dent in the
unemployment rate. I share the view that we should bring the
unemployment rate down. Our fundamental difference is that the
NDP is asking for spending and we are not. We are asking for a
climate to create jobs.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Madam Speaker, it is ironic that
my colleague does not feel that a nurse, a doctor and a teacher
are relevant jobs and are not needed.
As I reiterated in my address to the motion, I come from a part
of the country that has the highest rate of unemployment in the
country. Over the last two years 700 individuals in the health
care system have lost their jobs due to the cuts by the
government. My colleague is saying that they are not important
jobs. I invite him to come to Cape Breton and talk to the
gentlemen who wishes he had that nurse to look after his wife.
That is the problem.
The Reform are not making the government accountable for what it
is doing to the country.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
speak in favour of the motion. I will focus on the crisis with
aboriginal employment which we all know has historical roots.
The royal commission report on aboriginal people should have
left no one questioning the cause of the crisis facing aboriginal
people. Treaties were signed with aboriginal peoples, and the
Government of Canada and the crown at the time of Confederation
altered the treaty relationship, making aboriginal people and
their lands the object of unilateral federal legislation.
In 1876 we had the first version of the Indian Act. These
actions over time transformed independent, viable aboriginal
nations into bands and individuals who were clients of a
government department and wards of the state. This was not done
with any consultation with the aboriginal peoples.
Canada's policy was intended to undermine aboriginal
institutions and life patterns and to assimilate aboriginal
people as individuals into mainstream society.
What I have just mentioned is almost word for word from the
summary of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples. Numerous actions were the instruments of the
destruction: the Indian Act; the removal of jurisdiction from
aboriginal governments; government control over who was
recognized as an Indian; forced attendance by several generations
of aboriginal children at residential schools; adoption of
aboriginal children into non-aboriginal homes; the loss of
two-thirds of the land set aside in treaty; the exclusion of
aboriginal culture from processes related to education, justice,
health and family services; and substitution of welfare for an
effective economic base.
There are many people who believe that aboriginal people have
had it easy and have no reason to complain. For those
unbelievers let me read a few excerpts from a speech given by
Father Hugonard on Saturday, May 27, 1916. Father Hugonard was
with the Lebret Indian Industrial School.
The Indians are no longer lords of the Prairies.
Five tribes with different languages compose the Indian
population.
The study of Indian languages is interesting and indicates their
different characteristics.
They have no words to express metaphysical ideas of religion and
such words had to be made.
Father Hugonard relayed the words of Chief Piapot.
The great spirit made berries for us and the white men have put
fences around them. And told us: Do not go there: and those
berries were made for us. The white people were using our wood,
our hay and killing game.
In order to be become sole masters of our land, they relegated us
to small reservations as big as my hand, and made us promises as
long as my arm; but the next year the promises were shorter and
they are the length of my finger, and they keep only half of
that.
1215
Hugonard stated the mode of living on the reserve was widely
different from what it had been on the prairies. Buffalo meat
was replaced by bacon. They live in small houses without floors.
Consequently their health was not as good as it was before when
they lived in tepees, the site of which was often changed, and
they decreased in number by about a half.
In 1882 the Parliament of Canada made an appropriation for the
establishment of Indian schools.
At this point, Hugonard noted At first great difficulty was
encountered in getting the parents to send their children to
schools off reserve. Indians have a natural attachment for their
children and like to have them around, more for their own
gratification than for their own welfare.
It was this sick kind of belief that has resulted in the problems
we have. Education was made compulsory because many aboriginals
refused to send their children away.
Hugonard went on: “I believe the Indians of Canada have a
useful and happy future”.
Father Hugonard concluded his address by saying:
A new problem in Indian matters may be arising; for a while,
most Indians have been contributing splendidly to the Red Cross
and Patriotic Funds, a great number of the ex-pupils of our
Indian schools have enlisted and are now drilling or actually
serving the Empire in France.
It is possible to predict what the effect of mingling with and
being treated as equals of and knowing that they are in many
cases the superiors of their white comrades will be upon these
young soldiers when they return to their reserves. It will not
be in their own interest or to the benefit of the country to
allow them to leave their reserves and obtain the suffrage as no
doubt some will demand; and while their ideas will have been
broadened and the influence of the old generation of hunting
Indians will be lessened—.
The policies of this government on aboriginal people are the
cause of aboriginal dependence on government subsidies. They are
the cause of poverty and the cause of unbelievably high crime
rates and violence involving aboriginal people.
The department of Indian affairs acceptance of providing First
Nations with substandard housing, education facilities and
educational opportunities ensures that the proper infrastructure
is in place in the way of roads and proper water and sewage
systems equal to that of non-aboriginals and, dare I say, they
were not treated with the same consideration of largely white
communities.
The deplorable state of housing and living conditions on
reserves saw in the last Parliament the government's having to be
shamed into making even minimum moves. Not until New Democratic
Party Manitoba MLAs Eric Robinson and Gerard Jennison brought
media attention to conditions in Shamattawa where water was so
high in methane that it would catch fire, not until then did the
former Liberal member even attempt to act. Once the media died
down, the promised improvements, less than half a finger, have
never happened.
The royal commission report states aboriginal unemployment in
the labour force rose from 15.4% in 1981 to 24.6% in 1991 despite
advances in education. Aboriginal participation in the labour
force is 57%, below that of all Canadians at 68%.
The cost to the economy in foregone income, $5.8 billion, plus
the remedial expenditures lead to a loss of $7.5 billion
annually. Some 300,000 new jobs will have to be created for
aboriginal people in the next 20 years just to reach that liberal
“it's okay to be there” 9% to 10% unemployment level.
Demographic pressures alone will increase the losses to the
economy if the present trends continue to $11 billion in the year
2016.
In my riding aboriginal communities unemployment has always been
unacceptably high, to some points 95%. Cuts to health and
education saw decent paying positions cut in a number of
communities. Hydro projects irreversibly altered ways of life
and means of income to inland fishers and trappers.
Cuts to CN and VIA took jobs from many communities which were
built up along the rail lines.
Seasonal workers are abundant in our communities. Cuts to EI
have left proud people forced to go on welfare because they were
short a few hours. Lack of government services and assistance by
way of people with a voice, not a machine, has left many in a
position of no assistance as they get frustrated trying to
understand voice messages coming out of Brandon.
1220
The understanding that was once available in northern offices is
no longer there.
I listened to the member from Parkdale—High Park speak on her
first day in the House. Her exuberance over her life in Canada
was such that it reminded me of a cheerleader waving white and
red pompoms. My life in Canada, as well as that of my family,
grandparents and great-grandparents when they came from Ukraine
and Sweden, has been great. That has not been the case for
aboriginal people.
I was allowed to value and respect all my cultures. I was not
denied access to my family as a result of wanting an education.
I have reflected on this part of Canadian history in the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report for two reasons. First,
I am sick of Reformers spouting off about treating aboriginal
people the same and equally. Aboriginal people were not treated
fairly or equally since the first contact with the Canadian
government. We must go beyond what is expected for everyone else
to right that wrong and to improve the rate of employment for
aboriginal people.
We must remove all the hindrances, poverty, poor housing. The
first step which requires no cost is an apology to aboriginal
people for a government policy that fully intended to lead to
cultural genocide. At a time when the government has seen fit to
attain its economic surplus by using unemployment, at a time when
government policy has people working two to three jobs to make a
living, the government must commit to all Canadians, aboriginal
and non-aboriginal, to go beyond that half a little finger
election promise and create jobs, decent, make a living jobs.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that
today's motion has more to do with some obsolete NDP theology
than it does with any of today's economic realities. It seems to
be almost an article of faith to the hon. member that our
government is “blind to the human tragedy of 1.4 million
unemployed Canadians” and the supposed proof of our sin is that
we have succeeded in meeting our target for dramatic deficit
reduction and consistent inflation control.
I remind the hon. member of an old saying that there are none so
blind as those who will not see. It is very clear that this
opposition party cannot see or understand some of the fundamental
facts of life about jobs, about deficits, about inflation and
about responsible government.
Members of the government and members in this House are
concerned about the opportunity that Canadians have for
employment. Another fact to put on the table is governments
cannot create jobs for every Canadian in this country. It is
only the marketplace that can do that through the work of the
entrepreneurs and their companies creating the products and
services that people need and can pay for.
Two of the worst barriers that government can put forward are to
let deficits rise and inflation get out of control. High
deficits and inflation are a guaranteed recipe for economic
weakness and job loss and most Canadians understand that. They
have seen destructive dynamics at work in the past and they are
finally seeing government turning the corner and starting to see
the reduction of deficit and low interest rates.
Deficits mean nothing more than higher taxes tomorrow to pay for
the money the government has borrowed. It is the prospect of
high inflation that pushes interest rates up.
It is not an ideology. This is a matter of hard economic
reality. Letting deficits and inflation rise pushes up taxes and
interest rates and puts conditions in place that drive down growth
and job creation. That is irresponsible government.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester went on about the
success of the Mulroney government and how Canadians are bowing
down to the great policies of that government. The past
administration had no political will to reduce the deficit, to
put conditions in place to encourage jobs and growth.
1225
I would go as far as to say that the prior administration could
not hit the side of a barn as a target. It proved that in all
the years it was in office.
When we came to office the government committed itself to
breaking the vicious cycle of deficits, debt and inflation. We
knew that it was the best and surest way to spur the economic
growth which produces jobs, good jobs, sustainable jobs. It was
the best and surest way to make it possible for government to
stop raising taxes and ultimately, as our finances improved, be
in a position to reinvest in Canadian priorities.
The finance minister told Canadians in last week's economic and
fiscal update that the plan is working. We have achieved a
dramatic turnaround in our national deficit burden, with the
lowest deficit in 20 years. With the commitment of the
government and the Bank of Canada to firm targets, inflation is
at its lowest sustained level in 30 years.
These are not abstract achievements. There is no plot by
bankers and bureaucrats to oppress workers and worsen employment,
as the hon. member's motion implies. The proof is clear and
concrete.
In 1995 we began hitting and beating our deficit targets. As
inflation remains stable, short term interest rates have dropped
5 percentage points. That means falling below and staying below
U.S. rates.
More important, long term 10 year bond rates are down nearly 4
percentage points over the same period. They have been below
U.S. rates since February. That is performance which is
unprecedented in Canada's post-war history.
What makes this so important? It involves more of the facts
which today's motion does not understand.
While the Bank of Canada has some influence on short term
interest rates, it is the market and only the market that sets
the long term rates. What the marketplace is saying about
Canada's long term rates today is that our prospects for
continued growth and stable inflation are among the best in the
world.
Private sector economists are now saying that Canada's growth
over the next two years will be at its strongest level in
decades. In fact, they predict we will have the strongest
back to back growth of any of the group of seven leading
industrial economies, better than Japan, larger than Germany and
stronger than America.
We are seeing some of the benefits of low interest rates being
delivered now. Five year mortgage rates are at their lowest
level in decades. Housing starts are up 24% over 1996 because of
those interest rates. People are buying new houses. That means
new jobs in construction and manufacturing.
Low rates have also helped to increase business investment. It
has surged over 25% from last year. That means plants being
built and people being hired.
Consumer confidence is the highest it has been in over eight
years. Again, that means people buying cars and other goods,
creating more jobs.
Since the beginning of this year 279,000 new jobs have been
created. That is the economic plan at work.
I know that members have heard of this outstanding outlook
before in the House, but I want to say that it will be repeated
in the coming months. It will be repeated because these are the
facts that the various opposition parties want Canadians to
forget and ignore. They want to blind Canadians to these facts,
or at least denigrate and downplay them. These facts prove that
our balanced, consistent approach to growth and job creation is
working.
Let me be specific about a couple of issues which are tied to
today's motion. The hon. member goes on to condemn this
government about being obsessed with future inflation. Inflation
takes time to build a head of steam. The Bank of Canada eased
off the gas pedal to avoid having to jam on the brakes later on.
That is the best way to avoid the painful boom-bust cycle which
Canadians saw in the 1970s and 1980s.
Hon. members talk about pain and suffering. What about the pain
and suffering that Canadians felt when they came crashing down
through these boom-bust cycles because the monetary policy was
not flattening out those cycles and ensuring they stayed
consistent so that Canadians would not suffer through them?
This week a Canadian auto workers union economist said that
economic growth and lower interest rates alone would have allowed
us to meet our deficit targets. In other words, we did not need
to cut any government spending. In fact, just freezing it would
have allowed us to meet our targets and that would have been good
enough. There are some real problems with this myopic and
partisan analysis.
1230
The finance minister always made it clear that our deficit
targets were never intended as the most we could do but were the
least we could do. It is always hoped that we would do better.
It is absurd to suggest that meeting deficit targets is good
enough and that there is no benefit in doing better than that.
The minister announced an $8.9 billion deficit, down from the
projected $24 billion. That means there is $15 billion less
borrowing than we originally forecasted. That means that $15
billion is not being added to the debt and that $15 billion will
not be costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars of
interest charges. That is a real bottom line benefit to beating
our targets.
A private senior economist said earlier in the week that
interest rates would not have fallen to 30 year lows had
financial markets not been convinced the federal government truly
had spending under its control.
We recognize that unemployment remains tragically high and that
we have to do more. It is a commitment of the government. It
was an important part of the finance minister's update last week.
We live in a dramatically evolving world economy, an environment
where the foundations for employment are changing. It presents
new challenges and responsibilities for government.
Let me close by saying that the government can make a difference
in some key areas. First, a sound economic framework is
essential for ensuring sustained prosperity that creates more and
better jobs. Second, promoting knowledge and innovation in the
economy is key to ensuring a more positive economic future.
Third, the government has a responsibility to ensure that
Canadians not only survive in an evolving economy but are well
equipped to survive.
All Canadians need and deserve a government that is truly
committed to economic progress, to growth that creates real jobs
and generates new revenues which can help us preserve valued
programs such as health care and to creating conditions for
economic growth.
That is what we are committed to do. That is the road we are
constructing. That is the destination we will help Canadians
reach. As a result, more jobs will be created and there will be
greater security for today's citizens and for our children.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
Liberal colleague from Ontario, the hon. member for Stoney Creek, is
showing no compassion for the people of Canada, all Canadians, and low
income earners in particular.
Witness his allusion to the Minister of Finance stating, in his
economic statement last week, that a $10 billion shortfall was
discovered. I can tell you where this missing money can be found: in the
employment insurance surplus, a plan whose premium rates are clearly too
high.
Unemployed workers who show up at the EI office to claim what paying
these high premiums entitles them to are often told they are short a few
hours—since the new system counts hours—to qualify.
The benefit period for those who qualify was also reduced. In
short, premium rates are sky high, there are fewer eligible claimants
and benefits are paid over a shorter period. This is how we end up with
the $12 billion projected surplus for the year ending March 31.
The Minister of Finance also lacks compassion. Here is further
evidence: a millionaire, who registers his ships in countries described
as tax havens to be able to hire crews that do not fall under Canadian
jurisdiction and to pay them less as well as to avoid paying taxes here,
in Canada, that is who we have as a Minister of Finance.
In my riding, in Black Lake to be specific, LAB Chrysotile is set
to close down an asbestos mine, the BC mine, BC standing for British
Canadian, in the next seven or eight days. This closure will result in
the laying off of 300 mine workers, more than 200 of whom are over 50.
That is tragic.
1235
The Minister of Human Resources Development happens to be the one
who, on April 1, slashed the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or
POWA. Over 200 workers would have been eligible under POWA. But the
minister destroyed a program that worked well and served as a safety
mechanism in many cases. The program was not perfect of course, but it
was a safety mechanism.
People in the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic want to see the
minister. Strangely enough, he is no longer available. Yet, between
April 27 and June 2, he visited the region three times and twice came to
the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic. But now, it is impossible to talk to
him. He is silent as the grave.
The minister shows no sign of compassion toward these workers.
Earlier, the member for Stoney Creek showed us, with his speech,
that he does not know either what it is like for a family to live on an
income of $25,000. He brags that the unemployment rate has gone down. He
should visit the regions. He should get out of his riding. He should
urge his human resources minister to show that in his chest is a real
beating heart and not a stone.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question. With reference to his comments about the EI fund,
it is a question that has been asked over and over again in the
House. I will repeat the answer for the benefit of the member. I
hope I can be very clear.
Since 1986 the auditor general has made the request that the
government include the EI fund in consolidated revenues. I am
not sure where the member pulled his figures from when he talked
about a $10 billion surplus. We do not have a surplus in any
fund. Any changes in the EI program would deal with the bottom
line of government.
Since we have taken office we have provided a cumulative
reduction in employment insurance of $4 billion. The government
recognizes that employment insurance premiums should not be going
up but should be going down.
We have dealt with the issue of employment insurance and we will
see a continued reduction in premium rates.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in speaking against the motion I note that the federal government
has accomplished what many said could not be done. The federal
government has transformed the economic, political and social
reality and environment over the past four years.
The federal government with astonishing speed has taken the
country from a $42 billion deficit in 1993 to a zero deficit in
the next fiscal year. Something considered undoable has been
done. Canadians understand and know that sacrifices had to be
made to get our fiscal house in proper balance. Canadians were
prepared for some pain to ensure long term viability and gain for
future generations, and this has happened.
The strong economic foundation which has been laid and expanded
upon is now paying off for Canadians. Canadians are seeing real
economy advances not seen since the boom years of the 1950s and
the 1960s. With this strong foundation comes a confidence needed
by people to propel the economy into the 21st century. It is
confidence built on hope and expectation. It is confidence built
on solid performance and optimism.
Canadians have waited a long time. While we can and will
continue to work hard to ensure prosperity for all sectors of the
economy, especially for people who might otherwise be left
behind, we have seen remarkable achievements over the past four
years.
1240
Let us consider the evidence. Interest rates are at their
lowest in historic terms. Housing starts and resales have
rebounded. Consumer goods enjoy strong sales throughout the
land. Inflation remains low. Business investments are surging.
Jobs are being created at an accelerating pace and growth as
measured in gross domestic product is outstanding even by
international standards. People are starting to feel good about
the economy and what is happening in Canada.
The negative psychology of even a few years ago is dissipating.
In short, our economy is in remarkable shape. That is why the
international consulting firm of KPMG, which did a comparative
study of the costs of doing business in Canada, the United States
and Europe, found that Canada is on top. This means that Canada
is not only the best place in the world to live, as the United
Nations has so designated for a number of years, but Canada is
one of the best places in the world in which to invest.
Canada is poised on the cusp of a prolonged economic expansion,
all of which spells good news for the country and good news for
Canadians. This enables the federal government as both a
facilitator and provider to focus on what Canadians want and what
they need.
The debate should go beyond what has been noted as a fiscal
dividend formula, that being 50% for programs and the other 50%
for debt reduction and tax reduction. The debate should be about
national priorities. It should be about the vision for Canada in
the next millennium. It should be about how best to build a
strong, lasting economy and in the process a strong society which
offers both opportunity and security. The debate must be about
ensuring the quality and quantity of growth needed to contribute
to the quality of life which Canadians deserve and rightfully
expect.
Now more than ever Canadians expect the federal government to
preserve, to enhance, to protect and to improve upon the valued
programs which have made us the envy of the world.
Canadians care about a quality health care with a standard of
health care second to none.
Canadians care about a good education system with lifelong
learning, training and retraining opportunities.
Canadians care about an infrastructure which enables Canada to
remain competitive both internally and internationally.
Canadians care about creating an environment which will enable
Canada to remain highly productive and make Canada a leader in
the global knowledge based economy.
Canadians care about ensuring that our young are well taken care
of because they represent our investment in the future. We need
to ensure they will have the best opportunities available.
[Translation]
Canada has such a huge potential, such a great future.
[English]
Canada is now poised to cash in on an unparalleled future, the
likes of which we have not seen in a long time. Canadians with
the help of the federal government will rise to this occasion and
focus on the well-being of citizens able to get the job done.
Making good use of taxpayers' dollars, we will march confidently
into the 21st century. Arm in arm we will move forward together.
We will do so, not by leaving some behind but by all marching
together forward into the new millennium.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I found
the address just delivered rather exciting and interesting. The
vision of Canada the gentleman portrayed is a very good one.
I wondered for a moment whether he was president of the chamber
of commerce and not a parliamentarian. I think he missed a
couple of things through his discourse.
I would like to ask him a couple of questions having to do with
a particular letter sent by the Minister of Transport. I am sure
he knows the minister very well and supports him.
Would he explain exactly what the minister had in mind when he
referred in a letter to the dedication of a certain percentage of
the fuel taxes toward the infrastructure program, in particular
the Trans-Canada Highway?
I think we all agree that the infrastructure program is a very
critical part of the economy and the Trans-Canada highway is one
of the major components of that infrastructure program.
1245
In this particular letter, the hon. Minister of Transport goes
on to say that the 20% fuel tax fails to do a number of things.
He makes quite a list here. He says, “I should note that the
federal government collects the road fuel tax as part of the
consolidated revenue fund and uses the proceeds to fund such
areas as health, welfare, education, defence and transport.” Now
comes the phrase that I would like the hon. member to pay
particular attention to “as well as to help reduce the federal
debt”.
Just last week the Minister of Finance indicated that there was
an $8.9 billion deficit coming forward for the next fiscal year.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell us and convince us somehow
that an $8.9 billion deficit is in fact not an increase in the
debt of Canada rather than a decrease. If over the years this
20% fuel tax has been collected to reduce the federal debt, then
I would like to know where it was that this money was applied to
the federal debt? As I look at the government's balance sheets I
notice that each year the debt is climbing. Yet for some reason
or another, the Minister of Transport says that part of the 20%
fuel tax has gone to reduce the federal debt.
I would like the hon. member to please address that question.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the
member opposite for the question. I found it of particular
interest that he would make reference to the chamber of commerce.
Certainly those people in the chamber of commerce in my area of
Canada and indeed those members of the board of trade in various
places across this great land have cheered the government in
terms of what it has been able to do.
I am very glad that he would make that point on my behalf. I
very much appreciate that because business, as members know, have
been able to see the merits of what the federal government has
been able to accomplish over these past numbers of years. In
fact, they are very grateful for the kind of things that have
been done to secure the kind of climate that is necessary for
people to live and work and secure the quality of life that is
necessary.
I was particularly interested in the question with respect to
the infrastructure program. As a former mayor of a municipality
in the region of Waterloo we very much value the infrastructure
program that was put into place not only in 1993 but also in
1996-97. For example as a municipality we spent enormous amounts
of money in partnership with the province and the federal
government to ensure that sewage treatment plants were in place,
to ensure that highways were built and roads were secure and in
doing all kinds of things in the best interests of the people we
represented.
For the hon. member to make reference to the infrastructure
program I can certainly say that it was a wonderful program which
benefited Canadians not only in my part of Ontario and Canada but
people across this great land.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to split my time with the member for Kelowna.
Looking over this opposition motion by the member for Halifax, I
notice that the NDP address some serious problems in the country
but they have the wrong solutions. But it is not only the NDP
that does not have the solutions, it is the Liberals across the
way who are missing solutions as well.
The NDP have suggested that somehow by making an investment in
culture they will ameliorate unemployment and will provide jobs.
I do not know how flower power is going to put people back to
work. The sixties are over. Buying million dollar paintings does
not put people to work.
Farmers in Saskatchewan who voted for the NDP would not be in
favour of buying million dollar paintings. Seniors in Kamloops
or Burnaby would not be in favour of buying million dollar
paintings. Unemployed fishers in Atlantic Canada would not be in
favour of buying million dollar paintings, but the NDP is. The
party that some of these people voted for is.
I think some of those people have to question whether or not
those members truly understand their needs. Then I look across to
the Liberal benches. Once again I will lay out the problem and
talk about the lack of solutions.
1250
On the subject of unemployment, we are in our 84th month of
unemployment at a rate of 9% or worse. What have they done in
response? They have an employment insurance surplus which is now
at about $15 billion, or will be by the end of the fiscal year.
For every single average working Canadian in the country it means
$700. The Liberal government is taking $700 from the average
working Canadian for employment insurance and it says it is
accountable and is looking after the situation of unemployment?
News for them. Economics 101 is that payroll taxes kill jobs.
Until the Liberals understand this they will not be able to
rectify the problem.
They also talk about how they want to put $90 million toward
youth unemployment. They talk about how they care, but they do
not. They are talking about $90 million to hire some temporary
bureaucrats for the summer to once again grow the size of
government. If we look at this a little more closely, beyond the
myopic Liberal view of the next election in trying to buy some
votes, we realize it would take about 140 years for the Liberals
to solve the youth unemployment problem by employing all the
unemployed under the age of 30. They cannot rectify it that way.
It is a joke as well.
The Liberals then talk about spending a billion dollars in
handouts to students. What they do not tell Canadians is that
for every dollar they pay, for every one person they claim to
help, they hurt nine more. For every single person who will get
some sort of benefit, nine more have a bigger debt to face. They
have a higher deficit. They have higher taxes. That is what
will kill their opportunities when they go into the job market.
The government fundamentally misunderstands what it is doing.
Governments, whether it be the ministers or the prime minister
in the front benches now or in the past, have always erred on the
side of big government. The government has a theory and it is a
wrong-headed theory because it does not hold up in reality. The
theory is that the bigger government is, the more centralized it
is and the more people it employs, this will somehow rectify the
situation of unemployment in the country. The government
supported then an unemployment insurance policy now an employment
insurance policy that subsidizes people in seasonal work to be
unemployed. It encourages the problem. It doubles the
unemployment rate of our neighbours to the south, the United
States, and the Liberals sit smug.
People who were unemployed voted for the Liberals. Farmers in
Saskatchewan voted for the NDP. Seniors who are facing real
crunches because of fixed incomes received from the government
through pensions or other means voted for the NDP. Unemployed
fishers in Atlantic Canada who once again gave the Liberals a
chance despite the failed Atlantic groundfish strategy were
willing to give the NDP a chance.
All those people have been failed because the socialists to the
left of me, the NDP, talk about going ahead and spending money on
million dollar paintings and funding artists. This will not help
unemployed fishers. It will not help farmers in Saskatchewan and
it will not help seniors.
The Liberals across the way say they want to help youth but go
ahead and put taxes against them with the Canada pension plan.
Shame on them. They go ahead and jump the CPP contribution rate
to 10%, a $10 billion tax that will be levied against students
and young people in the country so they can subsidize their MP
pensions, and they gloat with pride.
The Minister of Finance has the gall to stand up in the House
and brag about their accomplishments. How can they brag about 84
months of unemployment above 9%? How can they brag about a $10
billion tax?
1255
How can the government brag about balancing the budget when it
did it with 36 tax increases since 1993 and two more to boot in
the first session in this House? The government has brought
forward Bill C-2 which is a $10 billion tax hike. It has brought
forward Bill C-10 which goes after seniors who receive social
security benefits from the United States. How can it be proud of
a record like that?
Only a Liberal could be proud of a record like that. Only
Liberals could feign pride in this House and stand up to say that
they support those measures, that they are doing it for the sake
of tax fairness, that they are putting in a $10 billion tax for
the sake of tax fairness, that they are taxing seniors on their
social security benefits for tax fairness. Where is the fairness
in that? I do not know.
When those people have a chance to examine those policies, when
it comes time for re-election, they will look long and hard, and
they certainly deserve to.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not sit by and let those
last comments be made without clearing the record for Canadians.
I will speak slowly so the hon. member will understand me.
The premiums that are paid by Canadians into the Canada pension
plan do not flow to consolidated revenues of the Government of
Canada. Taxes flow to consolidated revenues of the Government of
Canada. CPP premiums flow to the Canada pension plan fund.
In fact after a year and a half of consultations with the
provinces of this country, an agreement was signed to establish
an investment fund which would provide Canadians a better rate of
return on their retirement income. The easiest thing for us would
have been to do nothing, which the prior administration decided
to do. But we are doing this so there will be a Canada pension
plan in this country, not to engage in the kind of political
rhetoric we just heard. That is a point of clarification for
Canadians.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member across
the way has touched on the CPP tax hike fiasco because it gives
me an opportunity to illuminate a little more on that subject.
When the government of the day first brought CPP in, it said
that it would be a fund that would never rise above 5% of
somebody's salary. Paul Martin Senior, the father of the current
supporter of the plan, said that it would only cost a couple of
hundred dollars a year. Now the government has the gall to go
ahead and tax Canadians the thousands of dollars that it does,
10% of their income, double what it was initially said to be. The
government members of the day made promises on the stumps back in
1966. They talked about how it would never rise above 5% and
today we look at something that is double what it was and they
say “trust us again”.
And the Liberals say that those funds flow to the CPP fund. Once
again, can they not gloat with pride when they have a $500
billion unfunded liability? That is according to their own
numbers. I do not like to trust government numbers very much
because they often prove to be inaccurate. The Fraser Institute
puts it at a trillion dollars. Split the difference somewhere in
between or cut it down the middle. Seven hundred and fifty
billion, five hundred billion, one trillion, it is a lot of
money. For them to stand with pride today in the House and say
that those funds only go toward the CPP fund with a $500 billion
unfunded liability, shame.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech,
and secondly, to ask him how he sees the situation of the surplus
in the employment insurance fund. We know about the increasingly
numerous and complex eligibility criteria that must be met by those
who have the misfortune to lose their jobs.
Under the old scheme, up to 65% of those who lost their jobs
could collect unemployment insurance benefits.
Today, it seems this figure has dropped to about 35%, the obvious
result being a surplus of around $10 to $12 billion in the
unemployment, or, as it is now called, employment insurance fund.
1300
I would like to hear my colleague's views on what should be
done with this large amount of money, which comes solely from
taxpayers and companies, and not from the government. If he were
the Minister of Finance, how would he go about using this $10 to
$12 billion to revitalize the economy?
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, if only we had somebody on
this side of the House who was the minister of finance.
Last year the surplus in the EI fund started off as $7 billion
in the first year of its overpayment and overcontributions. By
the end of this fiscal year it is expected to be about $15
billion. With all the projections in sight it will get bigger.
They are not saving up a rainy day slush fund. It is a tax, pure
and simple.
If they are bringing in billions of dollars, $700 more per
average working Canadian than what they should, what should the
government do? Liberals should open up their ears and pay
attention. They should be telling this to the finance minister.
They should be pleading with him on behalf of their constituents.
They should be asking for a payroll tax cut. The Canadian
Federation of Independent Business has talked about a 25% tax cut
in the EI premiums because it creates jobs.
To quote their own finance department studies, when they
increased EI premiums from a little over 3% to close to 5% it
resulted in killing 26,000 jobs. It is expected by their own
Department of Finance studies that this recent hike, these
overcontributions, will kill 76,000 jobs.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
something in the NDP motion that I very much support. The motion
demonstrates a deep concern about the shortcomings of the
government.
Unemployment is at an unreasonably high level and it has been
sustained. It is about the only thing that has been sustained by
the Liberal government. Unemployment remains consistently high
and the debt has consistently increased.
The unfortunate part of the motion is that it mixes up causes
and effects. I will not defend the Liberal government in any
way, shape or form but I will support the intent of the motion.
Its intent is to call to the attention of Canadians that the
government has failed to create jobs, to make adequate
investments in health and in education, and has not done what it
should have done with the fiscal management of the affairs of
Canadians.
The government has failed to recognize that people care about
the unity of Canada, about the fiscal management of their affairs
and want to have a standard of living of which they can be proud
of and can pass on to their children. Hopefully their children
will have a better standard of living than what they enjoy.
Under the current regime that is not likely to take place. The
average family of four has $3,000 less to spend today because of
the increase in taxes. Thirty-eight tax increases have now taken
place.
We need to recognize that it is the skills and abilities of
people that create the strength of a nation. It is not primarily
the natural resources although they help. The use and the
application of natural resources comes through the skill,
abilities and hard work of people.
What is it then that the government ought to be concerned about?
It ought to be concerned about creating jobs. There is ample
evidence that by increasing taxes the government is doing the
exact opposite. Increasing taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes,
income taxes, surtaxes or excise taxes, has the impact of
decreasing jobs and not increasing them.
Let me refer to a particular incident in the United States.
There have been several instances of tax decreases but I want to
pay particular attention to the Michigan experience.
In 1991 John Engler took power in the state of Michigan. Since
that time total employment has grown to 4.6 million people, a
record high in just six years.
1305
Over the same period the state unemployment rate was cut in half
from a high of nearly 10%, which by the way is just about where
it is in Canada, to a low of 4% in May of this year. That is
something the government could be proud of.
How did he achieve that? Governor Engler states “Our strategy
of cutting taxes, reducing regulations and balancing budgets is
paying off in more jobs, higher pay and healthy growth”.
I would like the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions to pay particular attention to what I am about to
say. Since 1991 Engler has instituted 21 tax cuts. That is the
exact opposite to what has happened in Canada. We have had 38
tax increases.
If the government really wants to increase job opportunities it
should cut taxes, not increase them. There is ample evidence for
that. This is only one example. There are many examples which I
could cite at this time.
An hon. member: Isn't it beautiful to cut taxes?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: “Isn't it beautiful to cut taxes?”
The gentleman is already beginning to recognize that he could
turn it into music.
Wouldn't all Canadians wish to sing a new song? They would love
to sing the song “I have a job and I have less taxes to pay. I
have more money for my children's education. I have more money
for entertainment. I have more money to do the things I really
want to do”. I am so glad the hon. member opposite recognizes
there are countries in the world which know how to do that.
We need to recognize that it is very important for hon. members
opposite to recognize what the role of government ought to be. I
would like the previous parliamentary secretary to the minister
of industry to listen very carefully. The role of government is
to maintain a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation
and research, and ensures a level, competitive and honest
marketplace.
How can that be done? It can be done by creating a change in
attitude from dependence upon government handouts to one of
independence, creativity, the ability to apply one's initiative
and an attitude which will give us the incentive to produce,
develop and become increasingly efficient.
That happens when taxes are reduced and when people are allowed
to spend the money they have so carefully earned instead of the
money being spent by a politician or a bureaucrat.
Individual people in Canada are far more capable than any member
of the House of spending money in their best interest. They know
where it ought to be spent. That ought to be our number one
concern.
I sympathize with the NDP when it says that we ought to create
employment. Its solution is to give more money to these people
through taxes. That would be taking the taxes from one group of
people, giving a bit to the bureaucrats and politicians, and
giving a bit back to the people. It would create dependent
people. It would not solve anything.
The money should be left in the hands of the people. They will
spend it wisely. They will develop, produce and provide the
kinds of services that will make the country better and make them
richer. It would even make NDPers richer.
I want to show precisely how convinced even the Minister of
Finance is that payroll taxes actually cut jobs. More than one
official in his department has demonstrated clearly that payroll
taxes cut jobs. He has ample evidence all around him to show
that is the case.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed over
19,000 small businesses. It found that over half, or 50.8% to be
specific, would hire more individuals if payroll taxes were
reduced. That is only one kind of tax, payroll tax.
1310
If over half of them would do that it would increase the number
of jobs rather dramatically. Only 10% of the businesses surveyed
believed the government's infrastructure program—and I wish the
hon. member who was just talking about the infrastructure program
were here to listen—would encourage more hiring. Over half of
them believed that if payroll taxes were reduced they would hire
more people.
I have anecdotal evidence of my own. I know full well that as
the payroll taxes go up the number of new hires goes down. If we
want to get serious about creating jobs we will not increase
payroll taxes; we will reduce them. That is what we will do.
A recent paper was delivered by Canadian economists Livio Di
Matteo and Michael Shannon. They found that each percentage
point increase in payroll taxes reduced employment by .32%. Based
on current levels of employment, a one percentage point increase
in payroll taxes will kill 44,000 jobs.
I want to put this into perspective. Just recently the Minister
of Finance announced in the House and to all Canadians that CPP
would be increased by more than 4%. That means four times 44,000
fewer people in the workforce. That is significant.
Are we to sit here and they to sit there saying that this is
good for Canada? It is not good for Canada. Payroll taxes ought
to be cut. That would be a solution to the unemployment problem.
If we really want to create a better environment for our
children and our grandchildren we would cut taxes and let the
people spend the money.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
that, in coming to Ottawa, everyone here has forgotten what the
real situation is in our country. I think they have even forgotten
that, in some areas of this country, there are people who do not
have the money to put bread on the table so that their children can
go to school.
I have trouble understanding our colleague from the Reform
Party who is saying that, by lowering taxes, we will create
employment. I am not interested in the statistics, the economic
studies and the research papers. These figures are not right. We
are interested in what is really going on. What is really going on
is that government gave money to companies for technological
change, which eliminated 600 or 800 jobs, and companies increased
their profits without creating employment.
Canada's banks have made profits in the billions of dollars
and they are letting people go, not creating jobs. I still have
trouble believing that immediately lowering taxes will put an end
to the employment problem in Canada.
Let us not forget that it is not the fault of ordinary people
that there are no longer any fish. It is not the fault of
Newfoundlanders, of the employees who used to work in fish plants.
It is not their fault if they are not working. In a united country,
as we are supposed to call it, we are supposed to look out for one
another.
In the meantime, I will ask my colleague a question. If
the Reform Party were in power, what would their short term
solution be for those who have nothing in the house to eat, and who
get $38 a week to feed their family? That is where the problem
lies. In the short term, a solution must be found to help people
in Canada and, in the long term, other solutions must be found to
create real jobs that will give our workers some dignity.
I do not believe, and I will never agree, that the people in
the Atlantic provinces are lazy. Let us, my friends and colleague,
take a quick tour across Canada and look at what is happening in
the regions represented by my colleagues.
1315
There were eleven children in my own family. In 1972, not one
of us was left in New Brunswick. We had all gone to northern
Ontario, Prince George, B.C. or Oshawa, Ontario. We had to.
If we were to take a quick tour across Canada—Hearst,
Kapuskasing, White River, Wawa, Marathon, Manitouwadge, Oshawa,
Hamilton, St. Catherines, or go to Alberta and B.C.—we would find
people from down home who have been forced to move away from their
families. Perhaps the Reform Party members have never had to leave
their relatives behind in the West, but the rest of us know what it
is like not to know one's brothers and sisters. We know what that
is all about.
When there is talk today of a united country, it is time for
action, not just words. What would the result be, if the Reform
Party were in power? We would be in a sorry mess.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, all Canadian citizens
need money to put clothes on their backs, food on their tables
and shelter around them. That is not limited to people in
eastern Canada. That is not limited to people in western Canada.
Every Canadian needs those things.
That is precisely what the Reform Party is all about. It is to
create the situation where everybody has an opportunity to apply
their initiative, their talents, develop their skills and
abilities. That is what we are all about. We want to create the
environment so that people will be able to perform.
The accusation that was made, the implication was that somebody
in Canada believes somewhere along the line that Atlantic
Canadians are somehow lazy. I have never said that. I have
never intimated it. I have never even suggested that. The hon.
member is grossly mistaken when he suggests that is the kind of
thing that the Reform Party believes. That is absolutely false.
Mr. Speaker, that ought to be made abundantly clear. He should
take it back immediately. Nobody takes that position.
The position is that even people in Atlantic Canada, if he wants
to take that position, will spend their money more wisely than a
politician here in Ottawa. It has to be made abundantly clear
that the people need to recognize that they must apply those
skills and abilities that they do so well. Does that not mean
that there are some temporary solutions that have to be made on
an emergency basis? Absolutely and of course. Where there is a
crisis that has to be addressed.
What we are talking about are the long term solutions as well.
We need both, not just one. A cut in taxes will create long term
solutions and will also allow enough money to deal with the
crises that have to be dealt with.
We need a balanced approach. That is what Reform is all about, a
common sense approach for the common people of Canada.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Thornhill.
In preparing for this debate I read very carefully the NDP
motion. Central to the whole discussion is the words in the
motion that the NDP is criticizing the government's policy and
creating unemployment because of its pursuit of a monetary policy
obsessed with future inflation and so on and so forth. The key
words are “monetary policy” as opposed to fiscal policy.
If I may explain the difference, monetary policy has to do with
interest rates, money supply, the manipulation of the exchange
rates of currencies across borders. Fiscal policy, on the other
hand, has to do with government spending; the government public
accounts, the amount of revenue it gets in, the amount of money
it spends and whether or not it runs a deficit as a result of
these spending practices.
I realized as I looked at the motion that one of the reasons why
the economies of the nation, of Canada and the provinces, have
got into such tremendous trouble over the past two decades is
because governments have been pursuing incorrect ideas with
respect to the impact of monetary policy on the creation of
employment.
The NDP or social democrats in general believe that we can
arbitrarily influence employment levels by manipulating the money
supply and manipulating inflation. It believes this is an
absolute thing that can be done and that fiscal policy can be set
aside.
1320
Fiscal policy has to do with keeping accounts balanced. It is
very clear that throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, the previous
federal government, for example, took the lead of the NDP which
was very strong in that Parliament. It set fiscal responsibility
aside and pursued a policy that had to do with arbitrarily
manipulating money supply or interest rates or thinking it could
do so. But in the long run the government ran up a huge debt of
over $500 million. At the time that government lost office it
was running an annual deficit of around $43 billion or $44
billion a year.
It shows me that the New Democratic Party, the fourth party in
the House, is still a dinosaur in its attitude toward the
economies of nations and the economies of this nation. NDP
members should be aware that the direct manipulation of economies
through monetary policy has failed worldwide. This is why the
Soviet Union collapsed. This is why the controlled economies of
eastern Europe collapsed. The highfaluting theories of
arbitrarily controlling the strings of the economy and expecting
that would directly create jobs just does not work.
The vast majority of Canadians except for a few people in the
NDP know it is quite simple. You do not spend more money than
you receive. You have to keep your house in order. It makes no
difference whether you are a federal government, the government
of the United States or an ordinary household anywhere in Canada,
in the maritimes or in western Canada, if you spend more than you
take in you are going to get into a lot of trouble.
I had occasion to test the Canadian public's opinion on this
issue. The fourth party members are fond of pretending they
represent ordinary working people and the intelligence of
ordinary working people. They certainly do not represent the
intelligence of ordinary people, be they in cities or in rural
areas.
Annually the Rockton fair is held in my riding. It is a fall
fair. It is probably one of the biggest fall fairs in Ontario.
Rockton is a little village community of 150 people. The fair
has been going since 1853 and styles itself the Rockton World's
Fair. It is among the top 10 fairs in Ontario. Over the four
days of the Thanksgiving weekend it received 75,000 visitors. It
draws people from all around the golden horseshoe area.
My riding is rural and suburban. I have country folk and fairly
affluent suburban folk. Nearby is Hamilton which has principally
urban people. An enormous mixture of people come to the Rockton
fair.
I always have a booth at the Rockton fair so people can meet the
MP. If they have complaints they can make them directly to me.
The people at Rockton fair seemed extraordinarily satisfied with
the performance of the Liberal government, but that is an
entirely different story. They are aware that the government has
conducted an excellent fiscal policy which has chiselled down the
deficit from $40-odd billion to $8 billion in the last year. It
expects to eliminate the deficit in the next year. By any other
yardstick in the G-7 the deficit is already eliminated. The
finance minister mentioned yesterday that we have actually begun
to pay down the debt to the tune of $11 billion.
In anticipation of this good news, on Thanksgiving weekend I
conducted my poll at the booth at Rockton fair.
I placed four jars on the table in front of my booth. I had
another tin that said surplus. On a big sign I said “If you
were Paul Martin and you had a surplus, how would you spend it?”
The four glass jars I had labelled tax cuts, reduce the debt,
reduce the GST, restore social spending.
1325
As each person came by the booth and expressed an interest—it
is amazing how interested people were—I offered them four beans.
I said “Pretend you are Paul Martin and this is $4 billion. You
can put it in these jars however you like, in whatever order you
like no matter what”.
It is amazing how enthusiastically people took those four beans
and approached the jars and thought and considered carefully how
they would spend that $4 billion surplus. They would hesitate
here and there.
Five hundred and twenty-five people took part in my poll. They
represented every walk of life. There were farmers. There were
pensioners. There were young people. There were people from
Hamilton because the Rockton fair pulls in people from Hamilton.
There were people from all over the region. On Thanksgiving Day,
it even brought in people from Toronto.
I had an excellent sampling of public opinion, and it cost a lot
less than an Environics poll or any of these other very expensive
polls that the government engages in. I would suggest that it
was far more accurate than most of those polls because the sample
was very large.
I would like to give the results of the poll. On the first two
days 321 beans showed up for reducing the debt, 207 for increased
social spending, 101 for reducing the GST and 121 for income tax
cuts. The following day the numbers were similar: 341, 208, 160
and 126.
Approximately 42% of all the people who came by the booth felt
that we should reduce the debt first. I wish both opposition
parties would bear in mind that these are ordinary Canadians from
all walks of life. They said that of course they would reduce the
debt first because if that is done first, everything will follow.
I am glad of this opportunity to speak in the House today
because I can say to the finance minister, to all my colleagues
and everyone in the House that I feel, as a result of this
experience, the correct course for government is sound fiscal
policy first. Forget about monetary policy because that follows.
The correct course of government is to get the debt down. Then
there will be more money to spend on social spending. What I
hope will happen is that we will have more money to not cut
income tax but to cut the GST. I think it is the worst tax
imaginable.
I would like to see the finance minister use 50% of his surplus
just as was suggested by the poll on reducing the debt and the
rest divided equally between reducing the GST and improving
social spending.
We, as Liberals, have to be very concerned in maintaining the
social safety net. This is where we differ so enormously from
the Reform. We are not prepared to spend like blazes like the
NDP in order to do it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we just had a classic lesson in Liberal voodoo economics
that totally ignores the realities of this country. The member
talks about the debt and the deficit. Let us look at how we got
into this situation of a debt and a deficit.
There are three major causes. The first cause, of course, is
devastatingly high levels of unemployment. If folks are not
working, that increases the bill for unemployment insurance and
other social programs.
The second is interest rates. Historically, interest rates have
been far too high. It is only recently that finally the Bank of
Canada has lowered those interest rates under tremendous
pressure. Now Gordon Thiessen, the Governor of the Bank of
Canada, is suggesting that we have to go back up which would be
enormously destructive.
1330
The final major cause is a tax system which has been
historically completely skewed and unfair. That is the basic
reason for the high levels of the debt and the deficit.
What do the Liberals have to say? They should heed the very
thoughtful terms of this motion. Is this really revolutionary?
If we can set targets for the deficit, if we can set targets for
inflation rates, surely we owe it to the people of this country,
particularly that 20% of young people who are desperately trying
to find jobs and who are losing hope, to set targets. We must
set some goals and objectives to reduce the obscene levels of
unemployment. That is what this motion says.
The Liberal member says they have wrestled the deficit to the
ground. The finance minister goes out and triumphantly says that
the deficit is gone. Let us look at how we have arrived at this
point.
Has it been through equal sacrifice? Has it been through a
sharing of the burden? Absolutely not. We have arrived at this
point today because the poor, the powerless in this country have
paid a disproportionate amount to reduce the deficit.
Let us look at the casualties in the war against the deficit.
They include the unemployed. A few years ago 90% of unemployed
Canadians were eligible for employment insurance. Today
approximately 40% are eligible.
What has happened to the other Canadians, desperate people
looking for work? If employment insurance runs out those people
are forced to turn to social assistance. What has happened to
social assistance? The Liberal government has abolished the
Canada assistance plan. It was the one national program which
provided leadership in the fight against poverty. National
standards are gone entirely.
Once again, poor people are casualties. Co-op and non-profit
housing are gone under the Liberal government.
Foreign aid has been shamefully cut. Canada is now at number
11 instead of number 5 a few years ago.
With respect to child care, the government has abandoned any
commitment whatsoever to our children.
Aboriginal programs have also been casualties. My colleague
from Churchill spoke very eloquently earlier today on the price
the aboriginal people are paying in the war against the deficit.
Students have been casualties. Sure, the deficit has been
reduced, and at some point we may even start to reduce the debt,
but we have transferred that debt burden to students. An average
graduating student carries a burden of something like $25,000.
Research granting councils have been cut. Cultural programs have
been devastated, the CBC, the Canada Council, the National Film
Board. Environmental programs have been cut savagely.
How can the Liberal member stand in his place and suggest that
it is programs which should be cut? Those programs have helped
to at least minimize the devastating impact of the gap between
rich and poor. He should accept the recommendation of our party
which calls on us to set those targets. Is he seriously opposed
to setting targets for reducing unemployment in the same way as
we have set targets to reduce inflation and the deficit?
Why can he not demonstrate some humanity, some return to those
old Liberal values and recognize that we should be setting those
targets and making this the number one economic priority for the
people of Canada?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if empty rhetoric could
create jobs, then the NDP would create full employment very
rapidly.
This is nonsense. If the member opposite had listened to me he
would know that I would not reject renewed social spending when
there is a surplus. This is certainly one government which has a
heart and a conscience.
The reality is the previous Conservative government overspent.
It strangled the economy. That created unemployment. The way to
correct that, the way to create jobs, is to allow the economy to
create jobs.
The member opposite would create jobs out of a vacuum. It does
not work that way. It works by having people in Canada who are
actively creating employment taking risks, creating business.
Sorry, I said business. Good lord, we should not say business to
the NDP.
1335
Medium and small businesses in this country, not big
unions, are the ones that are driving this economy. They are
fueling the growth of this economy which is growing faster than
any other economy in the G-7. As a result of that, I believe in
the last six months or so we have created some 240,000 jobs in
this country.
It just shows that we have our fiscal house in order, fiscal not
monetary. Monetary has to do with funny money going across
borders. Germany experimented with that in the 1930s. It printed
money. Actually the Social Credit in the west had similarly
crazy theories during the 1930s. Oddly enough it was the father
of the Leader of the Opposition who was very much involved in
some of these weird theories coming from the west. All weird
monetary theories came from the west, whether it was the NDP or
the Social Credit, it was the cradle of this kind of thing.
I do not want to suggest that Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes and
B.C. have anything exceptional to contribute as opposed to other
parts of the country, but I do believe that certainly Ontario and
I think now in the maritimes, even though they did elect a few
NDP members, will agree that good fiscal policy, getting your
house in order is the way to create jobs.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate in today's debate. I have been listening
very carefully to the comments of all members on both sides of
this House.
As I looked over the motion that was presented by the fourth
party I was struck with the word “condemns”. I believe that if
they were being fair and reasonable they would compliment the
government on the result of its policies and its fiscal plan.
It is important when we consider this motion to look at the
record, to look at where we started, to look at where we are
today.
I am not going to say the job is done. It is not. There is
more to do. Unemployment is too high. My goal is to see that
anyone who wants to work will have the opportunity to fully
participate in our society. That is the goal. I think it is the
goal of every member who sits on the government side of the House
and frankly I think it is the goal of every person who comes here
to this wonderful place. We want people to have opportunities to
maximize and achieve their potential. We want them to have the
dignity of work. We want them to have the skills so that they
can prepare for the jobs being created.
To be fair and reasonable as we begin and continue this debate
today, we have to look at where this government started from,
where we are today and where we are going. Then we can consider
this motion before the House today for what it really is.
Where did this government begin? In 1993 the deficit that was
inherited was some $42 billion. Where are we today as just
announced by the finance minister? The deficit stands at $8.9
billion with an expectation that the budget of the Government of
Canada will be fully balanced with a deficit of zero by the next
fiscal year.
That is an incredible and enormous achievement. The assessment
is not by those of us who sit in this House. It is not just by
the Liberals. That assessment is by the international investment
community which looked at Canada a few short years ago and said
this country is on the verge of bankruptcy, this country is not a
good place to invest, this country needs solid, prudent fiscal
and economic management.
I suggest especially to the people in my wonderful riding of
Thornhill that is exactly what Canadians have had under the
Liberal government since 1993.
1340
The United Nations has declared that Canada number one in the
world as a place to live and work. More recently a study by KPMG
determined that Canada, among all those countries surveyed, has a
significant competitive advantage. Our cities rank among the
best in the world not only as a place to live but as a place to
work. The same study suggests that Canada is head and shoulders
above our neighbours to the south as a place to invest.
There are certain things that give us that competitive
advantage. Those things are relatively new and some have been
around for a while. What are those things? We have a government
dedicated to balancing the budget, to responsible and prudent
fiscal management and which is dedicated to ensuring interest and
inflation rates are low. These are the things we need to create
a climate for job creation and investment. They go hand in hand.
When government attempts to create jobs directly it has to do so
with tax dollars. This does not mean those jobs are not
important. It means that government must tax in order to create
jobs. It is far more effective to create a climate which
encourages the private sector to create those jobs. Since 1993
we have seen over one million jobs created in this country. In
this year alone 297,000 jobs have been created across the
country. Is that enough? Of course it is not.
In 1993 unemployment was 11%. Today unemployment is 9%. Is that
low enough? Of course not. There are two particular segments of
our society that concern me. One is youth who have not had their
first job or who are finding it difficult to get a job and to use
their talents, skills and education. The other is the older
workers who have been displaced by restructuring and technology
and who need training and retraining to be productive and useful
in our society.
The sound and prudent responsible fiscal management that this
country has had since 1993 has resulted in interest and mortgage
rates, which were so much higher in 1993, now fueling economic
growth and job creation that will lead the G-7 nations. Canada
will out perform all the G-7 nations. Is it just the members on
this side of the House who are saying that? No. Independent
forecasters are looking at the rate of growth of the Canadian
economy. They are looking at the job creation numbers and they
are the ones that are saying that the fiscal plan, the sound
economic management as proposed by the finance minister and the
government is working. We are not there yet.
There are other factors which make our competitive advantage
something to shout about. As a former provincial minister of
health I can say Canadian medicare is a huge competitive
advantage.
They have tampered with medicare, killed medicare. I say to my
friends in the Reform and Conservative parties, whose policies I
believe would devastate medicare, that medicare is a significant
competitive advantage. If medicare is tampered with it kills
jobs.
1345
To those who are sceptical about the government's commitments, I
say that the government was very quick to respond to the National
Forum on Health which said that the federal government should
maintain the transfer payment commitments to the provinces at
$12.5 billion. That is the commitment of the government. It
will help the provinces to sustain and maintain medicare and
ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are
protected.
There are two reasons. First is our competitive advantage and
the second are the values and the soul of this country. I do not
think there is a Canadian who is not proud when told by people
outside this country that we live in a place where money is not a
factor in access to medicare.
Are there problems today? Yes, there are. I challenge everyone
in the House to consider what is happening south of the border.
Take a look at the 40 million people in the United States who
have no access to health care, to the 100 million people in the
United States who have inadequate coverage. Try to understand
what would happen if the Reform or Conservative parties were
successful in their Americanization of Canadian medicare. I
shudder to think.
In 1993 jobs were being lost, people were feeling insecure,
people had no hope. Today Canadians are confident. Jobs are
being created, interest rates are at an all time low, the budget
is on the verge of being balanced. Canadians know that we will
have new problems and challenges because the demands of a global
economy and of those who need the assistance of government will
continue to be there. It will be very difficult to respond to
all of those demands.
As we talk about the importance of sound fiscal management, it
is also important to note that it must continue. We on this side
of the House will continue to follow a prudent and responsible
course, one that will give opportunities to the young and the
old, one that will enhance and ensure that those who need it will
have access to education.
Canadians expect medicare to be preserved. That is my goal and
the goal of the government. We want to create an opportunity for
all in the country to prosper. That is why I will not support the
NDP motion which is before the House today. It is misguided and
irresponsible and out of touch with the realities of 1997.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted to
hear comments such as the ones that were just made, particularly by the
last two government members.
They are telling us things could not be any better. They even made
up a poll to demonstrate their point of view. The government is hiding
the facts. Canada is the greatest country in the world, Canada is the
richest country in the world. Every time such comments are made, someone
rises to remind the government that our country has the highest
unemployment rate, that it has the largest number of poor, hungry
children, that it has the most trouble with its debt.
What does it mean to be the greatest and the richest country in the
world? Where is this wealth? With so many unemployed, so many poor
children, so many people having a hard time finding jobs, where is the
wealth?
1350
It must be in the hands of those who control it. We are asking the
government to stop.
We agree that debt reduction should be a priority. However, we
disagree with the means used to achieve this result. We are telling the
government: “The idea is good, but do not implement it in this fashion.
Stop asking the weakest in the family to make an effort to pay off the
family's debts. They should not have to do that. They will do their
share, but the other family members must also do theirs”.
Let us stop putting the burden on the most vulnerable ones. This is
what we are asking the government, but it is so concerned by its public
image that it no longer sees reality.
It merely says: “We are the best, we are the finest. We meet with world
leaders. We go to Russia and bend over backwards”. Meanwhile, 1.4
million Canadian children go hungry. The national unemployment rate
exceeds 10% and the government is burying its head in the sand.
I wish the Liberals would wake up and realize it is time to set
more appropriate objectives, such as those proposed this morning by NDP
members, even though we do not fully agree with them. We tell them too
that the target is right. However, in order to hit that target, they
seem prepared to give up all the powers granted to the provinces and
give them back to the federal government. This is what concerns us, and
we will discuss this issue. Again, even though we may agree on a given
objective, different means must be used to achieve it.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my
colleague in this way. I believe that we must have a strong
economy in order to address the important social issues and
social programs that we have always valued. I also believe that
Canada is a partnership where each of the provinces comes
together with the federal government to solve our problems.
In my remarks I was very careful to be clear that the job is not
yet done. While the United Nations sees us as the best in the
world and while private forecasters say we are doing better than
any of the G-7 countries, we know we have problems that must be
addressed. Unemployment is still too high. Child poverty is a
real issue. There is a need for educational opportunities for
research and development and innovation.
The strategy of the government is to provide a balanced approach
where we will work together with our partners in the provinces to
achieve our goals. We will do it in a responsible way. We will
do it with the hand of partnership and in a fiscally responsible
and prudent way so that around the world people will know that
Canadians are working together.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
frightens me when we hear the Liberals talking is that they speak
with such passion they are quite convincing. They believe that
what they say is true. It frightens me because they are able to
deceive Canadians by being so totally deceived themselves about
the facts.
I want to draw an analogy. In my youth I worked as a truck
driver on the big rigs. We did not have phones in the rigs in
those days but let us take it to modern days. Here I am, my job
is to haul some combines from Regina to Winnipeg, which
conveniently is about 600 kilometres, about 100 kilometres for
every billion dollar of debt we have. I take the truck and
phoned my boss and say I am doing fine. I tell him I am at
Indian Head, a few kilometres away, and I am doing great. He
says, “Good, what time do you think you will get to Regina?” I
say, “Well, I may not because Regina is behind me. I'm on the
road. I'm going about 20 to 30 kilometres an hour but it is
behind me.” I keep on driving all day and the boss phones
again. He says “How are you doing now?” I say, “Well I've
just crossed the border into Manitoba”. He says, “Hey, you are
supposed to go to Regina”. I tell him I will go a little
faster.
We had the Trudeau Liberals for awhile and then we had Mulroney
Conservatives and they goosed the thing up to 40 kilometres an
hour, $40 billion a year. Now we have these Liberals and just as
they are approaching Winnipeg, $600 billion, they are bragging
because they have slowed the truck down to 17 kilometres an hour.
I am sorry, now it is only going nine kilometres per hour, but
Winnipeg is just about there and Regina the destination is way
back behind in the rearview mirror. And these guys think they
have—
1355
The Speaker: I was just wondering if the hon. member was
going to get there before we get into statements. Perhaps the
hon. member would like to respond.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully
to the geography lesson by the member opposite. I heard no
question. If the member were looking forward as opposed to
backward, he would understand the important progress the
government has made in securing Canada's future.
The Speaker: I was just getting interested in that trip
myself, but it being almost two o'clock we will go to statements
by members and maybe get in a couple more statements today.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
FLEETWOOD CANADA LTD.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to rise and salute the employees of
Fleetwood in Lindsay, Ontario.
Fleetwood is the maker of the highest quality recreational
trailer products in North America. It recently celebrated its
quality above all achievement of attaining a rating of 93% for
customer satisfaction. The employees of Fleetwood in Lindsay
have proven once again that they can compete with the world and
win every time.
Congratulations to the management and staff for their tremendous
achievement and dedication to quality above all.
* * *
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Larry Takahashi was sentenced to three life sentences for
committing 14 rapes on Edmonton women. He is now serving time at
the Ferndale golf and country club for minimum security prisoners
in my riding of Dewdney—Alouette, B.C. For his punishment Mr.
Takahashi is confined to an institution that boasts a nine hole
golf course and a choice of Coke and Pepsi machines.
Is the Ferndale golf and country club too intrusive for the
balaclava rapist that he now needs leave to visit family and
friends? He raped 31 women and in 1991 he was granted leave
which was revoked due to public pressure.
The citizens of my community, of Edmonton or anywhere else in
Canada, should not have to beg the solicitor general to keep
their families safe from sexual predators. A competent and
compassionate minister would place the safety of the Canadian
public and the well-being of victims above the demands of coddled
criminals.
* * *
REMOVAL SERVICES
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, chapter 21 of the Auditor General of Canada's latest
report deals with the mismanagement of the military and the way
it conducts the $100 million plus household goods removal service
of the federal government. It is inefficient, provides poor
service and is open to corruption and conflict of interest.
This past month the Regina police laid fraud charges against a
former manager of a moving company. The 24 alleged victims
included 7 private citizens, 10 corporations, 5 provincial
government agencies and 2 RCMP moves. The competition bureau is
also investigating.
Since 1994 the average weight per government move has increased
by 14% while the military has reduced its penalties for fraud.
Why is the military restricting the ability of over 80% of the
3,000 carriers in Canada from doing moves for the federal
government? It is time to get the military out of mismanaging
government moves and to return the military to military
functions.
* * *
[Translation]
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week has
been designated Amnesty International week.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore takes pleasure in recognizing in the
House the exceptional work done by this organization and the some 8,000
volunteers who fight for rights and justice around the world.
According to Amnesty International, thousands of political
prisoners are currently been held without charge or trial in 70
countries.
In addition, cases of torture and harsh treatment may be found in at
least 120 countries. It is a good thing that the international community
can still count on organizations such as Amnesty International.
On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, I congratulate Amnesty International and wish it continued
success.
* * *
1400
[English]
THE LATE SIMONE FLAHIFF
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Mrs. Simone Flahiff, a
friend and constituent in Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
Simone was a challenging woman. She challenged all to be the
best and applied the same standard to herself. Her crafts were
legendary as was her cooking. She loved making floral
arrangements for her church, Our Lady of Peace, where she was a
founding member. The Catholic Women's League, the Liberal Party
of Canada and the Liberal Women's Commission received the benefit
of her abilities.
Simone will be greatly missed by her son Terry, family and
friends. Simone watched the daily question period and I know she
is watching us today.
Simone, my friend, thanks for your years of service to our
communities. May you rest in peace.
* * *
CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, National Co-op Week was celebrated last week from
October 12 to October 18 and International Credit Union Day was
on October 16.
As a powerful social and economic force in Canada today the
10,000 co-operative enterprises represent a unique form of
business, bringing together both capital and people to fulfil
community needs. For many people and communities the
co-operative model is vital, relevant and a financially sound
business solution. It allows members, communities and employees
to jointly establish new businesses and save existing ones.
Also as partners with the co-operative sector the government is
profoundly committed to the co-operative option as a viable way
of helping to revitalize rural Canada.
Today I ask all members to join me in commending the Canadian
men and women who have chosen co-operation as their fundamental
way of contributing to the vitality of their communities.
* * *
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in this
time of technology, science and small business we need to
recognize that today about 52% of all Canadians employed in the
private sector are in small business with fewer than 100
employees per business.
At least 85% of all new jobs created in Canada are created by
small business. Many of these businesses relate to advances in
computer and telecommunications technology. They are altering
the core products and processes at the heart of the Canadian
economy.
With the increasing competitiveness of highly skilled labour
forces dedicated to superior product design and performance,
small and medium size businesses have the advantage. It is
easier to sustain innovation and competitiveness. Indeed several
of the most prosperous and competitive economies of the world
today are based on small firms.
The government knows that the above is true. Why does it take
small business tax dollars to provide grants to big business?
* * *
WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the week of October 19 to October 25 marks YWCA Canada's second
annual Week Without Violence. For these seven days the YWCA is
challenging all Canadians to live without perpetrating,
participating in or observing violence.
This universally significant initiative should be supported year
round. A society with less violence is a desirable goal. We as
parliamentarians should take a visible role in supporting
initiatives such as this one. May our support stand as a
statement to all Canadians that any violence is unacceptable in
society.
In particular we need to encourage and teach our youth that
there are alternatives to violence. To that end I am proud to
advise that in our gallery today are students and teachers from
Waterloo-Oxford District Secondary School in Bayden, Ontario.
This high school is located in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington.
I am proud that we are able to afford these students greater
insight into the Canadian federal system.
It is my hope that these students will leave Ottawa with a new
and expanded—
* * *
[Translation]
THE URSULINES
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 1997 marks
the 300th anniversary of the arrival in Trois-Rivières of the Ursulines,
a religious order, answering a call from Providence and France to
develop New France.
As they got off the ship on the morning of October 10, 1697, with
the mission of teaching young women and looking after the disinherited,
the handicapped and the sick, it was a moment of great excitement for
the settlement of Trois-Rivières, which had been founded 63 years
earlier and which had neither school nor hospital.
1405
The people were full of hope as they welcomed the Ursulines, who
went on with generosity, self-denial and devotion to fulfil their
vocation first in Trois-Rivières and then throughout Quebec.
As the member for Trois-Rivières, I would like to express, today,
October 21, the feast day of Saint Ursula, patron saint of this
community, our deepest gratitude and our sincerest respect to the
Ursuline nuns for their exceptional contribution to the history of
Quebec.
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois' decision to force the BQ member for Drummond to pay back
corporate donations accepted during the last election campaign is, to
say the least, questionable.
How can the Bloc justify demanding that this MP pay back donations
received from corporations when the Bloc never applied the same rule to
itself? What difference do the righteous separatists from the Bloc
Quebecois make between corporate donations and the $153,048 received
from the Parti Quebecois in 1993-94?
Would they have us believe that the Bloc Quebecois is less likely
to be influenced by the PQ than by a small business in Drummondville?
The Bloc Quebecois is so obsessed with saving face in this
fundraising issue that it is losing its mind.
* * *
[English]
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to acknowledge and commend the countless volunteers
who unselfishly devote their time and energy to making their
communities a better place to live.
These volunteers ask for nothing in return. As a result of
their efforts, dedication and commitment to their communities,
their friends and their families enjoy a high quality of life
that has become the envy of the world.
I cannot stress strongly enough that these volunteers are a
sense of pride for all Canadians. I therefore take great pride
in acknowledging the following community associations in my
riding: Abbeydale, Albert Park/Radisson Heights, Applewood Park,
Calgary Marlborough, Crossroads, Dover, Erin Woods, Forest
Heights, Forest Lawn, Inglewood, Marlborough Park, Millican
Ogden, Penbrooke Meadows and Southview.
Our heartfelt thanks goes out to all these community association
volunteers. Their commitment has not gone unnoticed and is very
much appreciated.
* * *
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this week marks the struggle by Canadian women to be
recognized as legal persons in their own country. It reminds us
of one thing and that is just how much the federal government has
reduced women to the status of non-persons.
Are women persons under the law when the government will not
honour the law of pay equity? Are women persons under the law
when the government leaves women without protection from a
violent partner? Are women persons under the law when the
government terminates all women's career counselling centres? Are
women persons under the law when the government offloads
responsibility for health care on to the shoulders of women and
their families? Are women persons under the law when the
government denies women the right to a pension in their own name?
Are women persons under the law when the government has relegated
the vast majority of women to part-time, short term, on call, low
skill and low paying jobs?
No, women are not persons in the full sense of the word under
the government. Let today be a call to action to reverse this
trend to ensure women their right to live in safety, in security
and with dignity.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. Today I am
particularly delighted to note the meeting of our Prime Minister
with the President of Russia.
Meetings like this among or between leaders of the world serve
to enhance international goodwill and thereby help advance
mutually beneficial social and economic agendas which are
ultimately instruments of peace.
Today I would like to highlight the initiative of our Prime
Minister to develop a shipping route between northern Russian
ports and the port of Churchill in northern Manitoba. This is a
fine example of an initiative which is good for both countries.
Projects such as this are a considerable boost for both nations.
As Canadians we can take pride in the efforts of the Prime
Minister and the government and our partners in the private
sector. As a Manitoban I feel an added sense of pride.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I hate
to have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bloc Quebecois is facing a
rather serious and embarrassing problem.
These paragons of virtue in party financing just realized that even
a group as prestigious as theirs always runs the risk of having members
who do not follow the rules. The very people who just recently were
boasting in this House about never accepting corporate donations are now
forced to take back their outcries and their attacks.
The Bloc member for Drummond is not the only one to have accepted
corporate donations. Recently, we showed that the Bloc Quebecois had
accepted more than $10,000 in corporate donations during previous
funding drives.
And now we begin to see what lurks beneath the surface.
* * *
[English]
WAR MEDALS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
have been shocked to learn that the war medals of deceased
Canadian World War I veteran, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae,
hero and author of the enduring poem, In Flanders Fields,
will be auctioned off this Saturday in Toronto.
In Flanders Fields became the world's most popular poem of
the first world war. It is now read throughout the world every
year on Remembrance Day. Even the symbolic poppy was chosen out
of the popularity of John McCrae's poem.
As we near Remembrance Day many Canadians will be touched by the
words of John McCrae. I am afraid that this year Canadians may
not just be mourning the loss of hundreds of thousands of
Canadian war veterans but also the loss of an important piece of
our heritage.
I urge the Minister of Canadian Heritage to prevent our heritage
from being auctioned away. I ask her to assure the House that
she will obtain these medals for the dignity of our veterans who
fought for this country and for the memory of our Canadian hero
John McCrae and place them in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
* * *
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a
colleague from the other side used his time to lament the
situation of small and medium size businesses in Canada, but in
fact Canadian businesses are working in an excellent climate and
are prospering.
As my colleagues know a recent report by a management consulting
group extolled the virtues of Canada as a place to do business.
It said that on the basis of cost Canada is the number one
location for manufacturing. As well, it noted that Canadians
cities are shown to be more cost competitive than their U.S. and
European counterparts.
The theme of this year's Small Business Week organized by the
Business Development Bank is “Powering Growth, Building
Success”.
This week, October 19 to October 25, gives an opportunity to
celebrate small businesses in Canada and to acknowledge that
Canada is not only the best place in the world to live. It is
also one of the best places to do business.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, today I had the opportunity once again to introduce a
bill in the House to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Section 745 gives the opportunity to convicted killers, both
first degree murder and second degree murder, to apply to have
their parole ineligibility reduced after serving only 15 years in
prison.
It is outrageous that our criminal justice system should allow
itself to be made a mockery of by section 745 of the code.
In its wisdom the last parliament passed a bill at second
reading to repeal section 745. Regrettably the government
dominated justice committee killed the bill at committee.
I urge all members of Parliament to expedite the passage of the
bill to instil a bit of justice in our justice system.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal finance minister can talk for hours about
how to spend taxpayers' money but he gets choked up when it comes
to the subject of tax relief.
Yesterday under questioning he grudgingly acknowledged that he is
going to reduce taxes for Canadians. I know it hurt him to say
it.
1415
My question for the finance minister is simple. When will he
lower taxes? By how much will he lower taxes? For whom will he
lower taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): As to the
answer when, Mr. Speaker, we did it in the last budget. As to
the amount, we did it by $2 billion over three years. And as for
whom, we did it for the physically disabled, we did it for
students and we did it for poor families with children.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister professes to lie awake nights
worrying about the vulnerable in our society, yet he wrings
almost $2 billion a year from people who make less than $15,000 a
year. These are seniors on fixed incomes, these are single
parents, these are young people with their first jobs, the most
vulnerable among us.
When will the minister's enlightened social conscience move him
to give tax relief to these low income families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I was implying to lay awake at night, I would be
worrying about the fact that the Reform Party will take $3.5
billion out of health care. I would be lying awake at night
worrying about the Reform Party which has cut $3 billion out of
old age pensions. If I was going to lie awake at night, I would
be worried about the Reform Party that is going to gut
equalization in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Fortunately, I sleep
well because they will never take power.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister misrepresents Reform's position day
after day in this House. Why does he do it? Because he is
ashamed of his own policies.
The average working family in Canada today now pays more in
taxes than they do for food, for clothing and for shelter
combined. The minister professes his great concern for the
average and low income families. When will he demonstrate that
concern by taking his tax-stained hands out of the pockets of
those people?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party talks about
misrepresentation.
In fresh start he said he would cut the CHST by $3.5 billion.
Fresh start is their program. In their second taxpayers' budget,
they said they would cut equalization by $3 billion. In their
first taxpayers' budget, they said they would cut old age
pensions by $3 billion. There is only one level of
misrepresentation and it is the Reform Party that refused to tell
the truth about what it really stands for.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister is absolutely addicted to taxes. Here is his
record. The highest personal income taxes in the G-7. Bracket
creep sucking $3.2 billion from low income Canadians, almost $2
billion coming from Canadians earning less than $15,000 a year.
When is he going to reach bottom? When is he going to get the
monkey off his back? When is he going to realize that his higher
power is not Revenue Canada? When is he going to say “My name
is Paul and I am a taxoholic”?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is going to take more than a week's break before the
hon. member can come up with a decent line.
Let us take a look. The Reform Party's position is that they
will not cut taxes until the deficit is eliminated. The deficit
has not been eliminated. We have already begun to reduce taxes,
$2 billion over three years.
The issue is, why have we begun to cut taxes?
The Reform Party refuses to do it until the deficit is
eliminated. Who is addicted to taxes? It is the Reform Party.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
under this government, taxes have gone up $8 billion since it
came into power. That is taxes, not revenue growth.
Last week someone in my office spoke with a lady who earns
$16,000 a year. Alice called us because she had to take out a
mortgage on her trailer to pay the $740 income tax bill she gets
from Mr. Compassion here across the aisle. She keeps her heat at
60 degrees to hold her fuel bill down.
Instead of the usual hot air from the minister, when is he going
to give tax relief to Canadians like Alice so that they can keep
their own homes warm?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what will happen to Alice when her old age pension is
cut by the Reform Party? What will happen to Alice if she lives
in Manitoba or Saskatchewan and those provinces that have to cut
essential services because they have cut equalization. What is
going to happen to Alice when she cannot get into a hospital
because of a further $3.5 million cut by the Reform Party?
The real issue is, why is Reform trying to pass a tax cut for
the rich off on gutting the social programs for the poor?
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested that
the French government would have reservations about the proposed
agreement between the Government of Quebec and the Government of
France regarding the collection of support payments.
Can the minister tell us, word for word, the objections of the
French government and indicate his sources?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on July 29, 1997, the French government supplied the
Government of Canada with a draft text and sought its opinion.
The French government will speak for itself, but we are well
aware that it wants to remain friends with the Government of Quebec
and the Government of Canada. It does not want to become involved
in our internal disputes.
The best thing the Government of Quebec can do is to act in
good faith with the Government of Canada to bring about this
agreement, which will be very good for the people of Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister said: “The French government will speak for
itself”. It does not need the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs to speak for it.
I spoke today with His Excellency Loïc Hennekinne, France's
ambassador to Ottawa, who confirmed that the French government had
never objected to an agreement between Paris and Quebec City, this
agreement having been submitted to Ottawa, as is customary.
Why, therefore, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
altering reality and attributing remarks to France that it did not
make?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only repeat what I said. The French government has
no intention of becoming mixed up in our internal disputes.
It is up to us to reach agreement. This agreement would be
good for Quebeckers. It is easily accomplished if the Government
of Quebec would agree to sit down with Canada's Minister of Foreign
Affairs. There is no need to play politics.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has his own
interpretation of what a normal approval procedure is and says,
without any grounds, that France is rejecting the wording chosen.
Does the minister not realize that, in diplomacy, it is not
acceptable to impute intentions to a foreign government solely for
partisan purposes?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again this is an agreement made under the
Canada-France agreement, one which has operative force and
involves criminal matters, and one which must of course be made
within the Canada-France framework. This is very feasible. All
we have to do is work together with the Government of Quebec, and
not get the French involved in our affairs.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
next question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs accept his colleague's
putting words willy nilly in the mouth of the French government,
and what does he plan to do to remedy the blunder of his colleague,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is quite normal when there is an agreement
between two countries for one of the countries to inform the
other when there is a proposed agreement. We have an agreement
with France under which provinces can submit subtext. We
encourage them to do so. However when that subtext carries
certain statements in it that it takes on to itself the right of
sovereignty, we cannot accept that.
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, right
across this country, university students, faculty members and
administrators are telling the finance minister that
post-secondary education is in trouble and that he is making a
serious mistake by cutting another $550 million out of education
this year. No wonder we have skyrocketing tuitions, massive
student debt and a serious brain drain.
Will the finance minister admit to his mistake and commit today
to fix it? Will he establish accessibility as a national
standard in education?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is as per a meeting yesterday, right across the
country university students and professors, those who are funding
universities, those who teach in the universities and administer
the universities are congratulating the government for the Canada
Foundation for Innovation. They are congratulating the Prime
Minister for his announcement on the millennium fund.
The fact is that what the universities have said is that this
government is responding to their needs and the needs of young
Canadians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
heard of selective hearing but that beats all.
The minister knows perfectly well that his scholarship fund will
not even start for three years and when it does, less than 10% of
students who need help will get it.
Yesterday we learned that the minister had miscalculated, that
he had made cuts he did not need to make to balance his books.
Good education is the key to good jobs in this country. Will the
minister cease the rhetoric, put his money where his mouth is and
restore education funds recklessly slashed at the expense of
Canada's students?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member would like to take a look at the 1997
budget, what she would see is that the government elevated
registered education savings plans to a new level. In fact they
have taken off so that parents can save for their children. We
have brought in tax credits and allowed students to transfer them
to other people so that they can pay for their education. We
brought in a new measure to enable students to postpone their
student indebtedness. This year we brought in the Canada
Foundation for Innovation and the millennium fund for
scholarships.
Over the last two years this government has done more for higher
education than any government in this country.
* * *
SOMALIA INQUIRY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister visited with President Boris and
today I want to ask a question about Ambassador Bob, Ambassador
Bob being of course Bob Fowler, Canada's ambassador to the United
Nations.
Our ambassador to the world has now stated that he cannot give
or will not give interviews about the Somalia affair, even though
there are contradictions in his version, because he is a public
servant. I would like to get assurances from the government that
he will be allowed to give interviews and if not, I would like to
know why not.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think Ambassador Fowler is in a position to make
those decisions based on his position as a public servant. If
there is any kind of forum in which he is requested to appear he
has also said that he is prepared to do that. That is following
the normal procedure.
1430
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out to the government that there is a
difference between Ambassador Bob's being interviewed on current
policy questions and as a principal figure in the Somalia story.
Perhaps it is time to recall Ambassador Fowler until the cloud
is removed. When will this government allow Bob Fowler to
participate in interviews with the media on the Somalia affair?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I just explained that if there was a forum in which
the presence of Ambassador Fowler was requested, in the past he
has clearly indicated he would be prepared to attend.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
how much do you have to give to the Liberal Party to get a CIDA
contract? It seems the more you give, the more you get.
Geratec Incorporated of Quebec, a group of companies directed by
former Liberal cabinet minister Marc Lalonde, has donated a
whopping $80,000 to the Liberals over the past two years. The
payoff is $80 million in CIDA contracts, not a bad return on your
dollar.
Was Pierre Corbeil just a Liberal bagman or was he the
government's ethics adviser as well?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's attempt to link fund-raising
activities which have not been found in any way to be improper
with a matter before the courts is totally unwarranted. She is
again abusing the privileges and structure of this House. It is
just another example of what I said yesterday about everything
she says. It is just more Reform rubbish.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister talks about rubbish. Let us look at a little of
this rubbish, shall we?
Companies that get CIDA contracts are 70 times more likely to
have donated money to the Liberals than other companies.
Rubbish? It was the minister's own personal friend Marc Lalonde
who stick handled this deal right through the goal. Is that
rubbish? I do not think so.
If political donations have absolutely nothing to do with
government grants, let the minister tell us why the Liberals get
70% of the contracts for CIDA. Is it just a heck of a
coincidence or is it rubbish?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member in turn whether it is just a
coincidence that this evening in Toronto in a luxury hotel there
will be a Reform Party fund-raising dinner, with the Leader of
the Opposition as the guest of honour, and all they are charging
is $2,000 per table.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everybody in
Quebec yesterday heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say on
CBC television that the French government had alerted his government to
the fact that the vocabulary of the negotiations implied that Quebec was
sovereign, which put the French in some discomfort. That is what the
minister said.
1435
How could the minister say such a thing? What did he base this
statement on?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly the French government is embarrassed each time the Quebec
government tries to push it into the middle of our internal
disagreements. It does not want to get involved, it has no intention of
doing so.
The agreement must be in harmony with the France-Canada accord. If
it is part of this agreement, and this is not difficult to do,
Quebeckers could benefit from it, which would be a good thing.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs appear on CBC television and say
such a thing, when no one told him that and the French embassy
officially contradicted the minister? How could he say such a thing on
CBC television?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think pretty well everyone knows that the French government is
embarrassed each time the Government of Quebec tries to get it involved
in the matter of Canadian unity.
I think French government policy is one of non-interference and
non-indifference. The policy must therefore be respected, and things
would go much better for the signing of an agreement such as the one we
are talking about at the moment.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the environment minister said in the House:
“Addressing climate change will incur costs for all Canadians”.
The signing of this deal is less than two months away yet the
minister refuses to give us any details.
As the minister has already told us that this agreement is going
to cost Canadians, will the minister now tell us is the cost
going to be 10 cents, 20 cents or 30 cents per litre?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I tried to make it clear yesterday that
dealing with the issue of climate change will incur costs. It
will incur costs for all Canadians to take action. It will incur
costs if we do not take action.
With regard to any specific measures taken to address climate
change, we will negotiate fully with our provincial counterparts.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is ridiculous. We are less than two months away from this
country's signing an agreement will affect each of us. We do not
know how deep the taxman is going into our pockets and for what
reason.
This is not only dumb politics, this is a slap in the face for
each Canadian. The minister said the provinces had to be on
side. Clearly they have to be on side.
Will the minister assure us that she will not sign any deal in
Kyoto until all the provinces are on side?.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a member of an international
community and it is committed to signing on to medium term
legally binding targets in Kyoto.
In order to achieve any targets it is going to require a
committed response on the part of all Canadians, every agency and
every province. The federal government will be negotiating with
our provincial counterparts, among others, to work with them to
put in place appropriate measures.
* * *
[Translation]
DEFICIT REDUCTION
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the Minister of Finance has some leeway now, it is because people
have paid for it. The unemployed have been singled out and have so
far contributed $19 billion through unemployment insurance cuts.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that he is
well ahead of his forecasts, does he not think it would be fair and
reasonable to give a little something back to those who, for two
years now, have done more than their share to eliminate the
deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is precisely what we have done. That is why the Prime
Minister announced in May that we intended to return $6 billion in
social transfer payments to the provinces. That is why the
Minister of Human Resources Development announced not just an
initial contribution of $850 million for the child tax benefit, but
a second contribution of the same size.
1440
When you look at the things we have done, such as extending
the infrastructure program to create jobs in Quebec and in the rest
of Canada, it is very clear that the federal government is using
its leeway for the very purpose of helping the most disadvantaged
and creating jobs.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is really unbelievable. Twice now, since he spoke in Vancouver,
I have heard the minister spout this nonsense. He is pulling the
wool over the public's eyes. He is adding $6 billion over five
years. He is cutting $6 billion annually, until 2003. His
government will have taken $42 billion out of the mouths of the
most disadvantaged by 2003. What are $6 billion worth compared to
the $42 billion in cuts now taking place?
I question the intellectual integrity of this minister.
The Speaker: No question, no answer. That's it.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Last week an infant died in his mother's arms, having been
strangled and then run over by a criminal who had been ordered
deported in 1994.
Since the minister has abandoned her $250 million enforcement
system to track illegal and criminal refugees, when are we going
to see a plan of action to solve this very serious problem?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have completely reviewed our deportation policy
here in Canada and decided to focus on criminals. To this end, we have
indeed put together a plan of action. We even introduced in this House
legislative amendments, which the Reform Party opposed.
This having been said, it is quite clear that the process should be
improved and agreements signed with the various countries to expedite
the deportation process.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, innocent Canadians are being killed, raped, robbed
by a growing number of illegal immigrants. The minister has done
nothing for these grieving families but give a cruel bureaucratic
excuse.
Again, when will we see a plan of action that will start to
solve this very serious problem?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always very dangerous to pass general, blanket
judgements on any given group of people. The fact that some individuals
abused our system or illegally entered Canada does not entitle us to
condemn the immigration system as a whole. We must be wary of creating
myths regarding immigration in Canada.
This having been said, it is quite clear that we do have a plan of
action to deport criminals.
* * *
DEFICIT REDUCTION
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister is dipping freely into the employment insurance fund
to erase his deficit. However, he justifies the high contributions and
reduced benefits by saying he wants to create a reserve for bad times.
So far, the minister has taken about $12 billion out of the employment
insurance fund.
How far will the minister go before he stops reducing his deficit
on the backs of workers and employers and the unemployed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is well aware that, when we took office, employment insurance
contributions had been increasing for three years. Since we took over,
contributions have been lowered. The Minister of Human Resources
Development and I have announced that contributions would drop to $2.80
in November. And we will continue to lower them every year. But one has
to look at all of the government's financial statements.
* * *
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
1445
As this is national small business week, could the minister
explain what his department is doing to reduce the burden of
reporting requirements on Canada's small business?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his
question concerning small business. Small business is very
important for growth in the Canadian economy. Small business is
creating jobs.
Yesterday I introduced the business number registration work
station which will help small business to ensure that we
streamline and reduce duplication.
We also introduced quarterly payroll deductions. Instead of
monthly they will be quarterly. This will help reduce paperwork,
overlap and duplication.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, can
the solicitor general please explain to this House how Larry
Takahashi, who committed 30 rapes and is serving three life
terms, could possibly be released? What kind of a parole system
is he running?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is important to remind the hon. member that the
solicitor general is not running the parole system. The national
parole system is running itself. It is motivated by public
interest, the interest of public safety.
Notwithstanding the fact that the member may not be interested,
all evidence is that those people who are cascaded out of the
system are less likely to reoffend.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
is no doubt that this parole board and this parole system fall
under the portfolio of the solicitor general. He is responsible
for what happens.
I wonder if he would be willing to take the next Takahashi into
the guest room in his home.
Enough of this nonsense. When is he going to start being
accountable to the citizens of this country and stop releasing
these kinds of individuals?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, five months ago 52,000 people in Fredericton re-elected
me. I am accountable to them. I am accountable for the National
Parole Board. It is operating in the interests of public safety.
The people who are released through the system are less likely
to reoffend. It is in the interest of public safety.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
As the minister knows, the upcoming APEC people's summit is
seeking federal funds to bring in speakers from APEC countries on
issues of human rights, labour standards and the environment in
APEC countries.
Why is the minister violating CIDA's own policies and refusing
federal funds to assist these speakers while spending millions of
dollars on security for leaders like Suharto and Li Peng who
brutally repress their people? Why the double standard?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is once again mistaken. The federal
government has provided a grant of $200,000 to the people's
summit.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows that not a penny of that money is
going to support speakers from APEC countries.
Last week the Canadian Council for International Co-operation
condemned Canada's deep cuts in overseas development aid which
have dropped us from fifth to eleventh place in the OECD.
Will the minister put an end to these shameful cuts and will he
cancel the 8% cut, the $150 million cut, that is planned for next
April in Canada's overseas development aid?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that we had to make some cuts to
ODA because of the serious financial situation which this country
was facing.
However, last week the Minister of Finance announced to us all
that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
I am very hopeful that when we do arrive at a time when we have a
surplus, we will return to previous levels of funding. The Prime
Minister has said that we will move toward .7% of our gross
domestic product when the financial situation allows.
* * *
1450
[Translation]
SOMALIA
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
return to the Somalia affair.
Last week, one of the commissioners released a book in which
he alleges that the then deputy minister, now the Canadian
ambassador to the United Nations, did not tell the whole truth
about his activities in the Somalia affair.
I would like to know why the government does not allow the
ambassador, as he is now, to give interviews, at least to the
media, on this matter. Why is he hiding behind his title in order
to avoid setting the Canadian public straight?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fowler did give a very extensive
interview to Mr. Desbarats and he incorporated that into his
book.
Also, as Mr. Fowler had indicated, he was quite prepared to
appear before the Somalia inquiry. Again, he is anxious to tell
his story as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Fowler said he was not ready to testify. It seems
to me that Canadians should have faith in their public servants
and I am sure this House agrees.
When will the former deputy minister of defence who is now
representing Canada's interest to the world at the United Nations
in New York have a chance to restore Canadians' faith and tell
his story?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make clear to the House that Mr.
Fowler, as our ambassador to the United Nations, is acquitting
himself in an exemplary manner and giving great distinction to
the representation of Canada in that world forum.
As we said before, Mr. Fowler is quite prepared to attend any
forum to which he is invited. He has so indicated in the past,
contrary to what the hon. member has said.
* * *
PROJECT 2000
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the President of the Treasury Board concerning the
progress of the year 2000 project. The auditor general says that
if progress continues at the current rate, a failure of critical
systems could affect public health, safety and essential
services.
What is the minister doing to ensure that the year 2000 project
is completed on time so that essential services for the public
are protected?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general is quite right to indicate the seriousness of
this problem because both private industry and the public sector
have been dealing with it.
In terms of the public sector, we have a Treasury Board project
2000 that is at present assessing the various systems and is
helping the departments to put into place the measures necessary
to be able to meet that deadline.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is obvious that the public takes considerably more pride in
its own history than this government does.
A local radio station has raised $25,000 for the purchase of
Colonel McCrae's medals. However the government refuses to lift
a finger.
What specific steps is the government prepared to take to ensure
that the medals end up where they should be, in a Canadian
museum?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant-Colonel McCrae has
given a great deal to Canada and the world. Canadians are very
proud of him.
Members should know that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and
her officials have been in touch with the family of
Lieutenant-Colonel McCrae who are now looking to ensure
themselves that those medals are authentic. There is some
question about the authenticity.
Once that is done, we will work with the family to do everything
in our power to make sure those medals stay in Canada, as soon as
we know that they are authentic.
* * *
[Translation]
CLOSURE OF BC MINE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In ten days, the BC mine in Black Lake will be closing down
and putting 300 people out of work, most of them over the age of
50, in a region that is already devastated by unemployment. There
is no future for these workers, who have little chance of finding
other work.
1455
Can the minister tell us what active measures are being
contemplated to return these people to the work force, and also
what answer he could give to the appeal they have made to the
minister, these 300 workers who—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development now has the floor.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the hon.
member's question, because this is situation is of considerable
interest and concern to us.
We are monitoring this situation very closely, because the
region in general is going through a very difficult time at
present. My assistant deputy minister in Montreal has met with
representatives of the miners who have been laid off, and we have
begun to look at very concrete situations and active policies to
try to help them, including training, and to assist them in getting
what they need to return to the work force.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The medical examiner's office in Manitoba is investigating the
possibility that a delay in landing at Thompson airport may have
contributed to the death of a three-year old boy from Shamattawa.
The delay resulted from repairs to the instrument landing system.
It had not been operational for one month. NavCanada is
responsible for those repairs.
Can the minister explain why it would take one month to make
repairs to Manitoba's second busiest airport in a city where the
hospital provides health services to some 30,000 northerners?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, safety is the top priority of Transport Canada. This
is a very unfortunate incident and our officials are looking into
it to see what caused the delay and to make sure that this does
not happen again.
* * *
CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in his economic statement last week the finance minister said the
government has cut up its credit cards and called this
responsible financial management. In rural New Brunswick we call it
potato fertilizer.
Recently the auditor general said the use of credit cards has
increased tenfold. The government does not know how many cards
have been lost or stolen and in three months it ran up an $80,000
bill for late payment charges because the Liberal government
could not pay its credit card bills on time.
Is this what the minister of public works calls responsible
financial management?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general has looked at this matter and has indicated
that no significant amount of waste has been recorded or found by
his study. Notwithstanding this, we have had discussions with
the auditor general and we have put into place the necessary
measures to ensure that in the future waste is minimized.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of International Trade.
The Latin American countries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and
Paraguay are experiencing unprecedented growth. What is the
minister doing to assist Canadian business to take advantage of
this economic boom in Latin America?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very interested in further
developing a rapport on trade with Latin America. Our business
community is very bullish about the prospects in Latin America.
During the visit of the president of Brazil last year he and the
prime minister talked about fashioning a new relationship between
Canada and Mercosur. As a result of that discussion both
Mercosur countries and Canada have exchanged papers to define
what that relationship might be. There is also a meeting
scheduled for the end of October.
While the members opposite shout cat-calls we are responsible
for creating more jobs, more opportunities and more—
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Justice.
Sex offender Gordon Mathieson walked out of court without
getting any jail time. He received what is called a conditional
sentence. It is so bad now that judges are giving no jail time
for drug trafficking, sexual assault and armed robbery, all
because this minister and her predecessor gave a soft on crime
message to the courts.
Will the minister fix the mistake so this new conditional
sentence category can only be used for non-violent crimes?
1500
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think my predecessor made it
plain, as I have, that those conditional sentencing provisions
were not to apply to serious violent offences.
We then amended the legislation to ensure that the courts are
instructed to take into account the sentencing principles of
deterrence and denunciation. There have been some lower court
decisions that have caused me concern as Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada.
Those cases are presently before appeal courts and we are
awaiting the outcome.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Carlos Ronderos,
Minister of Foreign Trade of the Republic of Colombia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
AMENDING LEGISLATION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege.
I have in my possession a copy of a memorandum dated Wednesday,
October 1, 1997 from the acting deputy principal clerk,
committees and legislative services, addressed to procedural
clerks in committees and legislative services directorate
regarding the drafting of amendments to bills.
This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this question
of privilege since this memorandum was brought to my attention,
and the implications of it became clear.
Citation 116 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Should a question of privilege be based on published material,
the article in question must be submitted and read at the Table.
1505
I have a copy of this memorandum for the Speaker. Does he want
the article read at the table now?
The Speaker: I would like the article brought to me.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: This internal
memorandum addressed to the procedural clerks in the legislative
services directorate indicates a number of important changes that
have been made to the level and the quality of the independent
legal services available to members. These changes have been
made without the full knowledge of the members of Parliament,
without MPs having a full understanding of the consequences of
these changes and without debate and approval of members of this
House as a whole.
As I understand the memorandum, the changes include four things:
relegating legislative counsel to drafting only private members'
bills; delegating procedural clerks to draft amendments to
government bills, a function that used to be performed by
legislative counsel; prohibiting legislative counsel from
providing legal advice to members in relation to government bills
or amendments to government bills either in private or in
committee; restricting the drafting of members' amendments of
government bills to compatible language as opposed to credible,
legally binding amendments drafted by legislative counsel, a
service to which we were accustomed in the previous
Parliament.
The initiation of these changes interferes with my ability to do
my job as a member of Parliament and as such constitutes a breach
of my rights and privileges. It strikes to the very heart of
what we do as MPs in this House.
I point this out not as a hypothetical case because according to
that memorandum a pilot project has been initiated. Over the
last couple of years the independent legal services available to
me through legislative counsel have been constantly eroded by
administrative decree. I have not been given an opportunity to
debate this issue or vote on the changes imposed on me by the
House of Commons administration over which you, Mr. Speaker,
preside.
Further to this, Beauchesne's citation 33 states:
The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to
establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A
few rules are laid down in the Constitution Act, but the vast
majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to,
amended, or repealed at the discretion of the House.
When changes in the ability of independent legal services are
made unilaterally by an administrative directive rather than with
the full understanding and approval of this House it violates the
privileges of this House and every member who sits in this House.
It ought to be of concern to each one of us.
I quote citation 114(2) of Beauchesne's:
A complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion
providing the House with an opportunity to take some action.
1510
Therefore I would like to make the following motion.
The Speaker: My colleague, if I understand correctly,
this has to do with the drafting of bills, the drafting of
amendments to bills, the legal counsel.
I know you are aware that two other members of the House have
raised this matter, perhaps in another way. I am going to be
rendering a judgment on Thursday morning on an issue from the
member for Sarnia—Lambton which I believe touches precisely on
your point of privilege.
As to this specific point I would judge once again that this
would seem, as in my other decision, an administrative matter. It
is one which I can tell the hon. member is being addressed at
this time by the Board of Internal Economy.
I do not want the member to put the motion just now. If other
members have information to bring to bear on this I will listen
to it. But at least at this point it would seem to be an
administrative matter.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly the
same point that was raised previously with regard to restricting
the ability of lawyers in legislative counsel to work on private
members' bills and so on.
My question relates more to how to change the legal and
legislative services available to members. I believe that
decision involves process. I am concerned about the process. I
am not allowed any input as a private member. It is being done
by political parties through the Board of Internal Economy and so
on. It is not being debated in this House.
I am not being allowed as a member of Parliament to have my
direct input.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I do have information that is new and relevant to this specific
issue.
The member for Yorkton—Melville made references to the rules
and practices of this House being changed without input of
members of this House. This is a very serious charge.
I appreciate that the administration of the House has authority
to make certain decisions and changes on behalf of members.
However, if we consider that the legislative services offered to
members are an established and vital practice of this House, then
it is clear that the administration went beyond the powers
conferred on it by the House when it made changes to that
practice.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 2 states:
Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons is derived from many
sources—the Constitution Act—statute, written rules and
tradition.
These traditions are part of what formulate our rules and
practices. Until the administration receives new direction from
this House it cannot change those practices. Any attempt to do
so is an infringement on the privileges of the members of this
House.
On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker ruled on a
matter relating to committees:
While it is a tradition of this House that committees are
masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish
procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the
House.
1515
Considering that no other body except this House can change its
rules or proceed beyond its established practices, the changes
brought to your attention by the member for Yorkton—Melville are
a breach of our traditions and therefore our privileges. I refer
you to Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,
page 192:
Each House also claims the right to punish actions which are
offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience
to its legitimate commands—
Making changes to the rules of the House without its authority
is a form of disobedience to its legitimate command. This is a
very serious matter and I believe we should resolve it
immediately. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
information my hon. colleague has brought up is in further
addition to the previous questions of privilege brought up on the
matter of legislative counsel in this House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I only want to comment briefly.
The issues referred to by the House leader for the official
opposition refer to proceedings of the committee and what a
committee is able to do in terms of its authority to ask for
witnesses, its authority to exceed the powers of the House and so
on. We are not discussing an issue like this today.
The issue brought to our attention has to do with officials of
the House under our command, the command of the Board of Internal
Economy through you as its chair, Mr. Speaker, and whether they
exceeded any authority vested in them by all of us, particularly
in an era where we asked officials to reduce budgets and so on.
Be that as it may, later this afternoon—I am told it is at 5.15
p.m.—the committee of the Board of Internal Economy, you, Mr.
Speaker as our chairman and all of us sitting on the board have
mandated to review the precise issue of legislative services and
what services are afforded to members. We will be dealing with
precisely the services in question.
I suggest that the information brought to the attention of the
table and the Chair be handed to that committee. It could assist
the committee in its deliberations. The committee could then
recommend to the Board of Internal Economy an appropriate course
of action in terms of the restoration of services which may or
may not be deficient as alleged by the hon. member in the
question of privilege raised a moment ago.
I am sure that the committee and the mandate we gave to the
committee at the board was to act expeditiously. Therefore, I
can only conclude that the board as a whole would be seized of
this very rapidly. Then it will be up to us as representatives
of all political parties in the House at the board level to take
the course of action which is warranted.
The Speaker: As always my colleagues, questions of
privilege are taken very seriously by your Speaker. I think what
the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is seeking here is redress,
something that will satisfy his quest for whatever kind of
information or advice he and other members need, because he is
speaking on behalf of the board.
I would like to thank him for bringing up the point. I would
like to thank the hon. House leader of the Reform Party and the
government House leader.
In view of the fact that I believe a committee will be seized
with that this afternoon, I am going to rule at this point that I
am going to hold a decision in abeyance so that I can ascertain
and I can get more information as to what suggestions if any the
committee is going to make.
If the suggestions in my view do not go far enough to deal with
this grievance, then I will come back to the House and I will
reopen this question of privilege. I do not want to rule on it
right now. I will have another look at it at that time.
I want to hold this in abeyance until this committee which was
struck by the Board of Internal Economy has a chance to meet to
see if the procedures which were discussed will indeed be acted
upon. I want to let this sit at this point for now.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, do I have to put the motion?
The Speaker: No, you do not put the motion now. We will
hold that in abeyance.
The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. Is this
another point of privilege?
1520
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is on this point that I want to relay some
information to the House with respect to this issue which may
help the deliberations in solving this problem.
I want to point out to the member for Yorkton—Melville that his
colleague, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has been
reported on Saskatchewan's CBC provincial radio as saying that he
has a lot of leftover budget and that he calls other members of
Parliament who require more budget to staff their offices to meet
the increased workload inefficient. Perhaps the member for
Yorkton—Melville could go to his Reform colleague for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands and ask for some of his money he has left over.
The Speaker: I am going to hold this point of privilege
in abeyance at this time because we are going to get into debate
here and we do not need to.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—UNEMPLOYMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this debate on the motion put forward by the New
Democratic Party.
I would, first of all, like to point out that my party supports
this motion, because it believes in it fundamentally. The motion, I
would recall, condemns the government's budgetary measures, draconian
cuts and its lack of concern regarding the vital issues of job creation
and individual suffering.
It also condemns the government's obsession with inflation, which
results in high unemployment.
The Minister of Finance's budget measures have been fruitful, as we
saw last week in Vancouver. The deficit for the past fiscal year will be
about $9 billion.
I would, however, add something to this estimate. I would recall
that, last February, when the Bloc Quebecois expressed the possibility
that the deficit in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 would not be
higher than $10 billion, the Minister of Finance said that we did not
know what we were talking about, because he was then speaking of a $19
billion deficit. That was eight months ago.
He was still talking about a $19 billion deficit for the last
fiscal year, so when we pointed to a deficit of some $10 billion and
accused him of not being totally honest with the public, he said we were
incompetent. Eight months later, he acknowledges the Bloc Quebecois was
right in its estimates, because he himself announced that the deficit
would be somewhere around $8.9 billion.
Unless one is a total incompetent, it is impossible to err in
predictions by 53% in eight months. It is impossible. Today I reminded
the Minister of Finance of what I told him last week in Vancouver: that
he was not intellectually honest, that it was dishonest of him to
present incorrect figures on the deficit, as he has done since becoming
Minister of Finance.
His predictions were terrible, way out of line. Again on Sunday
evening, I was with the president of the forecasting firm Informetrica.
We discussed the Department of Finance's estimating methods and realized
that, however we looked at the February figures, trying to make
adjustments between revenues and expenditures, that is, tax revenues and
expenditures, there was no way the Minister of Finance could maintain in
February his forecast deficit of $19 billion. Everything pointed to a
deficit of between $10 and $12 billion.
1525
The minister withheld information from the public to avoid any
debate on the drastic cuts he imposed on the provinces for social
programs, employment insurance and other initiatives that directly
affect Quebeckers and Canadians.
With respect to these cuts, the minister showed a total lack of
compassion since tabling his very first budget, but particularly since
his 1996 budget. Where did our dear Minister of Finance take the money
to achieve such results? He took it out of the pockets of the poor. He
got the money by slashing social programs, by cutting $6 billion per
year from programs designed to help the poor.
By the year 2003, federal transfers to fund social assistance programs
administered by the provinces, to fund higher education, which is also
administered by the provinces and which is a field under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, and to fund health will have undergone
cumulative cuts of $42 billion by the Minister of Finance. These are the
minister's own figures.
If we look at his 1996 budget and planned cuts until the year 2003,
we see that, for the fiscal year that just ended, the minister cut $4.6
billion. In 1997-98, which is the current fiscal year, cuts will reach
$10.9 billion and will affect provincially administered programs in the
social assistance, higher education and health sectors. In 1998-99, cuts
will total $17.2 billion, then $23.5 billion in 1999, and so on, for a
cumulative total of $42 billion.
So when the Minister of Finance tells us that his government
announced it would invest $6 billion in social and health programs
over the next five years, this has nothing to do with the $42
billion it will cut and will continue to cut until 2003. It does
not present an accurate picture to the public of what this
government is really doing to help the most disadvantaged.
Last week, the Minister of Finance announced that several
hundreds of millions of dollars would be earmarked annually to help
the poorest members of society, to revitalize the health sector, to
provide scholarships for students. This assistance is a sham. It
shows a lack of intellectual honesty to give this impression, when
there are going to be $42 billion in cuts in the very sectors they
are claiming to want to focus on in order to help the most
disadvantaged, the ill, and students.
Cuts in social transfers to the provinces represent 53% of the
federal government's spending cuts. It is not the government, but
the provinces, that have done the work. The proof is that for
every $1 cut in health care in Quebec, 93 cents was because of the
decision by the federal Minister of Finance to cut Quebec's health
transfers. Ninety-three cents on every dollar.
As for social assistance and post-secondary education, every
time Quebec cut a dollar in these sectors, 73 cents was because of
cuts by the federal Minister of Finance. So we are not talking
about peanuts. This year, for the first time, Quebec would have
balanced its budget, had it not been for the drastic cuts by the
Minister of Finance.
It is all very well to tell us about the Minister of Finance's
wonderful ability to manage, but any old biped of average
intelligence would have done exactly the same thing. It is easy to
steal from your neighbour and say that you came by our money
honestly. That is what the Minister of Finance has done. He has
had others do the work. He has also had the unemployed workers of
Quebec and of Canada do some of the work. For the past three
years, he has asked them to contribute almost $20 billion to help
reduce his deficit. How did he do this? By keeping premiums
abnormally high, by generating surpluses that will reach $13
billion this year.
1530
So, we went from a $6 billion deficit in the UI fund in 1993 to $13
billion in accumulated surpluses this year. The calculation is simple:
the $6 billion deficit was eliminated by imposing very high employer and
employee premium rates and by making the employment insurance plan
stricter. Add $13 billion to that and there are the $19 billion that did
not go to the unemployed these past three and a half years.
That is $19 billion taken away from the unemployed, that should
have been used, partly at least, to pay benefits to the unemployed to
help them get back to work. But it was not. This amount could also have
been used to create jobs. Again, it was not. Job creation is not
important to this government.
If it was important, we would not have 1.5 million unemployed workers in
this country. If it was important, the employment insurance premium
rates would not be maintained at an artificially high level, as they
currently are; premiums rates, which are payroll taxes, would be
lowered.
High premium rates slow sustainable and meaningful job creation.
Now that the public finances are in better shape and that he has the
most vulnerable taxpayers to thank for that, what is the Minister of
Finance waiting for to correct the situation, by admitting his mistake
and his responsibility in the deteriorating poverty situation?
Again, we must not think that billions of dollars, $42 billion by
the year 2003, can be cut without serious harm being caused to the
people of Quebec and Canada and without this being reflected somewhere
in the statistics on poverty.
It already is.
There is reference to child poverty. The incidence of child
poverty was 14.5% in 1989. The percentage of children living in
families below the poverty line was 14.5. At the present time, the
figure is 20.5%, a rise of 4.5%, and this is connected to the
Minister of Finance's policies, the Minister of Finance's drastic
cuts to social programs. That is the only explanation there is.
When we look at unemployment, the minister is boasting of
fantastic surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund, which he is
putting toward reduction of the deficit, when we look at the
restrictions which have helped accumulate the unemployment
insurance fund surplus, the restrictions to the new employment
insurance program, we see that this is no joke.
In 1990, 77% of the unemployed, the men and women who lost
their jobs, were entitled to unemployment insurance. This year,
only 41% were. Why? Because the rules were tightened up. The
eligibility requirements were tightened up.
So where do you think people go today, when they are no longer
entitled to unemployment insurance? Most go on welfare. They
become marginal. Once again, the one responsible is the Minister
of Finance. He is the one who pretends to have a heart, while in
fact he has no compassion, none whatsoever, along with the rest of
the government, for the most disadvantaged and for the unemployed.
He is the one responsible, he is the one marginalizing workers, who
end up cut off from the realities of the workplace, once they are
marginalized and forced onto welfare. They are cut off from that
reality, and it is hard to get back to a normal job search
afterward.
One has to be close to the labour market to improve one's chances of
finding work. The Minister of Finance totally disregarded that aspect in
his efforts to meet his budgetary objectives.
The motion tabled by the NDP also deals with the monetary policy.
It is the federal government which dictates the main thrusts of the
monetary policy to Gordon Thiessen, the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
At the very least, the minister sends signals, even though he does not
administer the monetary policy himself. He sends signals to the Governor
of the Bank of Canada on behalf of his government, so that the latter
will apply specific interest rate policies.
1535
The Minister of Finance, who claims to support employment and who
gives all kinds of wrong figures, which makes me wonder about his
intellectual honesty, tells the Bank of Canada: “Go ahead with the
strong medicine; interest rates must go up as soon as economic recovery
is in sight. We must not create too many jobs. It would generate
inflationary pressure. Go ahead, raise interest rates. Do what the Bank
of Canada used to do, which was to apply strong medicine whenever there
was any emerging inflationary trend”.
The minister agrees with this policy. Last week, in the Globe and
Mail, while everyone else in Canada was criticizing—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Tobique—Mactaquac, on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Madam Speaker, I do not think we have
a quorum.
An hon. member: There are only 15 members present.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is no quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, I find it unfortunate that you
interrupted—
Mr. René Canuel: —such a fine speech.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Such a fine speech, as my hon. colleague said. I
did not say so. Even the Reform Party agrees this was a fine speech.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, the Minister of
Finance, who claims to be in favour of job creation, is sending the Bank
of Canada signals that directly contradict this government's job
creation objectives. He keeps saying to Gordon Thiessen, the governor of
the Bank of Canada: “Go ahead. Whenever the economy starts growing too
fast and inflationary pressure may develop, use your strong medicine the
old way, by raising interest rates”. That is a recipe for jeopardizing
economic recovery.
The Bank of Canada monetary policy is rather complex, but it
basically boils down to this.
As soon as there is an economic recovery and economic growth creates
employment, if growth is deemed to be too fast, according to His
Excellency the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Gordon Thiessen, he
immediately raises interest rates to slow the rate of growth right down,
thereby slowing job creation too.
This is the silliest policy Canada has had in years. Three years
into a technical recovery, labour market conditions have yet to be
restored to their prerecession levels. Participation levels are lower
than ever. Our capacity to reduce unemployment—there are currently
1.5 unemployed Canadians—has diminished.
Even Gordon Thiessen realized last year that he had perhaps gone a
bit too far with interest rates in the last quarter of 1995; that
he had perhaps slowed down the rate of job growth a bit too much.
It is unacceptable that there is a lack of jobs, that the rate
of unemployment is so high, and that they are holding to an archaic
policy of staying below the Bank of Canada's own inflation target.
A minimum of 2% inflation was mentioned. Right now, inflation is
around 1.7% or 1.8%.
The Bank of Canada forgot the other part of its mandate, which
is to see that the money market does not reduce job creation
opportunities. They have completely lost sight of this. They are
obsessed with inflation. It is cruel to do what they are doing.
They are ruining unemployed workers' chances of finding jobs
because they are keeping interest rates high during an economic
recovery.
This has to change. As the NDP's motion points out, the
Minister of Finance must get back on track and give a clear signal
to the Bank of Canada.
1540
There is no question of continuing this sort of dogmatic
policy, of raising interest rates when they should not be raised.
The emphasis should be on using low interest rates to encourage
investment, which will then lead to job creation. It is time the
Minister of Finance changed course, because we will never bring
down the high rate of unemployment we are now facing with a policy
as pathetic as the one favoured by the Governor of the Bank of
Canada.
There is one aspect of the Minister of Finance's approach to
righting the budgetary situation that I forgot to mention just now.
I forgot to mention that the Minister of Finance sat with his arms
folded for two years.
He watched the train go by, revenues fill the coffers of the federal
government, because another $23 billion in taxes went into the federal
government's coffers, because the Minister of Finance did not index tax
tables, because the Minister of Finance told Revenue Canada to reduce
all tax credits including tax credits for persons with disabilities.
If you had any idea, and my colleagues can confirm this, of the
number of people with disabilities who come to our riding offices and
complain that Revenue Canada is after them demanding the return of the
tax credit for persons with disabilities that they received in the
previous five years. They even go so far as to tell people who are
totally unable to pursue normal work activities that they have no
disability, that they are not entitled to this credit.
This is the government's budget policy, this is the Minister of
Finance's budget policy.
I tell you that we too, like our colleagues in the NDP, condemn the
federal government for its negative attitude toward employment and
toward people who are suffering. It is in fact the government that put
them in that situation.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your
appointment.
The member, well known in this House, has just made some fairly
trite remarks. It is always the same old story from the hon. member on
the subject of federal government meddling in areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
I know that the member has a lot of criticisms on the Minister of
Finance's position on the economy. I must say that our economy is in
full recovery. I realize it is difficult for the member to comprehend
the fact that this Minister of Finance is not only one of the most
popular ministers of finance, but his ideas, words and leadership have
revitalized our economy. It is bouncing back for good reason.
[English]
I find it very interesting that the Bloc Quebecois members
continue to talk about the fact that so much money is being taken
away from them and that somehow the federal government can be
blamed for just about everything. Frankly after having heard
that for three or four years in the past Parliament we think
perhaps there could be some kind of development to their
thinking.
[Translation]
This might be a good opportunity for the Bloc Quebecois to rethink
things, given that the economy is recovering vigorously.
I offer a few points raised by the member opposite on the political
and monetary plans of the government and the Bank of Canada.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it will not come as a surprise to you that in
this country the federal government does not interfere and does
not ever want to do what it did some 35 or 40 years ago when it
interfered in monetary policy. It goes to prove just how out of
touch the Bloc Quebecois is when it failed to recognize that
after 35 years, in my lifetime, we have never seen interest rates
this low.
So why Bloc members would continue or why they would obsess
themselves with the idea that somehow this is a major problem is
beyond me. What I can tell the hon. member, and I am sure Madam
Speaker you would understand, is that our economy has never done
any better. From my view I think what the hon. Minister of
Finance has done is not only commendable, it is exceptional.
1545
[Translation]
In this context, could the hon. member, in his wisdom, not
acknowledge here in the House that our economy, including that of the
province of Quebec, is in full recovery and that the cuts in assistance
to the disadvantaged came not only from the federal government, but also
from the provincial government and his former party chief? Would he not
agree, with the rest of the country, that the reality of the 1990s is
that we must provide sound financial management for the disadvantaged,
the poor and the future?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, I will not respond to all the
remarks and all the questions. I would say that 90% of them are not
relevant.
Our colleague is saying that we are hauling out things that are old
hat. That is because the members across the way do not understand. We
have been obliged to repeat the same thing to them for the past four
years, because they understand nothing, even though we put the figures
in plain view before them.
I would ask the member to take his responsibilities a bit more
seriously and get his facts straight. Cuts of $42 billion over the next
five years will not have a positive effect on the most disadvantaged.
Nor will they improve the health network, since the provinces are being
deprived of $42 billion in federal transfers for social assistance,
education and health.
If he puts a little more thought into it, I think he will understand
things that he had not quite grasped.
The Bank of Canada has shot itself in the foot too. It has just
said that the Minister of Finance did not do as his predecessors had
done, which means that he has not done his job. He is supposed to send
a signal to the Bank of Canada on the direction monetary policy is to
take. If the government has job creation objectives—and he says there
are job creation objectives and they are important—he ought to give
a different signal to the Bank of Canada. He is empowered by the
Constitution. He can give signals.
He cannot direct monetary policy or set the interest rate every
Wednesday, but he can give signals by indicating that the government
considers employment important and that the inflation rate could rise a
bit without killing anyone.
In the United States, the rate of inflation is over 3%, and the
rate of unemployment is 5%. This makes all the difference between an
intelligent policy—perhaps a more intelligent Parliament as well from
time to time—and the Minister of Finance's very misplaced policy on
interest rates. Our real interest rates are higher than those in the
United States. He should find out about that. This party has a
communications problem.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is
necessary to throw insults around just because we do not agree on
major issues.
Speaking of true rates, the hon. member said that interest
rates in the United States are higher than in Canada. This is a
first. I am therefore taking the floor to respond to this member,
who has just said that the interest rates are far lower in the
States.
[English]
That is simply not the case. It is more poppycock than we are
familiar with on this side of the House because they are based on
some ideological principle that does not allow them to open up
their ideas, does not allow them to open up their minds to
anything that would allow them the understanding that we are
progressing in this country.
[Translation]
I must repeat my question to the hon. member once again, in
this context. Does he not agree with me that, when we have a
system with a huge deficit and huge debts, the interests of the
disadvantaged are protected when we take taxation and monetary
measures to ensure that the country will benefit from sound
management in future? Does he not agree that we are the best
country in the world by more than sheer luck? Does he not agree
that we are a country like no other?
1550
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, if things were all that
great, we would not have the same number of unemployed, after three
years of economic growth, as we had in 1993 before this government
was elected. Will he eventually figure that out?
Is there anyone on that other side who will figure out one day
that we have a job shortage, that we need jobs, that this
government is doing nothing to help employment, that it is doing
nothing to get the unemployed onto the labour market? That it is,
instead, doing everything to keep them on the sidelines? Are they
going to understand that it is abnormal that, but a few years ago
in 1993, 77% of the unemployed were entitled to unemployment
insurance benefits, while at this time only 44% are?
After all, it is certainly not me who, along with my party, set the
rules that apply to employment insurance claimants. It is his
government.
Will the hon. member also realize that there are five million
Canadians who live in poverty, including 1.5 million children? The
figures have not changed in two years. If anything, they might be going
up. Can he figure that out? Can he make the connection between, on the
one hand, the government's repeated cuts to social programs and
tightened UI requirements and, on the other hand, the workers being
marginalized because they are no longer eligible for unemployment
insurance benefits, not to mention the poor, who are the victims of the
$42 billion in cuts? Will the member realize this at some point?
It is not so difficult to understand. Can he read the newspapers?
Last week, Canadian economists were unanimous. They said that, two weeks
ago, Gordon Thiessen had no business raising interest rates, that there
was no overheating of the economy, and that the governor was
contradicting his own statements of a couple of months ago.
Do you know what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said a couple
of months ago? He said our economic growth could reach a cruising speed
without causing inflation and requiring the Bank of Canada to raise
interest rates. Two months later, he has changed his mind.
Every time he changes his mind, it prevents an unemployed worker
from getting a job. Is this normal? This seems to me to be a matter of
common sense. The people across the way should find out the facts,
instead of talking nonsense.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
present what we have done as a team in attempting to deal with
and improve the lives of young people across the country and with
the troublesome concerns about employment opportunities for young
people.
We understand that in an ever-changing workplace and with the
global markets as they are, that this is not a simple problem,
not one tasked to one minister, one department or one level of
government. It is one that we share with other countries and
organizations that have amassed the collective experience and
wisdom to deal with such matters. It is a partnership.
Since we were first elected in 1993, the government has shown a
great deal of concern and has taken significant steps to improve
the prospects for young people.
I have had the good fortune to be in this position, first to
work with youth and training and now with children and youth and
to follow the progress in perhaps a more detailed way than most
members have because of my mandate. We intend to continue to
build on those opportunities.
We have reason to be somewhat hopeful, although there is a sense
of doom and gloom. We have an obligation as elected officials to
give hope to people, not false hope but to be honest about the
problems. I am not prone to brush problems under the carpet and
forget about them. I am one who is honest about the progress
that has been made.
In the last four months youth employment has risen by 63,000
jobs, which is the best four month performance in this decade.
Youth are at last benefiting from the economic recovery that has
favoured adults to date.
1555
Today's generation of young Canadians are the best educated in
our history and, as a nation, we are in an excellent position to
thrive in the emerging knowledge based economy.
We need to ensure that young Canadians benefit from the economic
revival so that they can take their rightful place in society.
[Translation]
Partnership is the key to success. And as stated in the Speech from
the Throne, we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial
partners to reach mutual objectives in that area.
[English]
The government has identified three priorities: first,
providing a better chance for youth who are at risk because of
low skills and lack of education. We cannot afford, with the
resources we have to be distributed among our citizens, to forget
those who are most in need. This has been cited time and time
again.
The second priority is helping youth make a successful
transition from school to work and the third priority is ensuring
that young people have access to education so that they can
fulfil their educational potential.
To support youth at risk, we will develop and expand community
based programs with partners to assist young Canadians who lack
skills and have low levels of education. Part of that will
include establishing aboriginal multi-purpose youth centres to
provide targeted support for urban aboriginal youth. We will
build on the success of the school to work initiatives under the
youth employment strategy.
The Government of Canada will also create a Canada-wide
mentorship program. This will enable a young person to link up
with a mentor who has experience in the field that the young
person wants to explore. We will also expand the youth
internship program and extend support for summer student job
action.
What is more important than ensuring that young people who are
coming out of college, universities and high schools have an
opportunity to work in the summer and to help contribute in their
own way to their community and to their country?
The Government of Canada will do its part to ensure that
post-secondary education is accessible and affordable to as many
Canadians as possible. Education is, after all, one of the keys
to their success and we continue to reduce barriers by providing
further changes to the Canada student loans program. But we
cannot do that alone. We have our partners at the provincial
level to consult and our partners with the organizations that
hold that expertise and responsibility.
Increased assistance for low income students with dependants
through special opportunity grants should help 25,000 students
each year. New scholarships, such as the Canada millennium
scholarship endowment fund announced by the Prime Minister, will
help low and moderate income students who show excellence in
their studies.
Everyone deserves an opportunity. Everyone deserves a chance to
do the best he or she can. Young people do not want a handout.
They want a hand up.
When the youth unemployment numbers are analysed, two trends
appear. First there are young Canadians who, for whatever
reason, do not get beyond a high school education and have low
skills. They are in danger of being left behind in today's
economy. These individuals need more help than they can get
through work experience alone. They need a variety of
interventions such as counselling, skills, upgrading and literacy
coaching.
Second, we find that those young Canadians with a post-secondary
education are doing relatively well on average but some of these
individuals find themselves in a catch-22. They have no
experience, therefore they cannot get a job and they have no job,
therefore they cannot get experience.
Third, we know that education is one of the factors in weighing
a person's success in society. Rising post-secondary education
tuition costs may make this difficult for some. Providing access
to post-secondary education is a central goal for this
administration and government.
The leader of the NDP was not a member of this House in the last
Parliament.
Perhaps she is not aware of just how much the government has done
in an attempt to deal with this very troublesome problem that we
are addressing today.
1600
In 1994 we began fulfilling our election promise to help
Canadian youth when we brought in the youth employment and
learning strategy. After five months of being in government we
pulled together a strategy. This initiative gave us our first
look at youth internship, Youth Service Canada and student summer
job action, programs that have proven their worth and continue to
do so to this day. In our March 1996 budget the Minister of
Finance announced the reallocation of $315 million over three
years to help create employment opportunities for youth.
We have been building incrementally. We understand there is not
one quick fix. We understand that what we have done is not
enough. We understand and realize that. Our commitment is
longer than one effort to deal with this issue. Other measures
have followed.
In February of this year we introduced the new youth employment
strategy. This strategy which consolidated over $2 billion in
new and current funding builds upon existing programs and is
helping 110,000 young men and women acquire extremely valuable on
the job experience. For example, the new federal public sector
youth internship program in partnership with the private sector's
Career Edge and YM-YWCA will help 3,000 young Canadians gain
experience in occupations that have great potential for future
demand.
I wonder if the hon. member realizes that our youth internship
and Youth Service Canada programs have a high success rate. Youth
Service Canada has a 68% success rate and youth internship has a
78% success rate. This means graduates either return to school
or find meaningful employment within six months of completing
their work in the program.
However we cannot just measure the success of the programs
quantitatively. We must look at them qualitatively as well. I
have had the opportunity of meeting with many of the participants
of government sponsored programs where we have engaged in some
very good partnerships. Qualitatively some of these programs
have given the opportunity, the hand-up that these young people
need which otherwise would not be there. It has made a
difference in the lives of young Canadians who want equality of
opportunity. They are not asking for freebies. They are asking
for an opportunity and this is what has been made available to
them.
Youth Service Canada and youth internship are helping
approximately 20,000 youth at risk this year alone. That is just
one section of the program. This year summer student job action
provided summer jobs for more than 63,000 young Canadians. Our
human resources centres for students helped about 200,000
students prepare for the job market. We understand they need the
counselling, they need the assistance and they need the support.
That is what we have made available to them.
Nearly 40,000 callers have made use of the youth info line since
the middle of August. Our Internet site has been visited more
than 66,000 times since it was introduced.
In the hon. member's province of Nova Scotia, young men and
women are participating in our youth internship programs. Our
partner, Manutech Regional Industry Council, is helping the
participants to become COBOL programmers for which there is an
increasing demand as we approach the year 2000. The first class
of these programmers will graduate shortly and a local employer
is offering employment to those with at least an 80% average.
In my own riding of Western Arctic five young people spent the
summer and early fall researching job growth in northern mineral
and mining industries. Anyone who watches the news will know we
are encroaching in the Northwest Territories on the largest
diamond mine development in the western hemisphere. There is a
small diamond development in Colorado, but for all of North and
South America this is it. These young people are becoming a part
of that by participating in this program.
Their work will give us a data bank of 142 mining occupations
which will soon be available on the Internet so that youth across
the north can learn about the mining industry.
1605
Despite these accomplishments, this government has no intention
of resting on its laurels. We fully realize that youth
unemployment is a serious problem. We share the concerns with
hon. members of the opposition parties. We understand and share
the concerns of our provincial partners. It is important enough
that the premiers will convene a meeting with the Prime Minister
to deal with youth unemployment and some of the other social
issues that evolve around this particular problem.
In the Speech from the Throne we renewed our commitment to make
employment opportunities for Canada's young people a major
priority. One of the key ways for doing that is to create an
economic environment that will stimulate job growth.
I am pleased to tell hon. members that we are seeing signs of
improvement. We now have the lowest interest rates in 35 years
and the lowest mortgage rates in 30 years. Our exports and
international trade are at record levels. The overall
unemployment rate is now at 9%, the lowest it has been since
October 1990.
Since we first took office in 1993 more than 1.1 million jobs
have been created in the private sector. We do not pretend that
government creates jobs. That is not what we are all about. We
understand that we have to create the climate. In just the past
seven months, 292,700 jobs have been created. Among the G-7,
Canada's rate of economic growth is second only to that of the
United States. The OECD is projecting that our rate of
employment will be higher than any other G-7 country both this
year and in 1998.
In closing I would like to say to the hon. leader of the NDP
that this government has demonstrated that helping Canadian youth
fulfil their potential is a major priority. It is a priority
because we understand that they are the future leaders of this
country. They are the people who will fill the seats of this
House in the years to come. They are the people who will make
the decisions that will forever effect this country. We
understand that and we do not see the expenditure under education
experience as being wasteful. We see it as an investment. We
cannot afford not to invest in the future of these young people.
I invite the hon. member from the opposition party and all
members of this House to join us in working together because the
interests of young people go far beyond partisanship and beyond
politics. It is something we share in. We all have children and
children whom we know and care about. We all understand that
their future lies within the kind of initiatives that we can take
in partnership to work on together.
I invite them to work with us. I also invite them to encourage
the young people by visiting their local projects, by
participating in the committees and meeting with the people who
have ideas. The wealth of ideas is not contained within the
walls of Parliament. There are people out there who have ideas
and experience.
Take for instance the Ottawa-Carleton area. It has one of the
best crime prevention programs for young people headed by
Constable Claude Turgeon who is an expert in his field. In
Vancouver there is the Picasso Cafe. Street youth provide the
services in that very wonderful restaurant. Those young people
have made the transition from street life to engaging in a very
positive activity to advance themselves in their own life and
also to contribute to the economy. There is Covenant House in
Toronto for young people.
Many organizations are seized with the issues of the day that
affect young people and want to help us. The Canadian Paediatric
Society is interested in doing something about street youth.
There are ideas outside of these walls that will help us to
engage in further contributing to getting rid of unemployment for
young people, in making the quality of life for young people
better and in making Canada what it really is.
1610
Despite all of the problems in our country we still have more
opportunity than we have doors closed in our faces. We still
have a future in this country. We are a new country which is
building. In the Northwest Territories we will create two new
territories in 1999. We are preparing for that. The majority of
the young people in that area are under the age of 25.
A commitment cannot go any further than that, on my part or on
the part of other members. We must work together to deal with
this problem.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the NDP's motion. It shows an awareness of the most
disadvantaged, the poorest members of society, and as long as that
is where they are headed, I am with them.
I was listening to my colleague opposite praising her
government, the state of the budget. But, apart from eliminating a
large chunk of the deficit, what has the government done for the
poorest and most disadvantaged members of society? My colleague
spoke about summer jobs for students. That is not what young
people want.
What young people want is permanent jobs. There are large
numbers of young people who have graduated from top universities,
who have BAs, MAs, PhDs, but no jobs, or jobs at starvation wages,
but not in the field for which they were trained. All young people
in Quebec want a job to be able to survive.
How many 25 or 30 year olds are there in deep debt and
unemployed? They are told: “Give us part of what we gave you; pay
back your loan”. Every six months, every month, a notice goes out
asking them to pay back their loan with interest. They do not have
a job.
It is shocking to say that things are going well. It is
creating false hope to say: “Here is what we have done, what we
will do”. It is so much hot air. What young people in my riding,
and elsewhere of course, want is action.
Look at young people who are unemployed. It is said they are
better educated than before and that is true.
But what is the point of having four diplomas if students do not get to
make use of them for years and their parents have to support them
because they have nothing to live on? That is my first point.
As far as seasonal workers are concerned, there are a great many of
them in my region of Matapédia—Matane. This winter, a number of people
will be short 50, 60 or 75 hours to qualify for employment insurance,
which I will continue to call destitution insurance, at least for the
time being. What are we to do with these people this winter? It looks as
if it could be a cold, long winter.
At the same time, members opposite boast: “Everything is fine, the
country is prosperous”. All our colleagues across the way seem quite
pleased. They lack compassion, to a certain extent. In our riding
offices, we can see that people are suffering, really suffering. They
are worried and increasingly depressed. They come to us and ask: “What
can we do?”
I urge my hon. colleagues opposite to think for a moment about how
destitute people are, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas. When
bread winners cannot fish because of the cuts in fishing quotas or lose
their job in the logging industry because winter is coming and roads are
closing down, what are their families supposed to do?
1615
The people across the way should ask themselves the question. What
will these workers do? They will get income security. People back home
are very proud to work and to work hard. They are not afraid of starting
at five or six o'clock in the morning and working all day until five or
six in the afternoon. Don't come and tell me that they are lazy.
The members opposite lack the will to help these people, because,
often, there is something missing, but very little missing.
I would like my hon. colleague to tell me if, as a member of Parliament
and a woman—because there are many single mothers who suffer
terribly, whose young children often have nothing for breakfast and go
without dinner—she knows what this government could do to help these
families, and disadvantaged families in particular?
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
respond to the hon. member.
The hon. member spoke from what I consider to be a perspective
from his riding in Quebec. It pleases me to say we have engaged
in the area of the labour market agreements. We have an
agreement with Quebec that frees up the resources for that
province to the tune of $7 billion or $8 billion to effectively
structure the resources and the framework of labour market
activities so that they can best benefit.
I talked about partnership. Have we done enough. No, we have
not done enough. In the prime minister's words, as long as there
are unemployed people in this country what we have done will not
be enough. But we are attempting to do a number of things.
I indicated that currently all levels of government are seized
with this problem. The provincial premiers as well as the
ministers at provincial and federal levels are discussing this.
The hon. member said students do not want summer jobs. That is
not the case. About four or five years ago the summer employment
program was to phase out. We have doubled the amount of money for
young people. Talk to any young people coming out of university
or high school. Not only do they want permanent jobs, but they
want summer employment. I have met many who want to be gainfully
employed to pay their own way during that period of time while
they are attending school.
The hon. member asked what will we do about the poor people,
those who are most in need. For many of the programs that I have
taken part in developing and assisting I have gone to those
people to ensure that it passed their litmus test. If people are
at a disadvantage, including youth and children, programs should
reflect that and provide opportunities for them.
I am sure the hon. member reads the material that he receives in
the House. This government is currently engaged in starting the
national child benefit in July which will give $850 million to
those needy families, to those individuals who are most in need.
In much of the legislation that we are engaged in there is always
a provision as we have for unemployment. The hon. member talked
about seasonal workers. I understand and I sympathize. I know
that no piece of legislation is wonderful and perfect but the
fact remains that many of the opportunities, as in the $800
million in active measures, are designed to reach those people
who are the poorest.
The transitional job fund is for high unemployment areas. I
know that people in not necessarily his constituency but in high
unemployment areas have benefited from that. They have taken a
part of the $300 million and a good portion of the $800 million
as well as the youth programs.
They are now in that position as a province. They have a labour
market agreement of $8 billion.
1620
The hon. member should engage in dialogue with some his
provincial separatist government members to give them the same
kind of message he gives the federal government, to care about
the people in his province and to transmit those resources into
success for the people who need it most.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would
like to split my time with my colleague for Vancouver East.
First of all, I am pleased to take the floor today to speak to
the motion from our party, the NDP.
It must be kept in mind that in our area—which I will use as
an example to start with, and then will move on to the rest of the
country—there are a lot of seasonal workers. The changes to
employment insurance have been disastrous to our regions. New
Brunswick alone used to receive about $243 million that it has now
lost with the changes to employment insurance.
The region I come from, Acadie—Bathurst, has lost more than
$66 million in funds, which means that it has lost jobs instead of
creating any. We have lost jobs because the small and medium
businesses have been forced to close, since no one is buying their
goods.
My predecessor, Doug Young, travelled through the Acadian
peninsula in 1989, telling people “Vote Liberal, that will save
employment insurance”. That was what he said in Acadie—Bathurst.
I will tell you another thing my predecessor said.
The newspapers reported “Mr. Young is calling for New
Brunswickers to submit briefs to the legislative committee that
will be holding public hearings this coming September in the
province on employment insurance.
According to the hon. member for Gloucester—in opposition at the
time—New Brunswick must strenuously oppose any change to
employment insurance and any proposed change, because it will have
serious repercussions on the region”.
That is the gift from our predecessor. Our predecessor became
the Minister of Human Resources Development and is the one who made
the changes to employment insurance. Unbelievable, and
unacceptable.
My predecessor was not the only one, however, to talk like
that. Let us talk about Marcelle Mersereau, Liberal Minister of
Natural Resources in New Brunswick, who was still saying this week
that employment insurance changes were a disaster for New
Brunswick, that there were terrible repercussions and that it had
added more people to the welfare rolls.
This is what the minister of natural resources of New Brunswick, another
Liberal, was saying publicly.
What are they doing? They take people who are on social welfare who
have no rural experience and they pack them off to work. I have no
problem with the people on welfare having an opportunity for a job, but
I do not agree with the fact that the government, because of problems
due to its changes to employment insurance, takes people and, to get
them off welfare because changes to employment insurance have resulted
in an increase in the number of people on welfare, and sends them
working in order to get them on employment insurance and off the
provincial rolls.
Let us have a look at the figures. There are families on welfare
receiving perhaps $750. People are sent to work at $6.25 an hour. If you
figure you work 40 hours a week, that means $1,000 a month.
When we multiply that by 55%, that gives $550. They are going to make
these people even poorer.
This is what they have to realize.
1625
This is a sort of jobs that have been created in our regions. And
that is what hurts. If we have a look today, what do we see? We are told
that if taxes are cut jobs will be created. I said that this morning
here in the House, if taxes are lowered, jobs will be created.
I remember the government gave money to large corporations to
promote new technologies. Where did that take us? The companies made
more money, but with the new technology, in the mines for example, in
the Brunswick mine in Acadie—Bathurst, there were some 1,400 employees.
Well, not long after the arrival of new technology, the number of
employees dropped to 800.
We can take a look at what happened with the banks. In the next ten
years, 35,000 people will lose their jobs in Canada. The banks are
making millions and millions of dollars in profits. They are not
creating jobs, they are laying people off. This is what is happening.
Now, let us look in the Atlantic region, not only in
Acadie—Bathurst, in Newfoundland, for example. Everyone there is
affected by the closing of the fisheries. Cod fishing is closed.
Everyone there is affected, and people in the Reform Party are
saying that the TAGS program must be terminated. Just imagine the
number who will starve to death.
During the election campaign, I met people and entered the homes of
some poor people. But what I heard after the campaign was even more
painful, because I am the new member for Acadie—Bathurst and the people
of my riding expect a lot from me. They expect me to do a lot for them
because they are living in poverty. One evening, this woman phoned me up
and said: “Mr. Godin, I am so glad you were elected. Finally, someone
will speak for us in the House of Commons in Ottawa instead of merely
looking at the deficit. We are in dire straights and, last night, my
husband and I seriously considered committing suicide together. We have
worked all our lives. We both used to work in a fish processing plant
for $6.50 an hour. Today, we are out of work because the cod fisheries
have been closed down, crab quotas have been reduced and lobster quotas
are all but gone.”
This kind of testimony is painful. I can feel what these people
feel. I can understand that some members do not meet these people, but
I can tell you that, in my riding, I do see them. I can certainly speak
for our region.
British Columbia is going through the salmon crisis. They will face
the same problems we have had in Atlantic Canada. When I say that people
back home are hard working, I know that they are indeed. They would
travel to the other end of the country to find work. They are hard
working people.
In Bathurst for example, when it was announced that a new CPP
office would open and that there would be 60 positions to fill, 800
people showed up. Go to the Brunswick mine today and you will see that,
even though they are laying people off, there are between 1,000 and
2,000 people at their door looking for work.
As regards fish plants, those who do not know, those who have never
seen poverty in this country should visit our region in the summertime
to see what is going on. They will see women—because 80% of fish
plant workers are women—get up at 8 a.m., seven days a week, to work
until 2 a.m. at the plant. This morning, Reformers claimed I accused
them of saying our people were lazy. No, they did not say that. That
comment was made by my predecessor, in Hamilton, Ontario. He is the one
who said that people in my region were lazy and that it was time for
people to stop abusing the system.
What do our regions need? What is required to help New Brunswick's
economy? What is required to help Newfoundland's economy?
What is required to help Nova Scotia's economy? These economies need
real jobs. We must be able to use the natural resources that our
provinces are lucky to have and do the first, second and third
processing. This is the only way we can create jobs back home.
Never—and I will say it in this House—will GM build a plant
in New Brunswick. Never will Chrysler come to our province. Therefore,
we must use our resources and do the second and third processing.
1630
Meanwhile, what do we do with human resources? I say this
government, this country has a responsibility toward people and must
make sure there is bread on the table in the morning for children who go
to school.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I can well
understand the emotion and the figures provided by the new member
for Acadie—Bathurst.
I would like to tell the hon. member that, despite everything
he said about my former colleague, Mr. Young, governing is not
about saying one thing in one context and something else in
another. It takes leadership and courage to say and do some rather
difficult things.
I know that it was not easy for the member before me or the
member before him to make these decisions, but they saw that it was
absolutely necessary that the system change. After ten or so
years, the unemployment insurance system was in such bad shape
that, in the end, everyone was being penalized.
Now I know very well, as does the hon. member, that the
collapse of the cod fishery was due to environmental causes and was
not the fault of the federal government or individuals. I know
that the member is very familiar with the situation that exists in
his area, Acadia, in large urban centres like Toronto, and
elsewhere in Canada. I must therefore ask the hon. member a
question. What changes would he like to see to ensure that people
at the other end of the country are not penalized by the system?
I must point out that there are people in my riding working
for $6 or $7 an hour, who do their job, who at least try to make a
living when the day is done, but who must pay insurance. Is the
member proposing a system in which there would be no employment
insurance, or does he favour a sound system that would work for
everyone?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to reply to my
hon. colleague. First of all, why is it that, when the Liberals were in
the official opposition, my predecessor used to say it would be
disastrous for our region?
Second, it is not my fault nor that of the government, supposedly,
if fishing quotas were cut in New Brunswick and if there is a complete
ban on cod fishing. I congratulate the fortunate ones who have found
jobs, I am happy for them. But if we are to live in a united country,
where we all look after one another, attention should be paid to those
regions experiencing difficulties.
What my hon. colleague said is starting to sound like what my
predecessor used to say, claiming that the unemployed were lazy and
should stop abusing the system. He said that, in his region, people get
up in the morning and work all day long. That is very similar to the
remarks my predecessor used to make. What is different with the people
in my region is that, when they get up in the morning, they do not have
a job to go to. Jobs have disappeared because there is no cod to fish.
We cannot go ice fishing for cod in winter. We cannot make a hole
in the ice the same way we would on a lake in Ontario and put our lines
through. That is not how fish is caught in the Atlantic ocean. Another
thing: New Brunswick blueberries cannot be gathered under the snow.
1635
Peat bogs cannot be operated under snow, the same way that
Christmas wreaths do not get made in July. That is the problem we are
facing in our region. And tourism is slow in New Brunswick in the
winter, as compared to the summer.
Our jobs are seasonal jobs and, until the government does the
responsible thing and invests in natural resource processing at
the secondary or tertiary level, this will remain a problem. In
the meantime, what we need is a short term solution, not $12
billion hoarded for bankers and for Paul Martin.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing Order 38,
it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, law enforcement officers.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
rise to speak in support of the very important motion placed
before the House today by the New Democratic Party.
As a new member of the House, having been here for about a month
and listening to the debates which have taken place, I have been
struck by the rhetoric that flows around this room. What is
important about the motion is that it deals with the number one
issue facing Canadians.
It was our commitment from the day we came to the House to raise
the issue and make the government accountable with respect to
unemployment and job creation.
I was in my riding of Vancouver East last week when the finance
minister was also in Vancouver speaking to the finance committee
about the state of the economy. He was in the Hotel Vancouver
with all the media and the fancy hardware making his speech. I
was across the street with some of my constituents. It was not a
huge crowd. They were people who had rallied at the last minute
because they had heard the finance minister was coming to town.
They wanted to speak out. They wanted to address what they
understood to be the real issues facing them as well as other
Canadians.
The finance minister spoke about the state of the economy. He
gave himself and the government a nice pat on the back. We were
across the street in the pouring rain, unfurling a banner which
pointed out that social and human costs of the budget of the
Minister of Finance had been devastating to our communities.
When I went back into the hotel to listen to the finance
minister, none of his statistics pointed to the real crisis we
are facing, which is unemployment among our young people and
other Canadians. We have growing poverty. The motion before the
House today addresses this question.
I listened to the Secretary of State for Children and Youth
earlier today say that the NDP has not been here and might not be
aware of what the government has done for youth unemployment and
young people in general. We may not have been in the House with
party status in the last parliament, but we have been aware along
with other Canadians of exactly what the government has not been
doing to address unemployment, particularly unemployment among
our youth.
No matter what the government says, there is no escaping the
fact that for the 84th month we are facing an unemployment rate
of 9% or more. We are now facing the highest sustained
unemployment rate since the 1930s. When we couple that with the
severe cutbacks that the government has enacted in its obsession
to deal with the deficit, we can see what a toll it has taken on
Canadians.
When we consider 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed and add in
those who are underemployed and those who have dropped out
because they have given up looking for work, we are really
talking about 3 million Canadians who have failed in the system
because the system has failed them.
1640
Earlier today I heard a member saying that sacrifices had to be
made, that these were tough times and we had to make sacrifices.
A question needs to be raised. Sacrifices by whom?
The fact is that the record of the government and the finance
minister is being carried out on the backs of the unemployed. It
is being carried out on the backs of women who are trying to
re-enter the workforce. It is being carried out on the backs of
young people.
When we look at real statistics in terms of new jobs that have
been generated, part-time work with lower benefits and no job
security, and when we look at the cutbacks there has been a
sacrifice. But that sacrifice has not been equally shared by all
Canadians. I think that point has to be made. We need to
understand who has really paid the price.
One thing is clear. The government's economic proposals and its
obsession with dealing with the deficit and meeting the agenda of
corporate Canada have been at the expense of the lowest 20% of
low wage income.
We heard from my colleague from Acadia—Bathurst about the
situation of unemployment insurance and what a severe impact it
has had on unemployed workers.
When we talk about sacrifices and what opportunities have been
created, we need to know why the government has not addressed the
issue of fair taxation. Why will we be witnessing for another
year a record $7 billion in windfall profits for major Canadian
banks? Why do we still have $17 billion in deferred taxes? Why
do we have tens of thousands of profitable corporations and
businesses that do not pay any taxes?
We have to tell the Minister of Finance that his state of the
economy is really a one-sided view. It has failed on every
ground to address the real crisis of unemployment. It has failed
to address growing poverty. It has failed to address that in the
1990s we have seen a decrease in full-time jobs and an increase
in low wage, part-time jobs.
We are here today with our motion to draw attention to stark
reality and to say that it is time the government is held
accountable for the situation in terms of unemployment.
I would like to address one particular aspect which concerns
young people. Youth unemployment is double the national average.
At this time almost 500,000 young people are unemployed. Since
the Liberals took office in 1993, 40,000 more young people have
ended up on the unemployment roles. For those who are lucky
enough to find a job there has been a doubling of part-time work.
It is very difficult to find full-time work.
We hear the Liberals say they are committed to youth. Listening
to the minister today, these are just hollow words that have no
meaning for young people who are desperately trying to pay off
student loans and find work.
If the government were truly committed to young people and
solving the crisis of unemployment among them, the first thing it
would do is restore the cuts to post-secondary education. This
year alone we will be witnessing a cut of $550 million. Is it
any wonder that tuition fees have gone up 45% since 1993.
The government should take note of what the provincial
government in British Columbia has been able to achieve. Despite
federal cutbacks of $2.29 billion in post-secondary education,
the NDP provincial government has been able to hold the line and
freeze tuition fees to give our young people a fighting chance to
get through post-secondary education.
Under the Liberal plan what is happening? Our young people are
graduating into poverty. The government has to restore funding
to post-secondary education.
We have heard a lot about this millennium fund and that somehow
it is a wonderful thing that will happen in the year 2000 to help
young people. Young people cannot wait until the year 2000.
1645
Young people need assistance for post-secondary education and
they need to have a freeze of tuition fees. They do not need a
scholarship program. They need a realistic plan that will
relieve their debt load which is now at $25,000. That is what we
are saying to young people who go to post-secondary education.
The hollow words and the rhetoric I have heard from members in
the House are little comfort to unemployed Canadians. If we are
serious about our commitment to unemployment the government has
to address a program of job creation. It has to embark on a
program of fair taxation. It has to ensure that it intervenes in
the marketplace.
Today I heard from a hon. member across the way that some how
the marketplace is responsible for job creation, not the
government. If we look at the cutbacks we have witnessed in the
last four years, $7 billion in the public sector alone, they have
had a massive impact on unemployment.
This motion brings back a sense of reality to the House. It is
a motion that addresses the real issues facing Canadians. Those
of us in the NDP caucus have listened to the government records.
We have witnessed the record of the government and so have
Canadians. We are determined to continue to raise the number one
problem of unemployment. To have 1.4 million Canadians
unemployed is absolutely unacceptable. It is a national disgrace
and it is a crisis. The finance minister and the Liberal
government have to make this the number one priority.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member with interest. She
included a lot of information from in her previous speech.
The hon. member mentioned the $17 billion in deferred taxes and
tens of thousands of profitable companies that pay no taxes at
all. The Ontario NDP government carried out a survey when it
first came to power. It found that the principle reason why tens
of thousands of profitable companies did not pay taxes in a
particular year was they were carrying forward losses from
previous years.
If the hon. member wants to remove the ability of companies to
carry forward their losses, losses they incur to keep people in
jobs when the company is not doing well, can she not see that
will kill jobs?
How do these companies avoid paying taxes? Could the hon. member
give me the list or give the House a list of reasons why
companies do not pay taxes, especially profitable companies?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. It is something which he has raised with me before.
The issue of fair taxation is something that is very important to
us in the NDP. It is something which has not been taken up by
the Reform Party.
What we are talking about is a situation where profitable
businesses pay a fair share of taxation. Look at the taxation
system and the burden it places on working people and middle
income people. Time and again we hear we have to tighten our
belts. If there were loopholes they would have to be taken away.
When it comes to businesses those loopholes still exist.
All we are calling for is a program of taxation reform, a
program of fair taxation that will ensure we will not continue to
see a shift in taxation from major corporations to individuals.
That is the issue.
I never hear Reform or Liberal members or the finance minister
addressing this. Why do we not hear those members willing to
stand up and question why profitable corporations are not paying
taxes? Those are issues which should be raised by the government
and by the Reform Party. I challenge them to do that.
1650
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to the
comment made by the member for Vancouver East that a
representative from her community came before the finance
committee in Vancouver and made a very effective and very real
and significant presentation. I want the hon. member to
understand that there was no one around that table who did not
empathize with what was going on. The message came through loud
and clear.
I also want to correct some information that was put forward in
the speech. It was stated that the jobs created in this country
were all part time jobs. The majority of the 279,000 net new
jobs that have been created in this country are full time jobs.
Although the unemployment rate for young people is still
excessively high, I want the hon. member to acknowledge that
those with a post-secondary education have an unemployment rate
below the national average. Our focus must continue to be on
education. The finance minister in Vancouver did indicate that
there would be additional focus and emphasis on education now
that the books are very close to being in order.
I want the hon. member to understand that the cuts or anything
that went on in British Columbia cannot always be pointed back to
the national government. The transfer cuts that took place in
British Columbia amount to 1% of the total B.C. revenues. British
Columbia will receive over $3 billion under the Canada health and
social transfer this year alone. With the increase to $12.5
billion as the cash floor, British Columbia will receive an
additional $800 million through the Canada health and social
transfer. It will receive and has received $1.3 billion over
five years to fund training initiatives for the unemployed.
This national government is doing things for Canadians. I refer
to what we have done for the province of British Columbia.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. The unemployment rate for young people who have had
the opportunity to go through post secondary education is lower
than for young people who have not. However, that does not deal
with the crisis of young people in post-secondary education who
are now facing massive debts and are basically graduating into
poverty. That is an issue this government has not addressed.
As I mentioned earlier, the millennium scholarship fund which
the government claims will start in the year 2000 will not help
students today and will not help students who are in great
financial need because it is based on a scholarship program.
Yes, post-secondary education is critical in terms of finding a
good paying job, but what are we saying to our young people when
we force them into poverty and into massive debts of $25,000,
which is what this Liberal government has done by cutting back on
post-secondary education? That is the effect of what the
government is doing.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with
my colleague from Hillsborough.
It is truly lamentable that the federal NDP motion before us
sees fit to condemn but does not offer any creative solutions to
the remaining challenges that confront our people today. By its
motion it would like us to believe that deficit and inflation
should no longer be of concern. It would like us to believe that
the federal government has made no appropriate investments in
health care, education and training. It would like us to believe
that the federal government is blind to the plight of the
unemployed. Far from it.
Let it be said that this member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul and
this government on whose side this member sits have been
concerned with unemployment since we took office in 1993 and
remain determined to continue working so that any Canadian who
wishes to find work can find it.
Since first taking office in October 1993 this government has
created close to one million jobs distributed around the regions
of our country. In fact, 279,000 jobs were created in the first
nine months of this year alone.
In October 1993 the unemployment was 11.4%.
Today it is at 9%, decreasing despite the increasing demand for
jobs. Consider what would have happened had there not be a surge
in job creation. Canadians recognize this, but they equally
recognize that this government has achieved a level of success
that points to the direction of continued success.
1655
We appreciate that Canadians renewed their confidence and trust
in this government last June. This is the government that
reduced the interest rates to record lows, thereby easing the
burden on our national and personal debts through reduction of
interest payments.
This is the government that has continued to contain inflation,
thereby protecting the buying power of our hard earned Canadian
dollars. This is the government that inherited a crushing
deficit of $42 billion or 6% of the gross domestic product in
October 1993 and reduced it to $8.9 billion in four short years.
This is the smallest federal deficit as a proportion of our
national economy, 1.1% of GDP, in over two decades.
This deficit reduction should be known. It has been achieved
not only by improving government efficiency but by stimulating
the growth of the economy with resulting increase in revenues.
No later than the fiscal year 1998-99 this government pledges
the crushing deficit of 1993 will be turned ultimately into a
fiscal dividend. This means Canada will enter the new millennium
with more than a balanced budget; with a surplus, thereby
clearing the way for future generations. We can do no less for
our youth.
We should never forget that the government has been able to
restore fiscal health only because Canadians shared the
discipline and sacrifice and the common determination to so
succeed. How can the federal NDP be so blind and deaf as to fail
to see and hear this good news?
Good government does not stop at its economic and fiscal
success. As the finance minister aptly said in the last budget,
a government relieved of the deficit burden is not a government
relieved of its obligation. It is a government able to exercise
its obligations. It is awareness of this duty no doubt that
prompted our prime minister in his address in reply to the Speech
from the Throne to say we owe our greatest obligation to the
future of Canada.
That future is best ensured when we invest in health care, child
benefits, education and training and research and development,
all of which are essential in maximizing opportunities for the
economic and physical health of all Canadians.
That is why this government has increased the CHST cashflow to
$12.5 billion for health care alone. This means that in 1998-99
provinces will receive $700 million more for health than
currently budgeted, and this will further increase by at least
$1.3 billion every year until the year 2002.
That is why this government has invested $800 million for the
Canada innovation fund to help universities and hospitals in
their research and development requirements. That is why this
government has established and will be enhancing the national
child benefit program.
In addition, the prime minister has announced the creation of
the Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund to ensure access
to post-secondary education.
Only time limits for debate prevent me from cataloguing the many
government initiatives aimed at easing the human tragedy of
unemployment and preparing Canadians, particularly our youth, for
tomorrow.
We realize our work is not complete and that is why we are
asking all Canadians and provincial governments to be partners
with the federal government in its pursuit of our common
challenge.
We also firmly believe that a balanced approach is the way to
go. This balanced approach has enabled us to restore fiscal
health and at the same time sustain our national priorities. Thus
we have been able to maintain our standing in the world community
as the number one nation in which to live while at the same time
just about balancing our national budget.
Certainly this is not the time for condemnation, for retreat into
the unworkable federal NDP approach of the past.
1700
Why do I say this? Allow me to quote at some length from one
provincial NDP premier. In his state of the province address
delivered before the Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce on February 10
this year, Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan declared with
pride:
Our economic and fiscal picture is looking brighter than it has
in a long time—. Now I wish to stress that this doesn't mean
we'll be taking any wild swings at the established tracks. We
are not going to derail this train. What it does mean is making
careful, targeted investments to prepare for the next century. It
means a balanced approach—keeping an eye on debt and prudent
fiscal management. We have come too far and worked too hard to
restart the cycle of careless spending.
I hope the federal NDP is not about to condemn their provincial
counterpart. If the quote so far is not enough, may I continue?
Now there is no magic well where the money came from. The
unfortunate truth is this. If we take a larger portion from our
budget for health we have to reduce elsewhere. However, as the
economy continues to grow we will be able to broaden our choices
in a balanced and fair manner.
May I be permitted at this juncture to share with my colleagues
a pearl of wisdom I recently heard from a former senior
distinguished colleague. He said, and I paraphrase “A bird has
two wings, the right and the left. It needs both to fly”.
Canadians can be assured of our commitment to look forward on
our agenda, to make Canada not merely a participant but a leader
in the modern economy and thereby assure them access to the
greatest range of opportunities available. Our priorities are
clear, as the finance minister in his economic and fiscal update
of October 15 last week so clearly articulated:
First, we must preserve and improve the valued programs on which
all Canadians depend such as our health care, education and
pension systems.
Second, we must work together to enhance the learning and
training opportunities available to Canadians, focusing on
accessibility and addressing the wide range of needs that begin
at early childhood and extend through working life.
In light of the time remaining that you have just indicated to
me, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude. Let no one doubt our resolve
to remain the number one nation in the world as we enter the new
millennium. I urge the NDP and all colleagues to join Canadians
in their great sense of optimism in the future for Canada, thanks
to the superb and caring leadership the government has given to
all Canadians.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
friend from Winnipeg just said a bird needs a left wing and a
right wing in order to fly. The problem with the Liberal bird is
that the muscles in the right wing are too strong. There is not a
proper balance between the two wings.
Mr. Ken Epp: Is that why they are going around in
circles?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: They are flying around in circles, Mr.
Speaker. What we need to do is correct that imbalance. I hope
we can do that by bringing us back to the left a little to give
more balance to the Canadian economy and society.
I want to ask the member one specific question. He did not
really mention interest rates. I am concerned that the Minister
of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have already
increased interest rates twice very recently and indications are
that they are going to jack them up once more. They say inflation
is becoming a problem. The inflation rate now is 1.8%. The
Canadian dollar is still strong at about 73¢ American.
What advice does the member have for the Minister of Finance.
Is he willing to say to us today in a spirit of independence that
he thinks the Minister of Finance should persuade the Governor of
the Bank of Canada not to increase interest rates? An increase
in interest rates will slow the economy and throw more people out
of work.
I know the member is independent minded. Is he willing to
publicly advise the Minister of Finance that he not increase
interest rates?
1705
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his kind words. It is that independence which tells
me that when we look at an issue, just as when we look at a
patient, we cannot only evaluate one symptom to be the basis of
the total diagnosis. We have to look at the total picture.
Therefore, when we look at interest rates we cannot only look at
the short term interest rates, we must look equally at long term
interest rates.
The hon. member would admit that short term interest rates have
somewhat increased. Of course, we wish it had not happened.
However, we must realize that the long term interest rates which
have continued to remain low are an indication of the economic
confidence that investors continue to have. They have that
confidence in the country or they would not have allowed the long
term interest rates to go down.
That side of the equation indicates that although there has been
an increase in short term interest rates, the fact that long term
interest rates have remained low and that Canadian interest rates
are lower than those in the United States by five percentage
points indicate that we are on solid economic ground. We should
continue the track we are on and when we show a surplus, have a
balanced approach, but never again to go back to deficit
spending, as the NDP premier of Saskatchewan said. That is what
this motion seems to indicate we should do.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
let this go by.
I would like to ask the hon. member exactly what he means by
going back to deficit spending since we have not left it since
the Liberals first came to power in the 1970s. We have had
deficit spending every year, including every year since this
government was elected in 1993 and even now.
Admittedly the deficit is now smaller. We are going away from
the target of no debt at a slower rate, but the debt is still
increasing. That cannot be denied.
The Minister of Finance said that the deficit has been brought
down to $8.9 billion, which deserves mild applause. However, we
are still borrowing. The debt is bigger now than it was when the
government took office. It is growing this year. Interest
payments are still going up. Thank goodness for low interest
rates, otherwise we would be in deep trouble.
How can the member talk about going back when we never left
deficit spending?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, that is beautiful
application of the analogy of the bird with two wings. On the
one side the traditional NDP suggest that we spend more. That is
why I alluded to not returning to deficit spending. Admittedly,
we have not quite balanced the budget yet, as I said in my
speech. It is only projected to be balanced by the year 1998-99.
My optimism tells me that it may be sooner.
The Reform Party has suggested in its platform to spend
everything on the reduction of taxes. That would not be the right
approach.
The Liberal government would like a balanced approach using the
right and the left so that it can fly beautifully.
When we have a surplus we will continue to spend half on social
and economic programs and the other half will go toward the
reduction of taxes and reduction of the national debt.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in light of today's
opposition motion, I take great pleasure in speaking in support
of the government's record.
Today the leader of the New Democratic Party has introduced a
motion that attempts to chastise the Liberal government. But
considering her party's platform, I believe it is quite obvious
to Canadians why the NDP is the fourth party in the House.
1710
The motion goes to great lengths to cover many aspects of
government policy. I point out that the motion is a lot like the
NDP platform that says that government can and should do
everything. Likewise the motion tries to cover everything: job
creation, monetary policy, funding to health care, education,
training, culture and the environment.
I am not going to address everything in the motion today. I
will concentrate on job creation, the priority of the government.
Unlike the NDP I believe the people in my riding of Hillsborough
and the people of Canada as a whole need a balanced approach to
government. The government believes that it can no longer afford
to create jobs on its payroll. That is right. The government
cannot afford grandiose make work programs. It cannot afford to
create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. What Canada
needs are stable jobs created through long term economic growth,
not temporary jobs created through short lived programs.
Having said that, I realize the opposition members are wondering
about my views on the infrastructure program. It was a very
successful program. There is a need for programs to upgrade our
national infrastructure but we can rely on these programs only
for short term jobs. We cannot rely on them alone to create
jobs.
The infrastructure program and its extension was just part of
our approach in the last Parliament. By implementing a balanced
approach the government has created an economic climate that
supports private sector job creation. It is this job creation
that has created close to one million jobs since October of 1993.
In contrast let us look at the NDP platform. While it has
commendable objectives, the cost is irresponsible. It pledged
almost $8.5 billion over five years in capital investments for
infrastructure, public housing and highways. The problem is that
it failed to explain how it was going to pay for it.
The NDP election platform is filled with outdated, discredited
ideas left over from a utopian era. It is an endless list of new
and costly programs to be paid for by higher taxes for all, with
the supposed goal of cutting the unemployment rate in half. What
it fails to realize is that these policies would ultimately be
very harmful to job creation.
I remind all members that the level of government spending is
not the best measure of the effectiveness of action. We know
that. Canadians know that. Obviously the NDP does not.
In total its platform contains $8 billion in tax increases and
$19 billion to $20 billion in spending increases. That is
alarming enough on its own but even more alarming is the $12
billion between the two.
Today during debate, members heard statements indicating the
national debt was created not by program spending but by high
interest costs and lost tax revenues. That is just semantics. It
was created by overspending.
If I ask my constituents how the debt was created they would not
say high interest rates, they would not say say by lost tax
revenues, they would say by overspending. The more you overspend
the more the associated interest costs.
The government is taking control of the finances. We will not
let the government books fall back down the slippery slope of
overspending. My colleagues know full well the impressive
results the government has achieved over the last four years.
Part of that is the support provided to innovation, science and
technology. It is essential that Canada not only conduct its own
research and development but that it be quick in applying that
research to business applications. To remain competitive in a
global market we must innovate.
Government can support and assist the realization of key
discoveries, the implementation of new technologies and the
financial requirements of Canadian entrepreneurs. Various
measures have been implemented, including the network of Centres
of Excellence to support the research and development activities
of Canadian institutions. The Canada Foundation for Innovation
has been created to expedite the jump from creating new
technologies to their implementation.
We continue to address the financial needs of small business and
entrepreneurs. Together with our partners we created the $30
million Atlantic venture capital fund. This fund is helping
Atlantic Canadians to capitalize on their entrepreneurial spirit.
However, the NDP platform pales in comparison. Buried among the
vague promises it wants to restrict the science research and
economic development tax credit. This credit alleviates a portion
of the enormous R&D; expenditures Canadian firms make.
1715
Without this credit, considerable research and development might
not occur. That would be a sad state of affairs for Canada.
Canada would not remain competitive for very long. Since R and D
supports thousands of jobs across the country, such a move would
be short-sighted and very detrimental to Canadians.
In Atlantic Canada, especially in Prince Edward Island, we are
striving to improve and enhance the high technology sector. It
is this sector that will allow Atlantic Canadians to regain their
former economic importance within North America.
Back at the time of Confederation the maritimes were an economic
engine running on substantial international trade. Over the last
130 years their strength has been overshadowed by the sheer
numbers of central Canada. However, with the knowledge based
global economy the maritimes are again in a position to resurrect
that engine.
The advantages are there: low labour costs, a skilled labour
force and a high quality of life. In short, Atlantic Canada
leads Canada in low business costs. This was clearly illustrated
in the recent KPMG study which listed four Atlantic Canadian
cities with the greatest cost advantage relative to the U.S.
four-city average. I am proud to say that a city in my riding,
the city of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation, is
ranked second on this list.
These cities rank much higher than major centres across the
country. The advantages of Charlottetown are almost double that
of the city of Ottawa, more than double that of Toronto and
triple that of Vancouver. To earn that ranking Charlottetown had
four top 10 rankings for lowest costs. Among those was the
number one ranking in total labour costs.
These Canadian cities ranked so well because the federal
government created an economic environment which encourages job
creation. We lowered interest rates by wrestling our spending
under control. We introduced programs which will support key
sectors of our economy. In short, we restored confidence in
Canada and regained our economic sovereignty. Canadian business
is no longer penalized with high interest rates because of a
crushing federal deficit.
I wish to end my speech today by informing members of the House
that like many of them I have unemployed people in my riding, in
fact too many people who are unemployed. Practically not a day
goes by that someone does not come into my office looking for
help in finding a job. Neither I nor my party is satisfied with
this situation.
However, we have to ask ourselves if we use measures from the
past, measures which together created part of the problem we are
trying to fix today. Do we use huge make work programs which add
to the government deficit and create only temporary programs? Or,
do we look forward and put into place the fundamentals for
stable, permanent jobs for Canadians as we enter the 21st
century?
The answer is clear. Canadians do not want a party which
promotes old programs that no longer work. Canadians want
programs that work. Canadians want a government that works, and
the government they want is a Liberal government.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough talked about what
the Liberals want. He said that Liberals want long term jobs.
It is interesting to hear that is what the Liberals want. When
we look at their actions and hold them up to the light of day
they just do not wash. Their desires and their actions are two
different things.
For example, in the last parliament Bill S-9 was passed. That
bill was supported by Liberal members, by Reform members and by
Bloc members. The only party which opposed it was the NDP. Bill
S-9 has done for the country the opposite of what the Liberal
member has just talked about, that is creating jobs.
Bill S-9 did a number of things. Primarily it gave Canadians,
retroactive to 1988, a refund of estate taxes paid in the U.S. on
wealthy estates. Their estates were reimbursed eight years back.
It gave Canadians tax deductions in Canada for making
contributions to U.S. charities.
The scandalous point I want to emphasize today is that it gave
Canadians who make contributions to U.S. universities like the
University of Arkansas and so on tax deductions in Canada from
Canadian income.
1720
On the other hand the Liberals take money away from education,
creating great hardships to our students. They give hundreds of
millions of dollars in tax deductions to wealthy Canadians who
can afford to send their children to the States. If we look at
the numbers there are 30,000 Canadian students in the U.S. right
now and only 3,000 American students in Canada.
We see, with a ratio of ten Canadian students to one American
student, where the money is going to flow. It is going to flow
south. Yet the Reform, the Bloc and the Liberal government
embraced and supported the bill to the detriment of Canadian
youth and Canadian education.
I have a letter I want to raise with the member. It reads:
I am writing to you about an issue that is of concern to me. I
am in my second year at the University of Regina and have just
recently finished paying my tuition fees. The price of going to
university is getting outrageous. I am only taking four classes
and it is costing me $1,300, plus the price of books on top of
that.
Here is the point:
Within this last year, I have noticed that the cost of tuition
has gone up dramatically. Talking to people who went to
university five years ago, I have found that the price of one
semester now would have been the price for two semesters when
they were going. If this rate of increase continues, it will be
very hard for me to be able to continue my education and achieve
my degree since I am paying for it myself and only working at a
minimum wage job.
Eventually, I can see only the rich or academically gifted
attending university while the rest of us serve them food at
McDonald's. It seems that every time a new budget comes out
there are more and more cuts to school funding. I am not sure
how this problem can be fixed but I know that something must be
done. I do not want to spend the rest of my life working for
very little money at a job that is going nowhere.
A high number of students writing to me say they need jobs.
Education expenses are increasing and are out of control. The
member says he wants to talk about how they desire long jobs, but
every action the Liberals take is contrary to what they wish.
I have a question for the member for Hillsborough. What does he
think of Bill S-9? Why does he think it is something we have to
continue to support at the cost of the Canadian youth in our
education systems?
Mr. George Proud: Madam Speaker, no government in a long
time has done as much for students as this government is doing
with the bursary system and the tax deductions we have brought
in, in the last four years.
Let me add to what the member said. There is no doubt tuition
fees are going up. If we look at enrolment in universities it is
going up dramatically as well.
I know there is an awful cost to going to university today. The
prime minister just announced a program the other day for
bursaries for students of middle and low income families. We
will continue to do this with training programs and in other
aspects of society such as high technology industries. We are
doing very well in this regard.
Students are accepting it. They come to my office. I know the
member gets letters from people who are having problems.
Everybody has problems paying their way in society today.
As I read in the newspapers the other day, the increase in
enrolment in universities proves that what we are doing by making
student loans available, giving bursaries and giving more tax
deductions to students will enable more students to go to
university than ever before.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South
Shore.
I would take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding
of Tobique—Mactaquac for electing me to represent them in
Canada's House of Commons. I feel very humbled and honoured to
be able to stand here today on behalf of the people of my riding.
Tobique—Mactaquac is a riding which stretches some 250
kilometres along the Saint John River Valley from Grand Falls to
the outskirts of Fredericton, from Plaster Rock to Woodstock,
from Bath to Stanley and all points in between. It includes some
of the hardest working people in the country. I fully realize
they would expect nothing less from their member of Parliament.
The people of Tobique—Mactaquac are a proud people. They are
proud of their families, proud of their rural heritage and proud
of their community. It is a privilege to sit in the House on
their behalf. I will make every effort to represent them to the
best of my ability.
1725
This week we are celebrating National Business Week. It is sad
the government only recognizes businesses one week out of the
year. The other 51 weeks it is choking us to death in taxes.
In 1996 Canadian businesses shut down in record numbers. We
have in New Brunswick the harmonized sales tax and a 15% federal
tax. It is the government which introduced and put the bill into
effect.
I am also a businessman. I own and operate a little convenience
store and I sell gasoline. Before the HST came into effect I was
selling on average 3,000 litres of gasoline per day. Now I sell
on an average 300 litres a day. This is a drop of 90%. At the
same time, before the HST came into effect, 80% to 85% of the
people buying gas would come into the store to buy something
else. My gross sales have now dropped by 40%. I have five
employees in my little convenience store. Now I have one. Is
this what the government calls job creation?
Today there are many Canadians who believe it is up to the
government to create jobs. As a businessman I say it is not up
to the government. Government cannot create jobs. It is up to
us, the private sector and the business community, to create
jobs. The government has a responsibility to help us create the
climate and to create much needed jobs for Canadians.
The government could start by giving us a tax break that would
help us create much needed jobs. A good way would be to cut the
EI payroll tax, not from $2.90 per hundred to $2.80. Why does
the government not bring it down to $2.20? Why have a $5 billion
surplus in the EI fund when we could keep people to work?
When the government came to power we had a $42 billion deficit.
I agree totally that this deficit had to come down and had to be
eliminated. What I do not agree with is the way the government
brought it down. It shoved its problems on to the provinces
instead of cleaning its own mess in Ottawa. The only cut the
government made wasted a lot of money.
What is more important to all Canadians is their health and
education of their children. Yet the government cut those two
items by $6 billion. What a shame to see the youth unemployment
at 32% in New Brunswick. The government had a youth internship
program but it was cancelled this summer. According to the
Speech from the Throne the government will be putting more money
toward our youth. I hope that some of that money will make its
way to my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac because the people are
hurting.
Government does not come first. The people we represent come
first. I will be voting for the NDP motion because in my riding
we believe in the same values and principles attached to it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have a
quick comment for the Conservative member. It seems that when
the Tories were in power they refused to listen to the people.
They pulled all sorts of shenanigans, including loading the
Senate in order to jam through the now hated GST.
It seems the GST, the mother of all hated taxes, has a daughter
called HST. Now for some reason they are talking against the
HST.
Clearly it has a tremendously deleterious effect on the economy.
There is no doubt about it. The member has said that his own
experience shows that. I would like to know whether he would
enlighten the House regarding what they would do with the
HST/GST. What is their intention?
1730
Mr. Gilles Bernier: First of all, Madam Speaker, I am not
on the government side. I am on the opposition side. I am just
like one of them. Second, I was not part of the past Conservative
government that put the GST into place, but I agreed with the tax
100% and I will tell members why.
I own two companies. As a contractor and as a painter, before
the GST came into effect in 1990 when I wanted to buy a gallon of
paint it would cost me 18% on that gallon of paint. It never
showed because it was incorporated into the price of the gallon
of paint. On a roll of masking tape, I would pay 11%.
When the GST came along, the companies would have had to get out
of that tax and include the 7%. Some of the companies did that.
They took the manufacturers sales tax out and just included the
7% but there are a lot of companies that did not do that. They
kept the manufacturers sales tax as a profit and included an
extra 7% on top of that. That is what made it a bad tax but it
is not the fault of the previous Conservative government. The
GST was a good tax.
Talking about the HST, this government felt that the HST was not
a good tax. They brought up the HST but now we are paying 15%
instead of 7%. In my store alone my business went down by 40%
and my gas consumption went down by 90% but my electricity bill
went up by 8% and my oil bill went up by 8%. Do you call that
fair?
If I were here in the province of Ontario or in Manitoba or
further west, I would only pay 7%. Why should I have to pay 15%?
That is why I am saying to this government to give us a tax
break so that we can really create jobs in this country,
especially in New Brunswick. We cannot create the jobs we need
because this government is choking us to death with taxes.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have just a couple of points for the Conservative
member. I thank him for his support of the NDP motion. I
believe if it does get passed it will go a long way in helping
Canadians out there.
I do want to debunk the myth that comes from members of the
Reform Party mostly that the government cannot create jobs. If
they keep saying that eventually people may say “Why do you keep
saying that?” I do believe the government can create jobs.
A prime example is our post office. It has taken away what were
good jobs, a job my father did for 11 years as a letter carrier,
and now there are superboxes. All they have to do is replace the
GST and in Atlantic Canada the HST. Take that money off, put it
back into the corporation's profits, get rid of the superboxes
and thousands of letter carrier jobs can be created right across
this country so that those shut-ins, those seniors, those people
who are disabled or those single mothers at home do not have to
leave to go get their mail in inclement weather. There would be
thousands of jobs created right there.
Another area where they can create jobs is in regulation. The
state of Oregon from my understanding has no self-serve gas
stations. There is a station open right across from my
constituency office in Lower Sackville with 12 pumps, all
self-serve. I asked the manager. She said that it was
Petro-Canada's policy. That is insane. The fact of the matter
is that gas prices will not rise if full service stations are
implemented.
Does the Conservative member honestly believe that government
cannot create jobs or does he believe that government in
consultation with industries can create jobs together?
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Madam Speaker, to answer the question
from my colleague from the NDP, government cannot create jobs but
it can work in co-ordination with the private sector with big
companies to create jobs in this country. It is the companies
that will create the jobs, not the government.
1735
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak on the NDP opposition day motion condemning the
immediate human tragedy of 1.4 million unemployed Canadians.
Earlier the leader of the New Democratic Party alluded to the
fact that it had been four years since her party had been able to
present a motion in this House. I would like to congratulate her
and remind her that the NDP is not alone in that predicament. We
have also waited four years to participate in debate in this
House. And truly thus have all Canadians waited from sea to sea
to sea to participate, for surely the last Parliament was the
least participatory of any Parliament in Canada's history. In
that Parliament we had one party that wanted to break up the
country, another party that wanted to help them and a third party
called the government that did whatever it wanted.
I agree with the parts of the motion that state that we need to
set targets to reduce unemployment but the flawed NDP notion that
1.8% inflation regulates the 9% unemployment rate is an
oversimplification of a wrong-headed policy. How many times must
we state that government is not the engine to drive job creation?
Government creates the atmosphere so business has a climate it
can thrive in, live in, breathe in, eat, drink and sleep in.
Business is a living thing and we control it. From that climate
industry will grow and industry will create jobs.
Today government members rose to their feet and applauded the
fact that unemployment has only increased by 300,000 Canadians
since 1990. I hesitate to call this good government.
In the area of infrastructure where government can actually help
build a foundation for job creation, this government has a dismal
record. Infrastructure is one path that leads to jobs. Highways,
container piers, railroads, wharves, navigational aids, a well
educated workforce all belong on that path. Make work projects
do not belong on that path. If we ever in this nation choose to
follow the path of make work projects, we will be lost.
Earlier the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester spoke about
the possible social and psychological costs of high unemployment.
Food banks, poverty, hospital line-ups because of transfer cuts
to health and education, these are real problems.
What in the world is the matter with this government? It
credits itself with reducing unemployment from 11.4% to 9% as if
that is some kind of a record. Instead of slapping themselves on
the back, Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.
The minister stated earlier that actions taken today do not take
effect until a year or so down the road. This will be the
closest the government will ever come to crediting the previous
Tory government for the unprecedented recovery and growth from
1992 to 1997.
There has been no discussion of the casualties of frolicking in
the sunshine of this unprecedented growth without a bit of
sunblock. Who has been burned?
Let us start with the youth of Canada. There has not been
enough discussion in this Parliament about the fact that Canada's
youth are the part of this equation that has been completely left
out of the unemployment numbers. We have had a recovery in the
1990s. We have had a recovery for adult workers in the 1990s.
We have not had a job recovery for youth.
The adult unemployment rate is 9.4%. The unemployment rate for
youth is 20%. This government is not prepared to do anything
about the radical imbalance of the unemployment figures as they
affect youth in this country.
1740
Last week in the town of Bridgewater on the south shore of Nova
Scotia in the riding I am fortunate enough to represent, I spoke
to high school students at Parkview Educational Centre. It was a
tough and difficult speech to deliver. They asked me to come as
their MP and discuss their opportunities to participate in the
future of this nation, their opportunities to continue their
education and come out with the prospects for a job.
Job prospects for Canada's youth are terrible. Everyone in this
House should go into a classroom filled with 150 high school kids
and try to tell them that the best thing they can do is continue
their education, get a post-secondary degree, spend $12,000 a
year, run up a bill of $50,000 to $60,000 and that will increase
their chances of getting a job. That does not guarantee them a
job, but that will increase their chances of getting one and they
should feel good.
I delivered that message because that is the truth but I did not
feel good about delivering it. I did not offer them much promise
and I did not offer them much hope. Somehow it is the job of the
government of this nation to be able to offer them some promise
and to be able to offer them some hope.
Yes we have business initiatives for youth. We have
internships. We have co-operative education programs. We have
mentor programs. But they are not putting numbers of youth back
to work. It is too little, too late and there is not enough of
it. Yes the federal public sector youth employment program has
helped create 6,000 jobs for aboriginal youth. It is the tip of
the iceberg. It is not enough.
Last is an issue that has not been touched upon while we have
discussed unemployment in the House. That is the 60,000 people in
the east coast fishery who are out of work. That is a very real
problem.
If you would indulge me, Madam Speaker, I would like to relate a
story to the House. It relates to this caring, sharing
government. Hon. members opposite would have us believe that
somehow they are a caring, sharing government.
At the height of the downturn in the fishery in the town of
Shelburne, Nova Scotia when there were no jobs in the fishery
sector and all the services were downloaded on the backs of these
fishers, the government in its wisdom decided at that time, at a
crucial moment in the history of Shelburne county, to pull out of
the naval base in Shelburne. They lost 120-some armed forces
personnel who contributed to the economy of that town. They lost
40 to 50 full time jobs supplying that base and all of the income
generated from it. And this is a caring, sharing government?
That is how it answers the east coast fishery problem?
While we are on the subject of fisheries, we have an
interception fishery on both coasts of this country. We have
done nothing about it in British Columbia. Those salmon under
international agreement were headed for Canadian rivers. They
were Canadian fish. We allowed the Americans to catch them.
We did nothing about it. On the east coast
of Canada we have an interception fishery off of Greenland. We
have done nothing about it. We allow the Europeans to catch all
the fish they want.
We cannot even as a government support the salmon hatcheries in
Nova Scotia. There are three salmon hatcheries slated for
divestiture in Nova Scotia. This government has chosen to allow
them to go. There is a $400,000 cost of maintaining them.
In return they create employment. They support singlehandedly a
$10 million sport fishery in Nova Scotia.
1745
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I draw the attention of the member for South Shore to a
few numbers which he may like to consider. I listened to him with
great attention and I hope he will listen to me with the same
attention.
In 1990 when his party was in power the bank rate was 13%. Today
in 1997 I believe the bank rate is 3.75%. In 1990 when his party
was in power the prime rate was 14%. Today the prime rate is a
mere 5.25%. Best of all, in 1990 when his party was in power the
five year mortgage rate was 13%. Today in 1997 under the Liberal
government after four years of fiscal responsible administration
of the country, the five year mortgage rate is a mere 6.75%.
I suggest to the member that the reason there is so much
unemployment and so many problems is that the previous
Conservative federal government failed to manage the economy
responsibly, created a stranglehold on the economy and jobs were
lost. Now we see that even the NDP has to admit that because of
excellent fiscal financial management of the affairs of the
nation we have driven down interest rates in an extraordinary
fashion. When the economy is rolling the jobs will follow and
they have been following.
I wonder what the member for South Shore has to say about that?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things
to say about that.
First is his judicious use of numbers from 1990 versus 1997. Let
us get to when we actually had an increase in the economy of the
country when the Tories were still in power in 1992. Take a look
at and spout those numbers because they do not wash quite as
easily.
His party does not change economic policy or the bank rates in
this country. That did not happen overnight. They rode on the
Tory coattails and are sitting there because the economic policy
was put in place before you ever won your seat.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I thank the
Conservative member for South Shore for his efforts in the
application to get our motion passed today.
It is ironic to hear the Liberals speak about how great they did
on the fiscal policies and the low interest rates. It means
absolutely diddly-squat if you do not have a job.
I wish you would get this through your head. It means
absolutely nothing—
The Speaker: I remind hon. members that they should
address all remarks to the Chair. We do not want members going to
nose.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. As I have
asked before, in terms of tax cuts that the Reform and
Conservative parties have asked for in the past, would he not
agree that a tax cut to the HST and the GST would be much more
beneficial and provide a much more immediate dividend to the
Canadian people?
1750
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, of course a tax cut to the
GST and the combined HST would be a benefit but there are other
ways to do the same thing. We can put more money back into the
economy by cutting payroll taxes. We have said it. We have been
preaching it. We will say it one more time.
As long as we put the money back so it is in the hands of the
consumer, I do not care if it comes from cutting the GST and the
HST, from cutting the EI payments, from cutting whatever payroll
taxes we want to cut, if we give the money back to the consumers
they will spend it. They have to. Times are too tough.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing
my time with the hon. member for Durham.
Today, I wish to address the motion tabled by the NDP. I listened
to several speakers from the Bloc Quebecois who raised the issues of
federal transfers, employment, health, inflation and monetary policy.
For three and a half years the Bloc Quebecois has been urging the
federal government to amend its monetary policy to take into account its
impact on employment, saying “We believe that the Bank of Canada's
strategy condemns the Canadian economy to operate below its potential.
To keep inflation at a very low level adversely affects the economy, and
the benefits of such a policy have not been demonstrated”.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, the Bank of Canada's monetary
policy is based on an excessive desire to throttle inflation by
maintaining high real interest rates. It is a policy which impacts
negatively on employment and on the economy as a whole.
To stimulate employment and to promote economic recovery and
development, the Bloc Quebecois proposes an in-depth review of the
Canadian monetary policy, and primarily a change in the monetary policy,
so that the inflation target of the Bank of Canada, through its interest
rate policy and the expansion of the monetary supply, would be set at
3%, with a variation of plus or minus 1%.
During these months and years, Bloc members proposed an inflation
rate target of 3%, rather than 2%, as is currently the case, with the
same 2% variation. This, they claimed, would result in the creation of
460,000 jobs, while also bringing the unemployment rate down to under
7%. As we know, the idea was put forward by Pierre Fortin, a professor
of economics from Montreal, before the finance committee, when it was
doing preliminary work for the budget.
It seems that the Bloc members bought Mr. Fortin's arguments, since
they adopted this idea in their report.
When we came to power, the Minister of Finance and the
Governor of the Bank of Canada agreed to aim at a lower inflation
rate. Thanks to a moderate monetary policy and the effectiveness
of the new deficit reduction measures, interest rates have not been
this low for 35 years.
When we came to power, Canadian interest rates were two points
higher than U.S. rates. Today, the opposite is true.
I would like to paint you a picture. We have heard the Bloc
members speaking numerous times today about federal transfer
payments. What exactly are federal transfer payments in Canada?
Whether the topic is offloading the deficit, health care or
welfare cuts, or whether there is a more sophisticated debate on
the advantages and disadvantages of the federal system, the
question of transfer payments to the provinces keeps coming up in
the House of Commons, in the Quebec National Assembly, in ridings
throughout the great province of Quebec.
Let us make an important distinction right away. There are
two sorts of transfer payments: equalization payments and social
program funding. Equalization payments are calculated in a complex
way, based on the fiscal capacity of each province. The idea is to
ensure all Canadians, whether they live in rich provinces or poor,
of access to public services that are more or less equivalent in
quality. Equalization payments have no strings attached, in other
words the provinces may use them however they see fit. That is
important: the provinces may use them however they see fit.
Equalization payments have not, however, always been affected
by federal transfer payment reductions.
1755
When we speak of offloading the deficit, we are referring
essentially to the other transfers. That is the truth. Up to last year,
these transfers were made under two programs, that is established
programs funding, such as for education and health, and the Canada
assistance plan, social assistance.
The Minister of Finance regrouped all that in a single program, the
Canada social transfer, much less generous, to be sure. But if we look
at the significance of the federal tables for each province for the
1996-97 fiscal period, the figures are expressed in a per capita basis.
It goes without saying—
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I believe your earphone is up close
to the microphone.
You should put it in the desk. It is right by the microphone, and should
go in the desk.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your comment, my
paper was blocking the microphone, and I apologize. I am brand new in
the House of Commons, I have just arrived.
On the subject of equalization payments, which vary enormously from
one province to another, we can see that Quebec receives a lot less than
the others. This is not injustice, it simply reflects the fact that
Quebec is the least poor of the poor provinces.
Payments made under the Canada social transfer, which are based
merely on the population size, do not vary obviously a lot from one
location to another.
On the subject of transfers between provinces and with respect to
Quebec, there was a very spectacular drop, which must be situated in a
broader context. There are columns on the right and on the left. For
Quebec, the equalization payment was $216 of the Canada transfer and for
the others it was $1.381 billion.
The figure is based on the size of federal transfers not as a
function of provincial budgets but rather of the economy of the
individual provinces. We can see that the federal transfers have not
decreased in Quebec; they have increased. This may appear odd but it is
true. However, the amounts are the same. How can this be? For my friends
of the Bloc Quebecois, I would point out that provincial governments'
expenditures increased much more rapidly than federal transfers until
1990. This is the history of federal transfers.
The other day they were talking about health care. There is
a small community at Clova, and I heard the PQ MNA, Jean-Pierre
Jolivet, say “They are closing the CLSC in the small town of Clova
and transferring it to Parent. We are not the ones transferring
it. The federal government is to blame”. Who took the decision to
transfer a nurse from Clova to Parent at a cost of almost $30,000?
The decision to transfer this small centre from Clova to Parent was
made by ministers, by Lucien Bouchard and Jean-Pierre Jolivet.
I would like to say something. When it comes to job creation,
what is the role of the government? What is the role of the
government in the Province of Quebec? If we look at the
government's role—
An hon. member: No props.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Mr. Speaker, these are my personal notes.
He is trying to say they are props. You can start in with the
same old refrain, dear colleagues. Go ahead, there is more fun
ahead.
The government plays a large and critical role in
Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Why? Because our economy in
Abitibi-Témiscamingue is always up and down like a yo-yo,
depending on market prices, on the price of metals, gold, copper,
or the price of softwood lumber and particle board. With people
from our area and from the Province of Quebec, and the government
in power, we decided that there should be a regional and local
development fund, that is the public and parapublic sector, in
which the Government of Canada is involved, and in which the
Government of Quebec is also involved.
If we supply human resources in our region of
Abitibi-Témiscamingue, almost 53% of the funds are provided
through partnerships.
1800
Why those funds? Where do they come from? I will tell you.
They come either from Desjardins investments, or from the FTQ. I
hear the member for Témiscamingue talking about a donation, when he
means a loan, and saying that a loan is a donation, that it is the
same thing. I never understood the story. It is true that the
donation was $1.7 million to the Bloc Quebecois before the 1993
campaign, but they never noticed that the donation was not like the
one borrowers are given in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, that is, the
interest was thrown in. If the interest on loans is 6%, what they
got at 2% is a donation. In any event, we will come back to this.
In conclusion, our people, whether we are talking about the
Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec, or through the
Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec and the CDIC, are
partners contributing to the creation of jobs in order to lower
unemployment.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to ask a question of my colleague from Abitibi
and will start by rectifying once again some of the statements he
has made.
He said something earlier on about transfers to the provinces.
I would like to remind him of this. He said that the provinces
could do what they wished with transfer payments, could use them as
they saw fit. I would remind him that, when he was a Conservative—he
ought to remember—there was quite a battle with the Minister
of Health to make sure that the Canada Health Act was respected by
the provinces. There was a huge fuss connected to transfer
payments.
British Columbia had been threatened with a loss of its transfer
payments less than two years ago, because it was not conforming to
certain aspects of the Canada Health Act. So saying that these are
transfers with no strings attached is totally false, and once again
a misleading statement.
As for economics, my colleague has suggested here already that
a gift and a loan were the same thing. Allow me to say that this
is totally false. I went to the manager of my caisse populaire,
and told him that I would not be repaying my mortgage because a
gift and a loan were the same thing. All he needed to do was to
phone the hon. member for Abitibi, who would explain it all to him.
He strongly suggested that I make my mortgage payments, because
that was not the way it worked.
The third point, federal transfer payments—I am getting to my
question now—the hon. member for Abitibi does not say this when he
talks about health and social programs. As for cash transfers the
government was making when the Liberals came to power, these were
$17 billion a year. Now, the figure is barely $11 billion. They
cut $6 billion in cash transfers and forced the provinces to play
the bad guys in health and education, which are their
responsibility.
He spoke of another concept as well and I would like him to
take the next few minutes to clarify it for us. He referred a
great deal to equalization payments—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I
want to give the hon. member for Abitibi the opportunity to
respond.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Bloc Quebecois
member, the member for Témiscamingue, when I said the provinces
could use the money as they saw fit, I was referring to an article
by Claude Piché in La Presse on Saturday, October 4. It is well
written, and I would like to quote from it. “The calculation of
equalization is a complex matter. It is based on the fiscal
capacity of each province. The idea is to ensure that all
Canadians, from rich and poor provinces alike—that is what I am
explaining—have access to public services of essentially equal
quality. Equalization payments are therefore unconditional, that
is the provinces may use them as they see fit. Equalization has
not always been affected by cuts in federal transfer payments”.
One thing the member opposite has not spoken about today is
job creation. He never mentions it. His riding of Témiscamingue
benefits from what the federal government provides.
It benefits from money from all Canadians in the CDIC and many
companies—there are 40 companies in his sector—create jobs. I do
not have a lot left, but this pamphlet from—
The Speaker: Members are not to use props. The hon. member
for Halifax West.
1805
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
comment focuses on the fact that the member opposite spent a lot
of time debating the NDP opposition motion and yet said very
little with respect to it.
All day members opposite have had very little to say about what
our motion actually entails. The message in the motion is very
simple. The federal government has failed miserably in dealing
with the real problem. By attacking the deficit it has not dealt
with the issue of setting targets for unemployment. Our motion
is very clear on that point.
A previous speaker asked us to consider this motion for what it
really is and then proceeded to talk without even dealing with
the motion.
Another member opposite was educating the “dinosaurs” on this
side of the House on the difference between fiscal and monetary
policy.
When I campaigned during the federal election I spoke to one of
my constituents. It was interesting because, again, a speaker on
the other side—
The Speaker: We will have to come back to the debate. The
hon. member for Durham.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter this debate.
The motion by the New Democratic Party talks about the
immorality of the government in reducing its deficit and debt.
The previous intervener talked about dinosaurs. It seems to me
that every time the NDP brings something to the floor of the
House I have heard it before, usually about 20 or 25 years ago.
We had to deal with the deficit and debt problems. We have done
that ferociously, so much so that interest rates in the country
are at an all time low.
These are some of the basic fundamentals of economics which
create jobs. In the last nine months 297,000 new jobs have been
created. Only in the last couple of months 63,000 of those jobs
were filled by young people.
Why is it difficult to set targets, as the motion entertains? It
is because of something called the elasticity of labour. As
people begin to seek and find work in the economy more people
offer themselves for those jobs. Even though there has been a
tremendous amount of job increase, a number of people are seeking
employment. It is very difficult to determine who is going to
seek new employment. As more and more people reach the labour
market their friends, who are at home for one reason or another,
may decide they also want to enter the labour market. It is a
very difficult problem to solve because it is always changing.
One part of this motion deals specifically with education, which
I find interesting. The Conference Board of Canada recently
issued a report. I suggest the members of the NDP take some time
to read it. Despite its motion, which talks about the dismal
failure of the government to deal with matters of education, the
Conference Board of Canada states that in 1993 Canada spent 7.6%
of its gross domestic product on education. That is more than in
the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy or the United
Kingdom. Nearly two-thirds of all Canadians aged five to 29 are
enrolled in educational programs, a record exceeded by only three
other OECD countries.
1810
Despite Canada's spending, its grade 8 students placed only in
the middle of a pack on standardization in international tests in
science and mathematics. Domestic testing confirms these
disappointing results.
What is being said here? It is saying that increased spending
does not necessarily get results. This flies in the face of the
rhetoric of the NDP whose members believe that they can solve all
problems simply by cranking out cheques.
I was amazed to notice in this survey that in the area of
post-secondary education, Canada spends 2.8% of its GDP. That is
the highest in the world. The one area for which the federal
government has some responsibility, post-secondary education,
Canada is spending the highest amount of any country in the
western world.
The NDP members say that we are not doing enough. Are we
supposed to be spending three times more money than every other
country in the western world? I would have thought the NDP would
have been concerned about giving people basic skills to get high
paying jobs. I would have thought that they would be trying to
find ways in which to make that spending more effective, not just
to crank out more dollars. In fact, I suspect less money can
actually be spent while getting better results, that is, if we
take a little more of an approach to managing the way we are
spending some of our money today.
At the same time as this spending is going on, Canada's literary
skills are only middle of the pack in the western world. I am
proud to be part of a government that recognized that two years
ago, before many of these members showed up here, increasing the
budget by over $50 million in the area of literacy skills.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: You've done a wonderful job.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the
members are getting a little upset with the facts, but the facts
are quite clear. The government has committed to spending more
in the area of post-secondary education.
It is quite clear that the Conference Board of Canada recognizes
that Canada spends tremendously more money than most of its
competing partners in the OECD countries. At the same time, we
are not really getting a lot of positive results. Yes, we are
getting a polarization between knowledge based workers and all
the rest. We have to find better ways to get more people
involved in lifetime training skills.
I recognize and I share some of the things that the conference
board has said. I would have thought that some of the members of
the NDP would be concerned about some of these issues.
They talk about how to develop lifelong learning skills, how to
encourage employers to engage in some of these programs. It has
been this government that has recognized the importance of making
an intervention between people who are now taking higher skilled
education in the post-secondary education system and integrating
them with a work force.
I have been very pleased to be part of a government that has
developed a program to take young students who are engaged in
information technologies and introduce them to some of our small
and medium size businesses to upgrade their skills so that they
too can employ more people.
It is amazing when we actually look at some of our industrial
structure, that we see many of our businesses spend less money on
technological innovation than do our American partners. It is
very important that we start putting more stress in these areas.
The government has expanded the use of the IRAP program to
encourage and foster evolving technologies in small and medium
size businesses. It has created another horizons plus program
which basically takes some of these young people who are also
engaged in the area of trade and studying trade at post-secondary
education and injects them into small and medium size businesses,
the purpose of which is to make them export ready. These are some
of the positive ways that governments can be part of that.
The government is introducing an $850 million Canadian
innovation foundation. I can tell members that the
post-secondary institution in my riding is very happy with that
initiative. I am spending a lot of time making sure that they get
a piece of that so those young people can get better and higher
skilled jobs in the future.
At the same time as we are talking, we have a problem because
the immigration department is besieged with requests to bring
more people into the country to take highly skilled jobs because
we do not have people to do that work. That is atrocious. It is
a travesty of our system.
But saying that—
1815
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.15 p.m., it
is my duty to interrupt the proceedings put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1850
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood – 180
|
PAIRED
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
| Desrochers
| Gallaway
|
Perron
| Pillitteri
| Redman
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to the taking of several deferred
recorded divisions.
[Translation]
ALLOTTED DAY—FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES
The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion and of
the amendment.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous approval for
the members voting on the previous motion to be recorded as voting on
the motion currently before the House, with the Liberal members having
voted no.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform party members
present will vote yes on this motion unless instructed otherwise
by their constituents.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I have just arrived and I
would like my vote to be recorded with my colleagues for votes
two to five.
The Speaker: So ordered.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote in favour of the amendment.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to confirm that the
members of our party will vote in favour of this amendment motion. They
are prepared to delay it to allow the members of the Reform Party to
adjust their vote.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the
House has heard the question yet.
The Speaker: I asked permission from the House to
dispense. I did not hear a nay and that is why I dispensed with
the reading.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like the motion
to be read.
Some hon. members: It is too late.
Mr. John Nunziata: I heard from the other side of the
House that it is too late. In view of the fact that the members
think it is too late I think a recorded vote would be needed.
1855
The Speaker: Colleagues, there is not unanimous consent
to proceed the way we had started out.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was unanimous
consent until the member awoke suddenly and asked to change the
decision.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be a
compromise to be considered by the hon. member for York
South—Weston that if the question were read he could apply his
vote and then we could continue with the other motions before us.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if I may clarify the
matter. When you were requested to dispense, I clearly said no
and members in this corner of the House heard me say no at the
time. I wanted the motion read. If the motion is read, I am
happy to give my consent to allow the previous vote to be
applied.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemn the attitude of the government, which
refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the
financing of federal political parties even though the existing
legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.
And the amendment reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word “in-depth” and
substituting the following therefor: “complete”.
[English]
The motion has been duly read. We are going to go through the
whole vote again so there is no misunderstanding.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, Liberal members will be
voting nay.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting yes.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening will vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston, I will be voting in favour of
the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
|
Casson
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 113
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 140
|
PAIRED
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
| Desrochers
| Gallaway
|
Perron
| Pillitteri
| Redman
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
1900
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for
the members voting on the preceding motion to be recorded as having
voted on the motion currently before the House, with the Liberal members
voting no.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois votes in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party
members present in the House this evening will vote yes on this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will vote
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston, I will be voting in favour of
the motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 013]
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA MARINE ACT
The House resumed from October 10 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Friday, October 10,
1997, the next recorded division is on the referral to committee
before second reading of Bill C-9. The question is on the
motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberals members voting yea.
The Speaker: The House will note that all Liberal members
will vote as the whip said. There is one member who is absent.
He will not be recorded, the hon. member for Thunder
Bay—Nipigon.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this unless instructed otherwise by their
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party present this evening will vote no on this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I understand the purpose
of this motion is to refer to committee the Canada Marine Act
before second reading. Can I understand the logic behind that
proposal?
The Speaker: This is a vote. It is a simple vote. How
does the member for York South—Weston vote?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are
seeking unanimous consent, and before I provide unanimous consent
I would like to understand—
The Speaker: The hon. member on a point of clarification.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, just a point of
clarification for the Chair. Through you to the hon. member for
York South—Weston, we are following what we did with the
previous bill, Bill C-44. We are moving it from first reading
right to committee stage. The exact same bill, Bill C-9, is
undergoing the same procedure as did the original bill. The
opportunity will be for members of the House to do their work in
committee as quickly as possible.
1905
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, there is an established
procedure in this House that a bill be given second reading
before it is referred to a committee. Before we invoke this
special power to refer a bill to a committee before second
reading, there ought to be extenuating circumstances why the bill
ought to be expedited.
I would like to understand from the government what the
extenuating circumstances are in order to have this bill
expedited.
The Speaker: Technically speaking, the debate on this
particular motion is over. When the hon. member brought up his
point, I thought we would expedite matters by getting a point of
clarification. I do not believe that we should be going back and
forth any more in this debate. I put it to the hon. member for
York South—Weston, does he wish to vote at this particular time
on this particular motion?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if the government is not
prepared to answer the question, then I think we ought to take a
vote.
1915
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 176
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Charest
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Robinson
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 75
|
PAIRED
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
| Desrochers
| Gallaway
|
Perron
| Pillitteri
| Redman
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
* * *
INCOME TAX CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-10, an act to implement a convention between Canada
and Sweden, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Lithuania, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Kazakhstan, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Iceland and a convention between Canada and the Kingdom of
Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend
the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act, 1986 and the
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, be now read a
second time and referred to the Standing Committee on finance;
and the motion of Mr. Lastewka “that this question be now put”.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred division on Bill C-10. The next recorded division is
on the previous question relating to Bill C-10.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: We will take the vote. All those in favour
of the motion will please rise.
1925
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 140
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
| Casson
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 111
|
PAIRED
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
| Desrochers
| Gallaway
|
Perron
| Pillitteri
| Redman
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please
say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
rise.
1935
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following
division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 179
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Charest
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Robinson
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 71
|
PAIRED
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
| Desrochers
| Gallaway
|
Perron
| Pillitteri
| Redman
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1940
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very serious issue that concerns
all Canadians. I attended in September a memorial service
honouring the law enforcement officers who gave their lives in
the line of duty. One way of ensuring protection for peace
officers and indeed all Canadians is to ensure that individuals
who are convicted of first degree murder do not receive early
release.
On September 29, the following day, I asked the Minister of
Justice if she would stop worrying about the protection of
criminals and do the right thing by repealing this offensive
section of the Criminal Code.
Her answer certainly demonstrated little if any compassion for
the families of victims. She basically told us at that time that
in no way does she intend to repeal this section and that we will
have to content ourselves with the amendments that were made by
her government last year; that is, she intends to simply lock the
issue up and throw away the key, something she refuses to do for
first degree murderers.
If the Minister of Justice does not know it, Canadians do.
Modifications made in January 1997, of which the Liberals are so
proud, do not prevent dangerous criminals such as Paul Bernardo
from applying for this early release. The answer should be, and
the minister knows this, that people like Mr. Bernardo should not
have the right to go through a judicial screening process in any
way, shape or form. Going through this judicial screening
process is in itself an extreme insult to the victims, their
families and all victims and Canadians in general.
People like Mr. Olson and Mr. Bernardo have forfeited each and
every right that every Canadian has and they should not have the
possibility to rehash their crimes and offensive acts. This is
not a right convicted murderers should have.
The minister needs to know and needs to be reminded of what
occurred at the Olson hearing in British Columbia this summer.
Let us remind the minister of this horrific hearing that took
place in August 1997. It was a very sad and frustrating day for
the families of Mr. Olson's victims who had to sit through this
ordeal of the appeal hearing and relive the horror this man put
their families through 15 years ago.
There is no justification in the world for a hearing like this
to take place. It only underscores the need for the immediate
abolition of section 745. Furthermore, it provided the media, in
particular television, with the opportunity to sensationalize the
coverage of this hearing. It shamelessly appealed to a number of
people in the public who lust for vicarious enjoyment of the
agony these individuals had to live through.
I understand that when this change to the Criminal Code was
brought in and amended, this faint hope was permitted to
continue. Although it was lessened, this was the intent of the
changes that were made. This faint hope clause still exists in
its present form. The argument that it is a useful tool for
rehabilitative purposes is certainly lost on the families of
those individuals who have to relive this process and have to
undergo the further agony of having this person who committed
these horrific acts be given media attention all over again.
Life sentences were initially a substitute for the taking of a
life as retribution on occasions where first degree premeditated
murders occurred. Let us live up to the intent of the life
sentence. Let us put truth in sentencing. Those criminals who
have gone through the process, been tried, convicted and put
behind bars should be kept there. I remind the Minister of
Justice that the opportunity is there and I put it to the
minister that now is the time to live up to Canadians'
expectations.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question.
We consider these reforms a fair compromise between normal concern
for victims and the safety of society and the search for a criminal
justice system that reflects a whole set of values.
[English]
Section 745.6 was intended for exceptional cases.
1945
With the amendments we have made, offenders who commit multiple
murders after January 9, 1997 will no longer be allowed to apply
for judicial review. In addition, the two changes we made to the
system, including offenders currently in the system provided that
they had not already applied when the amendments came into force,
were judicial screening and that the jury considering the
application must be unanimous.
In the Bernardo case even though the murders were committed
before the amendments came into force, the judicial screening and
the unanimity on behalf of the jury will apply.
No one can ignore the pain that the Olson and Bernardo cases
have inflicted on the families of the victims. The difference
between the government's approach and that of the Conservatives
and Reform is that the government wanted to do more for the
victims and their families and to acknowledge the pain they feel.
We are not going to stop only with the focus on section 745. We
are doing more in terms of the families of the victims and the
government will be speaking to that in the future.
The Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:46 p.m.)