36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 176
CONTENTS
Monday, February 8, 1999
1100
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Order Paper Questions—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSIT PASSES
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1120
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1135
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1200
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1215
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-65. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1220
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1300
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1340
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTICULTURALISM
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1400
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GENIE AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SARAH WHEATON
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL YEAR 2000 PREPAREDNESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1405
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CIRQUE DU SOLEIL
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE KING HUSSEIN
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOIRÉE DES MASQUES
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE KING HUSSEIN
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE KING HUSSEIN OF JORDAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1415
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1420
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1425
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1440
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1445
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MANPOWER TRAINING
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1450
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHING QUOTAS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE KING HUSSEIN
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1505
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1510
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fresh Water
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Casualty and Property Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1520
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Additives
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1525
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1530
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1545
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1600
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1605
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1610
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1630
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1635
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1640
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1700
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1705
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1710
1715
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1730
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1735
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1750
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1755
1800
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1815
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1820
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC Inquiry
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1835
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1840
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1845
![V](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 176
![](/web/20061116192606im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 8, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
POINTS OF ORDER
ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am ready to make a ruling on the point
of order raised on December 8, 1998 by the hon. member for
Delta—South Richmond concerning Questions on the Order Paper.
First of all I want to thank the member for raising the matter.
I also want to acknowledge the contributions made by the hon.
House leader of the opposition, the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Leader of the Government in the House.
If I may, I wish to express my appreciation to the Deputy
Chairman of Committees of the Whole who acted on my behalf to
deal with the point of order raised at the time.
In his submission the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond
presented arguments concerning three separate issues relating to
Questions on the Order Paper. These are: first, the length of
the questions; second, the number of questions allowed and the
length of time taken by the government to answer the questions;
and third, as the member stated, “failure to receive factual
answers”.
The hon. member brought up this matter as a point of order. For
the benefit of all members and the listening public, a point of
order is a question raised with respect to any departure from the
standing orders or customary procedures either in debate or in
the conduct of the House or committee business. In this case the
member alleges that Standing Order 39 has not been properly
complied with.
[Translation]
Standing Order 39 has several components. Members may place up
to four questions on the Order Paper and may request that the
government provide a response within 45 days. In addition, this
Standing Order gives the Clerk, acting for the Speaker, the
authority to ensure that questions are concise and coherent and
to order that certain questions be posed separately.
[English]
I will now address each of the three distinct issues submitted
by the hon. member.
As the first point of his presentation, the hon. member alleged
that his written question submitted on October 28 was refused
because it was too lengthy. He argued that the standing orders
do not provide the Clerk with any guidance on the division of
questions and therefore there was no authority to divide his
question.
The member also reflected on the manner in which the question was
handled by those responsible for the order paper.
1105
[Translation]
Before I give consideration to the procedural dimension of this
particular aspect of the point of order, I must take issue with
the way in which the member expressed his frustration with the
handling of his question. As so eloquently stated by my
colleague the Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole:
[English]
The people working for parliament work for parliament. They do
not work for one party or another. They have a specific job that
is mandated to them to make sure that the questions are in a form
which may be responded to.
[Translation]
I want to assure all members that the staff of the House of
Commons aim for the highest level of competence and
professionalism in the services they provide to members in
support of their parliamentary activities. Most importantly, I
must attest to the impartiality of the Clerk's staff. As I am
sure all hon. members do, I have complete confidence in these
employees and the way in which they discharge the important
duties they have been assigned.
[English]
That being said, I will now turn to the procedural issue at
hand, the dividing of a written question. Standing Order 39(4)
limits to four the number of questions a member may have on the
order paper at any one time. As pointed out by the hon. member
for Winnipeg—Transcona, this rule has its origins in the 1985
report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of
Commons, which is commonly known as the McGrath committee.
In return, there was a provision that the government would, upon
request, reply within 45 days. The committee expressed concern
that members might try to circumvent the limit of four by
submitting questions containing numerous subquestions. The
McGrath committee proposed that the Clerk should have the
authority to reject outright or to split into separate and
distinct questions those that contain unrelated subquestions.
I concur with my predecessor, Speaker Fraser, when he ruled on
June 14, 1989, that although not explicitly outlined in the
standing orders the Clerk must apply more rigorously the
provisions of Standing Order 39(2) and have the authority to
order certain questions to be posed separately, as was
recommended in the McGrath report.
I have reviewed the question as originally submitted on October
28 by the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond and have found
that proper procedures were followed and that the recommendations
to divide his question were made according to Standing Order
39(2) and based on the precedents of this place.
The member contended that the length of his question prompted
its suggested division. In my opinion this recommendation to
divide the question was not an arbitrary one. The issue was not
the length of the question but rather the fact that it contained
unrelated subquestions. The subquestions may be linked from the
member's point of view but are in reality separate and distinct
questions.
As with any interpretation of rules there is unavoidably an
element of judgment involved. In this case judgment was properly
exercised and, if anything, a certain latitude was given to the
member.
Guided by the many years of practice in the application of this
standing order dealing with the conciseness and coherence of
order paper questions, House officials are always willing to
assist members with the editing of their questions and to discuss
with them or their staff any issue that may arise.
I will now proceed to the second issue raised by the hon.
member's point of order: the number of questions allowed and the
length of time taken by the government to answer the questions.
[Translation]
The member stated that, by not answering his questions within
the 45 days allotted by the Standing Orders, the government
prevented him from asking questions due to the limit of four,
and that his ability to ask a further question was thereby
undermined.
The member raises a valid concern, one that has been raised many
times in the past. However, the Standing Orders do not require
the government to provide a response within 45 days. While the
Chair sympathizes with the member, previous Speakers have ruled
that there is no particular sanction that the Chair can use to
force the government to meet this deadline.
I refer members to the Debates of May 18, 1989, at page 1891,
where Speaker Fraser indicated that:
1110
[English]
Having said that, let me remind all members that there must be a
balance between the requirements of the members asking the
questions and the government which provides the answers. As I
had remarked in my ruling on February 9, 1995, found in the
Debatesd at page 9426:
It is incumbent upon all those involved on both sides of the
process ... to ensure that every care is taken so that these
exchanges remain as fruitful and as useful as possible.
I would expect that the government would make every effort to
respond within 45 days if so requested and that members would
craft their questions in a manner to make this as likely as
possible.
This having been said, the onus rests with the House to examine
this rule and to make changes if it so chooses.
[Translation]
Moving now to the third item raised by the hon. member for
Delta—South Richmond: the “failure to receive factual answers”.
In particular, the member expressed dissatisfaction with the
response provided by the government to his Question No. 91.
This matter is essentially identical to the substance of the
question of privilege he raised on May 27, 1998.
At that time, I had quoted from my previously mentioned ruling
of February 9, 1995, in which I stated that:
There are no provisions in the Standing Orders for the Speaker
to review government responses to questions posed.
[English]
I then also quoted from my predecessor, Speaker Sauvé, who
stated on February 28, 1983, at page 23278 of the Debates:
It is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the
contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate.
To summarize the Chair's position on the three issues raised by
the member, I find first that proper procedure was followed in
the request made to the member to divide his question of October
28. Second, I also find that while the 45 day limit causes
problems for both sides of the House, the Chair has no authority
to intervene in this area and, third, the Chair cannot comment on
the quality or the factual content of the answers provided by the
government to order paper questions.
I would like to conclude by saying that this is not the first
time the member for Delta—South Richmond has raised this issue,
not only during this session but also in the last parliament. It
is obviously a matter he feels strongly about as evidenced by his
well researched submission on December 8.
Members will recall that he alluded to the parliamentary
practices of the United Kingdom and Australia with respect to
written questions. Although I do not think it is relevant to the
case he brought before the Chair, it would certainly be an area
that may be of interest to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs. As I mentioned previously, the Chair can only
enforce the standing orders as they have been adopted by the
House. However, pursuant to Standing Order 108 it is within the
mandate of the procedure committee to review and report on the
standing orders, procedure and practice in the House and its
committees.
The member has the option of voicing his concern either through
his party's leader in the House, who is a member of the procedure
committee, or to write directly to the chair of the committee.
[Translation]
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the
government that it is responsible for the quality and accuracy
of the answers it provides to Order Paper questions. I would
also like to point out that the government is free to inform
members if the 45-day deadline will not be complied with—and I am
inclined to encourage this approach considering it may reduce
interventions that sometimes take up valuable time away from the
business of the House. It would also give members the option to
pursue other avenues to obtain the information they seek.
[English]
I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the
attention of the House.
1115
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your ruling on this issue. I have a comment and
perhaps a question to put to the House. The Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs has been advised that our party
would like this issue raised and dealt with in a review of the
standing orders. That is as it should be. We will deal with it
there and hopefully we can come to you with some proposals to
solve this question.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the other issue, you have ruled
that the government needs some leeway in the 45 day period that
the government has to respond to written questions. It has been
a traditional ruling of the Chair that the government needs some
leeway since 45 days sometimes is not long enough. If that is
the case, if there is some leeway on that side, what is the
member who finds himself blocked from asking another question to
do? If the member is allowed four questions on the order paper
and they stretch off into the distance at an unknown date, then
he is blocked from asking future questions.
There is leeway on the government side with the 45 days. Mr.
Speaker, as you have said and as other Speakers have ruled, there
needs to be some leeway, but there is no leeway on the member's
side. The member has four questions and four it shall remain.
His conundrum is that he needs answers to those questions in
order to do his work as a parliamentarian. He needs the fodder
to answer questions, to critique the government and to put
forward his own policy initiatives, but he is stopped at four
questions because that is an absolute number.
Would there be some consideration when the 45 days is extended
for the government side that the member would be allowed to
submit another question? If it is good for the goose is it also
good for the gander?
The Speaker: I appreciate the comment made by the hon.
member. From my perspective that is an avenue which should be
pursued in this fashion. He does not of course question my
ruling, but he is asking for some guidance.
I would suggest to him, with all due respect, that the way he
and the hon. member have chosen to rectify the matter, with
respect to the first part of his comments, might be one that he
would also consider using for the question he poses to the Chair.
The Chair is not in a position to make rules standing on his
feet, but the Chair would always take direction from the
committee on procedure and House affairs. I encourage the hon.
whip of the Reform Party and the hon. member for Delta—South
Richmond to pursue this as an avenue for this House.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As in the discussion I had
with you this morning, my intention was not to question the
impartiality of the staff of the House of Commons. My intention
was merely to point out the difficulty they face in dealing with
a question such as the one I submitted when the rules are so
vague.
I appreciate your comments this morning, but I point out that
the vagueness is still a problem. However, you have suggested a
big picture solution and we will certainly take that under
advisement. I thank you for your ruling.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his comments
with regard to the quality and the impartiality of the work of
our clerks, which is never in question and should never be in
question in the House. I thank him for that clarification.
It being 11.19 a.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TRANSIT PASSES
The House resumed from November 4, 1998, consideration of the
motion.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons this
morning to support Motion No. 360 which calls for employer
provided transit passes to be an income tax exempt benefit.
1120
I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member of
parliament for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, who has
moved this motion and who has done an enormous amount of work,
not only with members of parliament from other parties, but also
with a number of municipalities, trade unions, environmentalists
and businesses across this country to make sure that we have in
the Income Tax Act a fair opportunity for working people to
provide and receive an income tax benefit for using mass transit.
Before getting into who supports this idea and some of the real
and significant benefits, I want to go over the reasons for which
I support Motion No. 360.
First, it affects pollution in this country. It affects the
health of Canadians. It deals with the congestion problem in the
cities of Canada. It is a social equity issue, an environmental
issue and an economic issue. I want to say a few words about
each of those headings if I might.
We all pay tax on our income. Some of the benefits we receive
from our employer must also be declared as income and are
therefore taxable. Employer provided parking and employer
provided transit passes are both considered taxable under the
current federal Income Tax Act.
However, Revenue Canada's interpretation of this act provides
tax preferences allowing most employees to receive their free
parking income tax free. This is an incentive for commuters to
drive and represents a significant loss of income tax revenue,
but this is a bias in my view for those who drive automobiles and
against those who use mass transit.
One way to address this unfair bias is to provide a tax
exemption to public transit users. This provides equity for
non-drivers as well as motivation for drivers to switch to a mode
of transportation with lower environmental costs and lower costs
to the taxpayer in terms of the maintaining of roads, health care
and so on. I believe it is a rare opportunity for the federal
government to effect public policy at the local level.
In the United States, the opportunity for employers to provide
their employees with an income tax free transit subsidy became
available under the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 and the Tax
Reform Act of 1986.
On average, transit expenditures among recipients increased by
23%. With a 31% increase in transit use by participating San
Francisco employees, an estimated 17 million vehicle miles were
removed from their roads, 61 million tons of pollutants were
avoided and $1.6 million of new transit revenue was generated.
This is an example of the benefit of providing transit passes to
employees as an income tax exempt benefit.
With respect to Canada's commitment to greenhouse gas reductions
under the Kyoto protocol, Canada has committed to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.
Transportation is the largest single sector source of Canada's
carbon emissions, at 32%, accounting for 30% of energy used and
65% of petroleum consumed. Half of these emissions are produced
by cars and light trucks in cities where public transit is
available. Transportation emissions are expected to rise 52%, if
this major issue is not addressed, between 1991 and the year
2020.
We also have an interesting issue with respect to transportation
and greenhouse gases. One of the greatest economic and
environmental challenges facing the world is the control of CO2
and other greenhouse gases because they threaten to destabilize
the climate and they lead to global warming. We are seeing many
examples of that around the world.
In Canada we have seen the rising sea level. We have seen
temperature change in certain regions of our country. We have
seen unprecedented drought cycles and extreme weather events,
such as floods, fires, ice storms and so on which, cause human
displacement. They cause food shortages and losses exceeding the
financial capabilities of the insurance industry.
1125
This information was provided by the National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy in its strategy for sustainable
transportation in Ontario, which it prepared in 1995.
With respect to health, whenever we travel to cities like
Vancouver, Toronto, Victoria, Halifax and Winnipeg we see more
and more smog, which is ground level ozone. It has increased by
about 20% over the last decade. Medical research shows that smog
is contributing to increased incidents of respiratory illness,
higher physician emergency room visits and increased mortality.
This is a very significant development in light of the fact that
our health care has been cut back by the Liberal government by $6
billion a year. When people are being subjected to broader ill
environments and broader risks to their health, they will be ill
in greater numbers, requiring health care, and our health care
has been taken away by the federal government to the tune of $6
billion a year.
Support for this motion might encourage the Liberal government
to provide some consideration which would be helpful to working
people.
We can talk about traffic congestion and how it increases travel
time, parking demand, vehicle costs and wear and tear on the
roads. Two forty-foot buses carrying 130 people occupy about 80
feet of a single lane, but to carry the same number of people by
car requires an extra 1,500 feet of lane.
If we have 130 people in cars, versus 130 people in two buses,
we will see the wear and tear on our roads, an increase in smog
and pollution and we will see all sorts of negative impacts upon
Canadians in this country. We believe this is another reason to
support the motion.
We can talk about social inequity. Generational poverty
increases when people have limited access to education and work
due to mobility barriers. Adequate mobility is essential for
people to participate in society as community members, producers
and consumers. Public transit provides safe, affordable, basic
mobility for those persons without an alternative, including
transit-dependent students, lower income workers, seniors and
other persons who either cannot afford or choose not to own an
automobile.
Converting to public transit reduces the costs associated with
the impacts of pollution, traffic congestion and the other things
I have mentioned. Public transit also provides substantial
regional economic development benefits by channelling
transportation dollars back into the community.
We see many reasons to support such a motion. There are also
many individuals and organizations supporting this particular
motion. The Federation of Urban Municipalities, which is our
national organization representing municipal organizations across
this country, supports the motion. In my province of
Saskatchewan, the city of Saskatoon, the town of Langdon, the
town of Martensville and the city of Regina support this
particular motion for all of the reasons I mentioned.
We also have quite a lengthy list of organizations from across
the country which support such an initiative. They include: The
Canadian Lung Association, the Climate Change Task Force group of
the National Air Issues Co-ordination Committee, the David Suzuki
Foundation, the Ontario Lung Association, Physicians for Global
Survival, Pollution Probe, the Saskatchewan Lung Association, the
Saskatoon Environmental Society, the Sierra Club of Canada and
various trade unions and other governments.
I would like to ask members to consider supporting this motion.
It is votable. It will mean better access to transit by working
people. Working people, as members know, who make $40,000 a year
or less do not have a lot of options for tax deductions. We do
not have a lot of support in our tax system to help them get to
their places of work. I think in a country like Canada, which
has such an expansive geography, mass transit is the only way to
go.
The last example I give before I conclude my remarks is the
example of grain movement in western Canada. We have seen
passenger trains being pulled off the rails. Now they are
thinking of closing a lot of the rail lines in western Canada
that move grain. They are using trucks instead of boxcars. That
is having an additional effect on our environment because more
trucks on the road affect not just the environment but our roads.
1130
I ask all members to support this motion which my colleague in
the NDP has so thoroughly researched and presented to the House
of Commons.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too wish to
speak to Motion M-360, introduced by our colleague from Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider making employer-provided transit passes an income
tax-exempt benefit.
The Bloc Quebecois will be supporting this motion. I believe it
is our duty as legislators to adopt policies which make it
possible to attain objectives of public interest which are of
vital importance.
If the government accepted tax exemption for employer-provided
transit passes, it would be exhibiting fairness, encouraging
public transit, and effectively combatting pollution.
At the moment, we have a situation of flagrant inequity:
employees who take public transit and receive bus passes from
their employers are deemed to have received a taxable benefit.
To put it clearly, this benefit is considered to be income, and
therefore taxable. On the other hand, according to a Revenue
Canada interpretation, those whose employer provides parking can
benefit from a tax exemption. There seems to me, therefore, to
be a problem of equity here.
Responsible public policy dictates that we must stop encouraging
automobile use over public transit.
Public transit is safer, more economical, less polluting and,
most importantly, accessible to more people. They are thus
perhaps more humane, certainly more cost-effective, healthier and
more democratic.
When he introduced the motion, the hon. member for Kamloops.
Thompson and Highland Valleys gave a detailed explanation of how
the Americans implemented this system. There is no lack of
precedent, therefore, on which we can build. The benefits to
public transit in the U.S.A. are undeniable. Everywhere that
employees were able to take advantage of this measure there was
an increase in the use of public transit, and major improvements
to infrastructures and services to the population.
It has become obvious in the greater Montreal area and other
areas in Quebec and Canada that, when services are cut, there
are fewer users. And when the demand drops, bus routes are
removed. This creates a vicious circle of the worst kind. On the
other hand, whenever the demand for public transit is
encouraged, a virtuous circle is created, which promotes the
expansion of public services.
It was no accident that the three major urban transit companies
in Quebec, namely the Société de transport de la Communauté
urbaine de Montréal, Société de transport de Laval and Société
de transport de la rive sud de Montréal, as well as most if not
all their unions and employees are asking that we support a
progressive and innovative policy. In addition, it seems obvious
that promoting public transit is also a matter of social
fairness.
As our colleagues so aptly pointed out, and I quote:
It is unfair that low-income families have been left with less
access to educational and job opportunities simply because they
do not own a vehicle.
That is to say nothing of the environmental aspect. According to
a Transport Canada 3000 report, it is estimated that transit
passes could help reduce automobile travel by as much as 300
million kilometres over 10 years.
1135
This would result in lower noise levels, fewer traffic jams and
accidents, less congestion in parking areas as well as
tremendous savings in terms of fuel and other non-renewable
resources.
Finally, if approved, this proposal would assist in fulfilling
Canada's Kyoto commitments. For the record, I will go over them
briefly.
The Kyoto protocol calls for an average 5.2% reduction of
greenhouse emissions in all industrialized countries between
2008 and 2012.
This means that Canada will have to reduce its 1990 levels of
emissions by 6 per cent. However, the federal government has
been dragging its feet regarding this issue. It has long put off
any concrete measure to help fight climate change, which is a
result of the greenhouse effect.
Following the signing of the Kyoto protocol, the federal
government proposed the setting up of task forces, where some
450 experts would try to devise a strategy. While the 1998
budget provided for $150 million over a three-year period, it was
only on October 19 that the first initiatives were announced,
and that a Canadian strategy finally seemed to be taking shape,
following the Kyoto protocol.
The government will spend millions to correct this environmental
mess.
Therefore, some may think it will surely refuse to make transit
passes an income tax-exempt benefit, since this measure would
deprive the government of valuable tax revenues. This is not the
case. Indeed, how do these revenues compare with the savings in
the health sector and in the budgets for the construction and
renovation of our infrastructures, not to mention the incentives
related to employment and distributive justice?
Why does the government not cut the billions of dollars that it
has been giving for years to the oil and nuclear industries? Oil
consumption is the primary cause of greenhouse gases, that
scourge that those in Kyoto said they wanted to fight.
As for nuclear technology, it creates more problems than it
solves. For example, CANDU reactors are neither efficient nor
profitable and they pose a major threat to human safety and
international security, since it is possible to divert that
technology and use it for military purposes.
Just remember, barely a few months ago, when the Indo-Pakistani
crisis brought the threat of a nuclear conflict to the whole
world.
Some might accuse me of exaggerating in establishing a link
between bus passes and nuclear threat. Not so, considering that
cumulative short sighted policies have often led our world on
the brink of disaster during the 20th century.
We are moving step by step on the road to a better world. With
the 21st century just months away, let us take a measure that
will promote fairness, a healthier environment, sustainable
development and a more just society.
The motion of the member for Kamloops—Thompson and Highland
Valleys seeks to do that, and we support it.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for putting forward this
motion. The motion certainly gives us an opportunity to put on
the table various views concerning the subject. It allows us to
talk in general terms about the commitment we all have to the
environment to ensure that it continues to be one which we
cherish and one which we will continually take steps to improve.
The government recognizes that encouraging the use of public
transportation is important.
Other members have raised some concerns with respect to the
measure, the fairness and the efficiency.
1140
We have to ensure before we commit the government's scarce
resources that any measures taken represent an efficient use of
public funds. When we look at this particular motion, the bulk of
tax assistance would accrue to individuals already using mass
transportation. Although we have heard various numbers quoted
today in the debate, the incremental increase in the number of
transit users is expected to be small compared to the existing
users. One could argue that the proposed measure would not be the
most cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We should also note that the tax system is not always the most
efficient and effective mechanism for accomplishing various
policy objectives. We all know that all levels of government have
a variety of policy tools at their disposal and they must be
careful to use each one properly.
We must be clear that the government recognizes the importance
of sustainable development in all its aspects including its
impact on climate change. The government is committed to
pursuing the principle of long term sustainability across a wide
spectrum of government activities. To provide leadership in this
important area the federal government has required all of its
departments to prepare sustainable development strategies for
tabling in parliament. Federal departments are expected to
update these strategies every three years and to provide annual
progress reports on implementing them.
The Department of Finance which is responsible for tax policy
had its sustainable development strategy tabled in parliament on
December 10, 1997. The department recognizes that closer
integration of economic and environmental goals is an important
objective and has taken concrete steps toward furthering this
objective in every budget since 1994.
Last year's budget provided an additional $50 million annually
for three years. The funds will help lay a strong foundation
including developing a national implementation strategy, carrying
out public education, encouraging early action by Canadians,
identifying best practices and mechanisms such as emissions
trading, all with the objective of reducing the impact of climate
change.
To co-ordinate efforts in this regard the Government of Canada
announced the establishment of a climate change secretariat that
will support the efforts of the ministers and will work with the
provinces and stakeholders to develop the national implementation
strategy to honour our Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. As part of this process a transportation issue table
has been created to determine the most appropriate measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. The
table will examine the merit of the proposed tax treatment of
transit passes along with other available options and will make
recommendations to governments.
I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this important
issue to our attention. I believe that the measure will be
reviewed as part of the national process. It would therefore be
premature to take any action in this regard immediately. I am
sure I am like all members of the House who would like to make
gains against greenhouse gas emissions, but I would also like to
take a comprehensive approach, an approach that is all inclusive.
Governments in the past have sometimes taken a piecemeal
approach to challenges that we face. We know the results. We
have made progress in a number of areas. But we know that when
we approach an issue from a comprehensive and all inclusive
perspective, the results and the outcomes are ones that we are
proud of and that we can live with.
The issue of greenhouse gas emissions is global. We have a
global commitment to deal with it. We will deal with this issue
in a collective fashion. It has been stated by other speakers
that this initiative alone may not provide the results we are
looking for.
It is questionable whether we will see an increase in ridership.
This particular motion solely addresses the aspect of making the
employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit.
1145
I believe the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre made
reference to making this tax deductible. There is a difference.
In this motion we are only focusing on those individuals who are
employed. There are individuals who are most in need like
seniors who have benefits that local municipalities provide by
offering them reduced rates for public transportation.
The issue should be approached from a much wider spectrum. Also
it is being suggested at a time when there is a more
comprehensive approach being taken by the government, by the
stakeholders and by all the partners.
I know members who have engaged in this debate have talked about
the support that is out there among the municipalities and
environmental groups. The government is supportive of
initiatives that will deal with greenhouse gas emissions.
However, we must be cautious in ensuring that whatever we do we
do it in a manner that will be efficient and will make best use
of taxpayers dollars.
By moving on the motion as it is presently worded we would not
be achieving our objectives in Kyoto and our objectives with
respect to the tax assistance that we may be able to provide.
With that being said, I would urge hon. members not to support
the motion.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I too
commend the hon. member from Kamloops for bringing the issue
forward in this motion.
The fact is that we have made commitments in Kyoto. Global
warming is real. It is a very important issue, one that all
Canadians and certainly members of the House from all parties
should be extremely concerned about.
The parliamentary secretary spoke about the need for a plan and
that the federal government would work toward developing a plan.
He was also very clear in terms of his opposition to the motion.
Where he was not so clear was what in fact was the government's
plan to deal with this extraordinarily important issue.
The government is very good at pinpointing a particular
initiative such as the one suggested by the member from Kamloops
as being inappropriate or wrong headed, but the government has
not been as good in actually providing some level of leadership
or strong consultation with the provinces and the municipalities
to develop a strategy that addresses this very real issue.
Initially when I saw the motion I had some concerns. I
typically have concerns about a Pavlovian type tax policy that
encourages some types of behaviours and discourages others. We
already have a tax code in Canada that is far too complicated.
The logical corollary of the motion, for instance, is if people
were walking to work we might remove taxes on shoes. I am not
being facetious, but we get into a very murky area when we talk
about complicating a tax code that is already far too complex.
That being the case, while I should have perhaps been happy to
hear the parliamentary secretary speak about simplifying the tax
code—and again his government has done nothing but complicate
the tax code—our party continues to stand for and believe in
broadly based tax relief, increasing the basic personal
exemption, reindexing the tax brackets, and eliminating and
phasing out the surtaxes that are currently driving some of our
best and brightest elsewhere, the types of tax policies that will
benefit all Canadians not just now but as we enter the 21st
century.
Our party is supporting the motion. One of the reasons we will
be supporting it, despite our concerns about an increasingly
complicated tax code, is that the environment is a very unique
issue. The environment and economics are inextricably linked.
For far too long we have in a lot of jurisdictions in the country
dealt with the environment separately from economics. In fact
those people typically interested in economics discount
environmental arguments and vice versa.
In fact we cannot do that. It is not appropriate to do that and
it is not logical.
1150
It is very important at the time of the production of an
environmental externality, that is emissions, that the cost of
that externality be internalized into the cost of the consumer
who is utilizing the service or the product which is causing that
environmental externality. It is very important that there be a
direct cost for environmentally unsound behaviour and a benefit
for environmentally positive behaviour.
It is very difficult for us in our day to day lives to see the
benefit of sound environmental actions on a micro level because
we cannot tie it directly to our quality of life in the short
term. Global warming for many of us is something that still
seems fairly esoteric and arcane. It is important that somehow
we can link in a very direct way people's behaviours: negative
behaviours to a negative policy in this case or positive
behaviours, that is taking public transit, to a positive
treatment under the tax code.
I lived in New York for several years. During that period the
degree to which New Yorkers relied on public transit was amazing
to me. In north New Jersey and New York City there are about 10
million people living in a very small land mass. When we
consider how efficiently that city operates in terms of its
public transit system, probably from an environmental perspective
the low impact the citizenry of New York has in terms of global
warming compared to other centres that are more spread out, it is
almost a miracle. We could look at cities like Los Angeles,
Atlanta, Toronto and such cities that were built around the
suburbs and urban sprawl. Cities like New York rely on public
transit and were designed very well from the beginning to
accommodate public transit and ultimately have become in my
opinion examples of environmentally sound urban planning.
Perhaps that is one area in which the federal government should
be working more closely and playing a leadership role. Part of
our Kyoto commitment could be working with provinces and
municipalities in terms of urban planning and the types of
initiatives that have been successful globally. Linking
environmental policy to day to day action is very important. We
need to explore this issue further.
I know the Reform Party has spoken against the motion but we are
supporting it. We also recognize that there are other examples
where tax policies have been suggested by Reform members. For
instance, the mortgage interest deductibility was supported by
and large by the Reform caucus. There are examples where the
Reform Party will recognize the importance of some types of
behaviours but not necessarily other types of policies.
I would argue that certainly home ownership is as
extraordinarily important as a clean environment, an environment
that is sustainable and is there for future generations of
Canadians. One thing Canada has that we must covet and protect
is our relatively clean environment. We are recognized around
the world for our relatively pristine surroundings and
environment. It is something we cannot take for granted.
If we look at the demographics and the fact that people are
moving into the cities, that urban centres are growing, this is
the type of policy we have to explore very carefully. It should
not be summarily discounted by the government as a bad idea until
it has a set of policies to address these very important issues.
It is also important to recognize and commend the New Democrats
for doing something that I had not expected them to do and that
is to suggest a tax cut.
Perhaps we should recognize that important evolution. If we
support this private member's motion on providing a tax benefit
for taking public transit, in the future perhaps we could engage
the New Democrats in a discussion about their supporting our
belief of tax cuts for everybody in Canada. Clearly that is
something we all need. It would be sound not just for the
environment but for all aspects of our quality of life.
1155
The Speaker: I understand the hon. member for
Leeds—Grenville will be splitting his time with the hon. member
for Davenport. Is that correct?
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker. I appreciate the chance to discuss the motion before us
concerning the tax status of employer provided transit passes.
On the surface this initiative would seem destined to digress
into what is an all too familiar confrontation, to which the
previous speaker alluded, between the environment and the
economy. Framed in those narrow terms I know how that story will
end, but I honestly feel that this issue has the potential to
encourage needed debate on a number of important issues. We have
heard that already this morning in previous speeches.
The first issue debate around this point raises is the notion of
costs. I have seen a number of reports both in Canada and the
United States that outline the financial impacts of a whole
variety of transit benefit programs. I was struck by what was
not included in the cost benefit analysis. Things such as the
health costs associated with increasingly poor air quality are
not included in the calculation of whether this is a good or bad
idea.
There are remedial costs associated with cleaning up the air. We
will have to do it sooner or later and somebody will have to pay
for it. There is lost productivity associated with traffic
gridlock. One of the previous speakers used a calculation that
100 cars equal two buses. If we can put more people on buses
then people will spend less time in traffic jams and more time
engaged in the productive activities they are hired and paid to
do. There are the costs associated with the construction and
maintenance of the infrastructure needed to support the number of
cars on the highways and bridges.
I am not saying for a minute that including these costs would
cause the equation to lean in one direction or another, but I am
saying they are rather conspicuous by their absence. The fact
that some of these costs are difficult to quantify should not be
rationale for ignoring them completely.
These types of costs transcend not only ministries in the
federal government. They also transcend levels of government. It
is important to remember there is only one taxpayer in the
country. We are fooling ourselves if we think that over time the
costs we are not calculating will simply go away. The Sydney Tar
Ponds are a $2 billion shrine to that kind of nonsensical
thinking. Sooner or later these costs have to be captured and
have to be paid.
To make matters worse, we are not only passing these costs on to
taxpayers that had no share in any benefits these initiatives
might have realized, but we are in some cases passing these costs
on to our children, our grandchildren and our
great-grandchildren. Those kinds of debts and leaving that kind
of legacy of debt are extremely hard to justify on any level.
The challenge we face is to meet our own needs without
compromising the capacity of future generations to meet their
needs. To that end I think government has a definite role in the
identification, the calculation and the verification of the full
costs and benefits of activities and in the development of
policies that allocate these costs appropriately.
The impact on the natural and human resources of the nation need
to be taken into account for any decisions we make. This motion
also brings into question the fundamental concept of what is the
role of the tax system. To put it bluntly this initiative goes
against the grain. Not only would a tax exemption reduce tax
revenues to the government, but increased mass transit ridership
would also reduce gasoline sales, a commodity that is also a
source of tax revenue. It does illustrate the role the tax
system can play in encouraging certain behaviours.
Governments seem to spend a great deal of time and effort
developing regulatory regimes and trying to reinforce corporate
behaviours that run directly counter to what the tax system
encourages them to do. Not only are command and control
approaches expensive. They are all too often totally
ineffective.
We need to look at fiscal policies that encourage sustainable
behaviours. Spending in environmental areas should look and act
like investments, not costs.
1200
Ideally we need a tax system that places taxes on the things we
want less of and exemptions for activities that result in the
things we want more of. This motion is certainly attempting to
do just that.
I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this motion to the
House. I draw the attention of all members to the wording of the
motion; that we consider this action is hardly radical. I would
be the first to admit that this action is not without
repercussions. The discussion which would result in a detailed
examination of those factors would not only be a valuable
exercise in and of itself, but it would also serve to send a very
clear and positive message to Canadians that we not only
understand but are prepared to address the challenges we face as
we shift to support the core and non-partisan value of
sustainability.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
recommendation of the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys is praiseworthy. It has been proposed by the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities each year since 1990, imagine. It has
also been made in two reports of the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development.
It was first proposed in the 1995 report “Keeping a Promise:
Towards a Sustainable Budget”. We heard a number of witnesses
on the question of transit passes which was one topic of
discussion before the committee. Witnesses noted that levelling
the playing field in the transportation sector by making transit
passes a tax free benefit would encourage employees to use public
transit. The result would be reduced energy consumption,
decreased atmospheric pollution and reduced traffic congestion.
In 1997 the same committee produced the report “Kyoto and
Beyond: Meeting the Climate Change Challenge”. One
recommendation of the committee was to let Finance Canada conduct
a comprehensive study of the fiscal and regulatory tools
available to the federal government to encourage a shift to
public transit, including the provision that employer provided
transit passes be considered a tax free benefit. So far this
recommendation seems to have been ignored.
In 1998 a request to the finance department to provide an
accounting of the total value of benefits currently provided
through employer provided parking was referred to the Department
of National Revenue. However, Revenue Canada was unable to
provide the data. In other words we are in the unfortunate
position of not knowing how many people take advantage of tax
free parking benefits.
Nevertheless both the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada
argue that by offering the benefit to other commuters there is a
negative impact on the tax base, as we heard earlier from the
distinguished parliamentary secretary.
We do know that social, environmental and equity benefits would
arise from implementing the transit pass tax exemption. We also
know there is widespread support for the measure, as indicated
already by other members. The Amalgamated Transit Union has
organized a campaign. Support comes from sources so diverse as
the city of Saskatoon, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens,
Pollution Probe, the Lung Association of Canada, the Canadian
Labour Congress, the National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy, the city of Toronto, and the Regional Municipality
of Ottawa-Carleton.
This motion is well timed and deserves the support of this House
and the Government of Canada, considering the commitment made in
Kyoto by the Government of Canada. The parliamentary secretary's
arguments are worth examining but the basic thrust of this motion
reflects widespread support across the country. Therefore we
must conclude it is time for Ottawa to act.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the motion before us calling on the House to consider
making employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt
benefit was recently brought to my attention by one of my
constituents.
While I was aware that this issue was being debated in the House,
I will admit that before the meeting with my constituent, I had
not invested much time in understanding the issue completely.
1205
Mary Jane Dawson came into my office with her children over the
Christmas break to talk to me about why she felt this was an
important initiative and one which deserved my support and the
support of the Reform caucus. Her young children, Riley and
Kelsy, also had very strong views about this motion. They were
concerned about the state of the environment and about the impact
of emissions on global warming, air quality and health.
As a member of the Reform caucus, I believe strongly that I
should work to best represent my constituents within the
framework of Reform Party principles that were established in a
democratic grassroots process. However, as any member of my
caucus can attest to, it is not always possible to determine the
views of our constituents on each and every issue. At best we
attempt to gauge public opinion by the number of letters that
cross our desks or the number of people who phone or visit our
offices. It is not very scientific, but I believe this is a
useful guide.
The visit I had with Ms. Dawson and her children forced me to
examine the issue more closely and determine whether I could
support the motion and still stay committed to the policies that
have been painstakingly developed by thousands of average
Canadians across the country.
There is no question that this motion would add to the
complexity of the tax code. What this country needs is tax cuts
and not more tax exemptions.
The Reform Party would work to create a flatter, simpler and
fairer tax system. We would also remove 1.2 million Canadians
earning less than $30,000 a year from the tax rolls completely.
This means that seniors, students and other low income Canadians
will have more money in their pockets. This would enable them to
purchase transit passes or pay for other transportation needs
with their own money.
But we do not live in a perfect world and we do not have a
Reform government in power until the next election. What we have
is a Liberal government that is taxing hard working Canadians
into poverty. Let us look at the Liberal record.
Income taxes under the Liberal government are 56% higher than
the average of our G-7 partners. The average Canadian family paid
about $21,000 in total taxes in 1996. For 1998 the government
will collect $19 billion more in income taxes alone than it
collected in 1993, a 37% increase. Bracket creep, the deindexing
of the personal income tax system, has sucked an extra $13.4
billion from taxpayers. In 1997 alone, Canadian taxpayers paid
$4.3 billion more than they would have had the system been
indexed in 1993.
According to Statistics Canada, between 1989 and 1995 real after
tax family incomes fell by $3,461 from $41,000 to approximately
$37,000.
In the first two quarters of 1997, governments took two of every
three dollars of additional personal income earned by Canadians
in direct taxes alone.
Low income Canadians who earn more than $6,456 are taxed at 17%
of their income.
Finally, Canadians pay indirectly for the cost of Canada's
burdensome regulatory environment, which cost Canadians the
equivalent to 12% of GDP.
This is a shameful Liberal record. This is why the advocates
for the working poor are looking for ways to give low income
working Canadians a break with tax exempt transit passes.
If we let the poor keep what little they earn, we give them the
means and motive by which to improve their lot in life. If we
tax them into poverty to feed an insatiable bureaucracy, we breed
dependency and destroy hope. How can the poor be expected to pick
themselves up by the bootstraps when this Liberal government has
stolen their boots?
This is the dilemma I face. I can work hard to push for tax
cuts and to ensure that a Reform government with its sound
economic plan forms the next government. But what do I tell the
overtaxed working Canadians in my riding who find it difficult to
meet their transportation needs today?
To work out this problem, I thought about the infamous Peter and
Paul. When the government spends money, it takes that money from
Peter and gives it to Paul. Since Peter has worked hard to earn
his money, it can be argued that taking the money from him is not
a very nice thing to do. Furthermore, Peter might not even like
Paul or the things that Paul does with the money he is given.
This compounds the offensiveness of the original taking.
1210
For this very simple reason, the members of the Reform caucus
look at government spending with a healthy dose of suspicion.
Unless tax dollars are being spent on programs with very broad
base support, such as health care, it becomes very difficult to
justify the expenditure. However, since Peter has the right to
keep the rewards of his labour, allowing him a tax exempt benefit
does not place an unfair burden on Paul. It does however place a
burden on the government which is forced to either look for
revenue elsewhere or reduce expenditures.
Given that Canadians endure the highest tax rates in the G-7,
finding additional revenue in the form of increased tax levels
would probably not find much support with the general public.
This leaves us only with one other option: decreasing
expenditures.
In a letter to the Canadian Urban Transit Association the
finance minister estimated that the cost of implementing the tax
exempt transit passes would be $140 million for the federal and
provincial governments. I want to make it clear that this is
$140 million of forsaken revenue, not $140 million of spending.
The difference here is very important. When the government spends
$140 million it takes the money from Peter and gives it to Paul.
When it forsakes $140 million, it simply leaves that money in
Peter's pocket.
The question of course is how does the government compensate for
the $140 million shortfall? It should do this by cutting the
fat.
I do not believe that any member of the House can claim there
does not exist at least $140 million in waste in the federal
government. Our party has identified $15 billion in federal
government waste that we would like to eliminate when we form
government. If we can find $15 billion in waste, surely the
Liberals across the way can find a measly $140 million.
My hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast, our chief critic for
revenue, has made it clear that he will not be supporting this
motion. I respect his position. He believes, as I do, that the
tax system should be transparent, fair and simple. However, I
believe we must make a clear distinction between those looking
for relief from taxes and those looking for government grants and
subsidies.
Canadians should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of their
labour without undue tax penalties. If employers wish to provide
transit passes as part of their remuneration packages, why should
low income Canadians be taxed on this?
What I am proposing is that in this environment of tax
oppression we should look at an interim policy option that gives
working Canadians a break until Reform can form the government
and give Canadians serious tax relief.
On a different matter, Canadians who choose to use public
transportation because they wish to make as benign an impact on
the environment as they can should have the freedom to make that
choice. Canadians must be allowed to make choices. Tax relief
will help them make choices and act on values they hold, whether
those values involve environmental preservation or the
independence that comes from owning a car. It is that choice
that I will defend. It is that choice that is in peril if the
Liberal government continues to tax Canadians to death.
On the advice of my constituents and based on the belief that
low income Canadians need tax relief, I will be supporting this
motion. I would ask the members of my caucus to review the
arguments presented by myself and the chief critic for revenue to
determine for themselves how they will vote.
The Reform Party does not believe in making Private Members'
Business partisan politics. We believe in free votes. Especially
when it comes to Private Members' Business we do not believe in
making it partisan business. I note the member from the
Conservative Party spoke earlier on behalf of his whole party. I
encourage all members in the House to give this motion
consideration as I have, speaking against one of my own
colleagues. I think the motion has merit and deserves support.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, what
I am going to mention will reinforce much of what we have heard
this morning.
It is quite apparent there is widespread support for the motion
of my hon. colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys, and rightfully so.
1215
It has been a pleasure to hear those comments. I do not think
there is any doubt in anyone's mind that by encouraging people to
use the public transit system we are going to benefit the
environment and the health of many Canadians. There is no
question that that feeling is out there.
It is a bit disconcerting that the only real argument against
this is that we are not going to bring in enough revenue dollars.
I find it hard to comprehend one against the other. Those are
the types of issues that should not be an if/or. We know what
the effects will be and we should respond to that.
It would be nice to see government departments working together
for the overall benefit of Canadians. There is no question that
there would be health savings. If anybody could come up with an
argument that there would not be savings I would like to hear it.
We have information to indicate that there could be savings of
between $320 million and $427 million in health care costs in
Ontario alone. If that is not reason enough to encourage people
to stay on the public transit system, or to get on to it, I do
not know what is.
Environmental benefits, especially in the area of greenhouse gas
emissions, are further reason to give full support to this
motion. It is an opportunity once and for all for this
government to take a holistic approach to improving the
environment, society and health. It is an opportunity for a
government that has shown no vision of looking beyond and seeing
all the benefits of a motion such as this. I thank my hon.
colleague for presenting the motion.
I will take a moment to comment on the impression that was given
by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party. He
said that he was surprised to see New Democrats suggesting a tax
break and he thinks it would be great if we did this. I want to
emphasize that New Democrats have always believed in investing in
Canada and in Canadians. That has been the way since the
beginning of the party. That is what we will continue to do.
That is what we are doing with this motion.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is clear that there is a lot of interest in this topic among all
parties. As well, good evidence has been presented that there is
a lot of interest among Canadians. Therefore I am pleased that
we have had this debate this morning.
On occasion I am surprised at how much one can learn in the
House of Commons. In that respect I want to thank the member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for introducing this
topic.
As to what will happen next, I understand from the parliamentary
secretary that there will be further debate on this topic. Like
my colleagues on this side of the House I look forward to further
debate. I look forward to hearing what the member from Kamloops
and my other colleagues will have to say on that occasion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
1220
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to open debate at
second reading of Bill C-65, which proposes to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements act.
This legislation involves the renewal of two federal
programs—the provincial personal income tax revenue guarantee
program and the equalization program—each for an additional five
years.
Under the revenue guarantee program the federal government
protects those provinces participating in tax collection
agreements from large revenue reductions resulting from changes
in federal tax policy. The major portion of this bill, however,
deals with equalization, a program that in many ways defines the
generous spirit of Canada.
Hon. members will be aware that the commitment to equalization
payments is enshrined in section 36(2) of the Constitution.
These payments exist so as to enable provincial governments of
varying levels of affluence to provide reasonably comparable
levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of
taxation.
Equalization has a long tradition. It was established as a
program in 1957 and has been continuously renewed and improved
ever since. This government's commitment to equalization was
clearly evident from the fact that this program was exempt from
the restraint measures of the past five years when Canadians were
facing a $42 billion deficit.
The most recent official estimates made last October indicated
that receiving provinces would get almost $9 billion in 1998-99
from the federal government under equalization. These estimates
will be updated later this month.
If we use the existing October estimates, it is clear that these
transfers are very significant indeed. They can make up between
15% and 40% of total provincial revenues and the payments are
unconditional. It means that receiving provinces can use them as
they wish and experience has shown that they play a significant
role in improving the quality of a wide array of public services.
Currently seven provinces benefit directly from equalization
payments: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
There are also indirect benefits for all Canadians. We all
benefit from knowing that we live in a country where the
objective is to provide health care, education and basic public
services at essentially the same level in all provinces.
In renewing the equalization program this bill proposes a
package of improvements, improvements that aim to ensure that the
program continues to accurately measure the revenue raising
ability of each province.
The proposed modifications will be gradually phased in over the
next five years so that the impacts on the provinces will be
smoothed. In addition, this will give federal and provincial
governments time to plan for changes in the amounts of the
transfers.
The proposed modifications are expected, according to current
estimates, to result in transfer increases of almost $50 million
in 1999-2000, rising to about $200 million by the year 2003-04.
What makes this happen? There are three components to the
equalization renewal package proposed in this bill. First, the
equalization legislation will be renewed for five years. That
provides a secure planning framework for the receiving provinces.
Second, the equalization ceiling and floor provisions will be
improved. The ceiling provision provides protection to the
federal government against unexpected increases in equalization
payments. In other words, this prevents changing economic
circumstances from unaffordably driving equalization payments
through the roof.
The new ceiling will be set at $10 billion in 1999-2000 and will
grow by the percentage change in gross domestic product. This
change will ensure that the program remains affordable and
sustainable over the five year renewal period.
The floor provision is the other side of the coin. It provides
protection to the provincial governments against unexpected large
and sudden decreases in equalization payments. The new floor
will be applied equally across all receiving provinces. It will
reduce the fluctuations in floor protection that can result from
application of the equalization formula during a period of
economic change.
This will mean more predictable protection for provincial
governments.
1225
The third change is that improvements will be made in the
measurement of the provinces' ability to raise revenues on their
own. The equalization formula measures provincial revenue
raising capacity by looking at over 30 different provincial taxes
and comparing the results to a standard. It is on the basis of
this exercise that the size of equalization transfers is
calculated for each province.
However, the taxation environment is not static. It changes.
The changes proposed in this bill are needed to ensure that the
equalization program reflects existing provincial tax
opportunities and practices.
These changes in measurement, which will be implemented through
regulation, relate to five tax bases that require significant
improvements and other tax bases that require technical changes
because of revised or new data.
For example, changes are proposed for the measurement of the
provinces' ability to raise sales taxes. The new base will now
reflect the taxing practices of those provinces that have moved
to the value added tax as well as those that have maintained the
existing retail sales tax systems.
Similarly, because of increased activity related to games of
chance, the treatment of revenues that flow from them needs to be
updated.
The proposed changes will take into consideration the ability of
provinces to raise revenues from casinos and video lottery
terminals.
However, let us get the facts straight. We have not changed the
revenues which equalization takes into account at all. Before
the proposed changes we looked at all the revenues from all types
of gambling and after the changes we continue to do so. What we
have changed is our measure of which provinces have a high
ability to raise these types of revenues and which provinces have
a low capacity. Our measure of disparities has changed, not our
measure of revenues.
For disparities, we used to look just at lottery ticket sales
per capita. Now we look at lottery ticket sales per capita and
the capacity that different provinces have to raise revenues from
casinos and VLTs as measured by differences in their incomes.
The new way of measuring disparities is fairer to all provinces,
but, let me emphasize once again, in no way encourages gambling.
In addition to this, a number of resources, such as forest
products and natural gas, will be measured according to value
rather than by volume as is currently the case.
At this point I would like to repeat what I said earlier about
these modifications happening gradually. The proposed tax base
changes will come into effect in stages over a five year period.
This renewal follows more than two years of consultation with the
provinces. Considerable tactical work was undertaken by both
federal and provincial officials and was then reviewed by
ministers of finance at both the federal and provincial levels.
I believe that hon. members will recognize that it has been
important to fully analyse the equalization program in order to
assess accurately what change is needed. I submit to this House
that this has been done.
It is important to build on this groundwork and finish the
renewal. Our deadline is March 31, 1999, when the current five
year equalization legislation expires. It is important to have
new legislation in place before that happens.
I want to make it clear that the passage of this bill will
provide important continuing benefits to Canadians by assisting
provincial governments in providing services on which Canadians
can rely. It will provide for the next five years a stable
funding horizon for equalization. It will provide substantial
support for the less affluent provinces, underscoring the
priority the government has placed on equalization, and ensuring
that equalization receiving provinces have resources to provide
the services their people need and want.
The legislation intends to maintain the fairness with which the
equalization program is delivered. It is important legislation
and I believe hon. members will support the speedy passage of it.
1230
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. As the parliamentary
secretary said, the primary object of the legislation is to renew
the federal equalization program for another five years.
I would like to begin by simply stressing the importance that
the Official Opposition, and I am sure all members of the House,
attach to equalization. Under our Constitution, as the
parliamentary secretary said, parliament and the Government of
Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization
payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient
revenue to provide reasonably comparable public services at
reasonably comparable levels of taxation. I do not think it can
be stressed enough that equalization is an important principle
which makes our federation work.
The Official Opposition, the Reform Party, is committed to
equalization and has been from the outset. Also I believe that
the rank and file people in provinces like British Columbia,
Alberta and Ontario who receive no equalization payments and in
fact are net contributors to federal-provincial transfers also
support the principle of equalization. They have objections as
to how the federal government administers it, how the federal
government handles transfers, but do not object to the principle
itself.
Equalization is linked to taxation. It is linked to the
finances of the provinces. It is linked to the financing of
social programs. It is linked to the social union. It is
literally linked to the financing of federalism itself.
Besides commenting on the particular bill, I also want to take
the opportunity to comment on the broader subject of
federal-provincial financing arrangements of which equalization
is only one part. In particular I want to make the case that the
reform of federalism which the government consistently avoids
requires the reform of the financing of federalism that should
include the reform of equalization and not merely the tinkering
reflected in the bill.
The average person reading the bill and the act it amends—and I
venture to say most of us as MPs—would find it utterly
incomprehensible because equalization payments are now supposedly
based on a complicated formula that has over 30 elements to it as
well as ceiling and floor provisions which complicate it even
further.
Finance ministers and officials of the Department of Finance
often imply that every element of this program is based on
principles and rationality beyond the ken of ordinary mortals. In
other words there is a mystique associated with equalization and
federal-provincial fiscal arrangements which often tends to
discourage members of parliament and ordinary citizens from
investigating the subject or questioning the status quo. I
encourage all members to disregard that mystique in considering
the bill and to penetrate it with some common sense, analysis and
suggestions for improvement.
My own first encounter with the mystique connected to
federal-provincial financial relationships occurred at the
University of Alberta when I was a student there in the early
sixties. I sat through a lecture by a learned economist in which
he carefully and cautiously explained the principles and the
rationale that lay behind the old tax rental agreements which
were the predecessor to the current equalization formula. It was
a beautiful theory. It was beautifully laid out. Everything was
connected to principle and analysis.
I then went across the river from the University of Alberta and
had lunch with my father, who was Premier of Alberta at the time,
and attended the dominion-provincial reconstruction conferences
initiated by Mackenzie King after the war from which came the tax
rental agreements that then later gave birth to equalization.
I rehearsed for him this grand rationale and theory that lay
behind the tax rental agreements which I had just learned at the
University of Alberta. I got halfway through and he started to
laugh.
The reason was that when he attended those conferences Mr. Ilsley
was the finance minister at that time. Mr. Ilsley presented the
tax rental agreements and of course, as usually happens at these
conferences, they could not agree. The premiers could not agree.
The federal government could not agree. No one could agree on
anything.
1235
As also usually happens, they went to the prime minister's house
for dinner that night and they did arrive at an agreement. They
then hauled in the officials and told them they had an
arrangement where Boss Johnson of B.C. was supposed to get so
many million, Manning in Alberta was supposed to get so many
million, Garson in Manitoba was supposed to get so many million
and Douglas was supposed to get so many. They wanted to come up
with a formula that delivered those dollars to those provinces,
and so on it went right across the country.
I am not saying there is no rationale or there are no principles
behind both equalization and federal-provincial fiscal relations,
but a lot of it has been added after the fact. Beneath and
behind a lot of this complicated formula lay some very basic
financial needs and, I would also add, some very basic political
considerations.
If members want to be reminded of the political factors that go
into equalization, we need look no further than at the events
that just preceded the calling of the Newfoundland election which
is to be held tomorrow. Just days before the Newfoundland
provincial election was called the government of Premier Turbot,
as he is affectionately referred to on this side of the House,
was projecting a $30 million deficit. Lo and behold on January
15, just two days before the election was called, the federal
finance officials recalculated the equalization formula and the
payment even though the figures were not supposed to be released
until February 15. It was a miracle. Lo and behold, coincidence
of coincidences, the projected increase in Newfoundland's
equalization entitlement was just enough to cover the deficit and
to enable Premier Tobin to announce that the budget would be
balanced.
There may be rationality and principles behind equalization but
there are also some very tangible political considerations and
MPs should not allow the mystique of equalization to deter us
from discussing those here.
I will read into the record a brief description of the federal
equalization program. It is only 10 paragraphs. As members will
know, because of the Official Opposition's interest in
federal-provincial relations and reform of federalism, we read a
lot of what the provincial governments produce on this subject
and we read what the federal government produces and often we
compare the two. Sometimes it cannot be recognized that these
descriptions are describing the same thing.
For example, the federal description of the Calgary declaration
and the descriptions produced by the provincial governments are
so different that it is hardly recognizable they are talking
about the same thing.
On equalization I am happy to report that the information sheets
in most of the provincial information packages and the federal
package are almost identical. This is a miracle in itself. It
deserves a little recognition.
Here, therefore, is the official description of equalization:
Equalization is an unconditional transfer. Provinces receiving
equalization may spend it in accordance with their own
priorities. Equalization is funded by the federal government and
is authorized by federal legislation covering five-year periods.
The current equalization legislation expires on March 31, 1999.
Seven provinces currently qualify for equalization—Newfoundland,
Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Three provinces do not receive
equalization program payments—British Columbia, Alberta and
Ontario.
Equalization transfers are determined on the basis of legislated
formulae. First, the amount of revenue which each province could
raise if it applied national average tax rates is calculated for
each kind of revenue that provinces and their local governments
typically levy. Second, each province's overall ability to raise
revenue from these sources is compared to that of the five
provinces making up a representative standard—Quebec, Ontario,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
This incidentally is one national standard to which Quebec does
not object. If a provincial government's total revenue raising
ability falls short of this standard its per capita revenues are
raised to the standard level through federal equalization
payments. If a provincial government's total revenue raising
ability exceeds the standard, as in the case of B.C., Alberta and
Ontario, it does not receive equalization.
As a result of this formula, when the fiscal capacity of a
receiving province decreases in relation to the standard its
equalization increases. When the fiscal capacity of the
receiving province increases relative to the standard its
equalization falls.
1240
Equalization is subject to ceiling and floor provisions. The
purpose of the ceiling based on the growth of the national
economy is to protect the federal government from open ended
growth in payments while the floor provisions protect the
individual provinces against any large annual declines.
The ceiling and floor provisions are referred by economist Tom
Courchesne as part of the bells and whistles connection to
equalization which often ensured that the actual payments are not
exactly what the formula itself delivers. It is just part of the
mystique.
Equalization is the most important federal program for reducing
disparities among provincial governments and their relative
abilities to raise revenues and based—and this is the bottom
line—on current estimates equalizations for 1998-99 will ensure
that all provinces with average tax rates have revenues of $5,431
per resident to fund public services.
Now that is the program as it is described. The bill in front
of us essentially renews that program with a bit of tinkering.
The broader financial and political considerations affecting
equalization are as follows. I was disappointed that the
parliamentary secretary did not connect equalization to the other
things it is connected to, namely the whole approach to tax
policy, to social policy and to the operation of federalism
itself.
First, health, education and other social services have now
become the largest component by far of the budgets of the
provincial governments. Whether or not the federal government
recognizes it, Canadians now rely more and more on private
resources and the provincial governments for health, education
and social assistance expenditures than they do on the federal
government.
For example, in the all important area of health care, out of a
total of $82 billion in health care expenditures, 30% now
represents private spending, 61% represents provincial
expenditures and only 9% represents federal expenditures. This
incidentally is in a field where a previous Liberal
administration once promised, once swore up and down on a stack
of Bibles it would never change. The federal government would
always assume 50% of the approved cost of health care.
No wonder that more and more Canadians' summary impression of
the government is boiling down to two phrases: they raised our
taxes and they cut our health care; they make us pay more and
they give us less.
Second, it is increasingly clear that all the provinces,
including British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario which receive no
equalization, are experiencing increasing difficulty in financing
health, education and social services. These difficulties are
compounded by the insatiable appetite of the federal government
for tax revenues, federal tax revenues having increased 38% since
this group got into office, and the reduction of federal
transfers to the provinces by over $6 billion per year which adds
up to a cumulative decrease, if we add up the annual decreases
over the period since they have been implemented, of about $16
billion.
In light of these circumstances, what is required? What is
required with respect to equalization? I would say something
more than tinkering, something more than what is contained in the
bill for which the government has had five years to prepare. It
is dealing with one of the pillars of social financing and we
always hear how passionately committed the government is to
social programs. It brings a bill to the House that is mere
tinkering with one of the pillars of social service financing.
If we are concerned about hospital closures and the shortage of
doctors and health care personnel; if we are concerned about the
200,000 people on the waiting lines; if we are concerned about
spiralling tuition fees and Canadian students rapidly increasing
their debt load; if we are concerned about the ever increasing
number of Canadians, particularly children, living in poverty; if
we are truly concerned about all these things, what is needed is
a substantive reform of federal-provincial financial relations.
That includes a substantive reform of the three pillars that
undergird the financing of social services, namely tax policies,
federal-provincial transfers such as the CHST, and equalization,
the subject of the bill before us.
1245
I also suggest that any significant improvement in
federal-provincial financing of social programs requires a
substantive rethinking of tax policy, CHST and equalization.
These have to be considered together because they are all tangled
up together. They are all interrelated. We cannot change one
without affecting the other.
What is the record of the Liberal administration with respect to
implementing the real reforms needed to revitalize the financing
of social programs? There is no record other than defending the
status quo.
It is mere tinkering with regard to tax policy. Prebudget
discussions have disclosed that the budget will only include
token tax relief in comparison to the over $30 billion of
increased revenue which the government has collected per year
since it took office.
With regard to transfers for social purposes, it is mere
tinkering. The recent social union and health agreement proposals
disclose that the federal government appears prepared to put only
$2 billion to $3 billion back compared to the $16 billion it
took. It plans no real reform in the relations between the
federal and provincial governments that would allow the provinces
to do more with less. What reforms Ottawa has agreed to have
been initiated by the provinces and not by Ottawa.
With regard to equalization, as I said it is mere tinkering
again. Despite having five years to plan for this bill, it
contains no rationale connecting it to the other aspects of
federal-provincial program financing. It contains no substantive
reform of equalization at all.
In these three things, the federal budget, the social union
proposals and the equalization bill, we have only the latest
example of fossilized federalism. The status quo is maintained
with just a little tinkering to try to create the impression that
substantive improvements are being achieved. Meanwhile,
Canadians continue to pay more for less in terms of social
services. Canadians must look elsewhere for substantive reform of
the financial underpinnings of federalism.
I do not want to be entirely negative. In contrast to the
fossilized federalism of the federal government, we have the
flexible federalism recommended by the official opposition in its
new Canada act. I also have to say it is advocated by an
increasing number of the premiers. In contrast to the frozen
federalism of the federal government, we have the springtime
federalism recommended by the official opposition and also
advocated by a number of premiers.
What does flexible federalism advocate to reform
federal-provincial finances for the 21st century and to rebuild
the financial foundations of our social programs, including
equalization? Does the federal government not collect any of the
thinking that is being done by the provinces on how to reform
federal-provincial finances? Does it pay no attention to the
work that has been done by the think tanks? Why is it that the
federal government shows no leadership in these areas at all? It
just clings to the status quo and adds a little tinkering. That
is its only contribution.
I am proposing three things that substantive reform of
federal-provincial financing would entail.
First, simplify and rationalize federal transfers for social
purposes by providing simple equal per capita grants to all
provinces for social purposes. Stop trying to equalize through
every social program envelope, from health to social assistance
to unemployment insurance. This position has been well
articulated by both the Alberta and Ontario governments. I
anticipate objections to this from some of the lower income
provinces but I ask them to wait until I am finished.
Second, reform if necessary and refocus the equalization program
we are discussing today even more heavily on the low income
provinces. Listen to what I am saying. Equal per capita grants
for social program funding across the country, then reform
equalization and tip it even more steeply toward the lower income
provinces to bring their capacity to finance social programs up
to a national standard established by interprovincial agreements.
1250
Third, complement these preceding measures with broad based
substantive tax relief to increase the disposable incomes of
individuals and families in every province so that private
resources are also available for social spending and are
enhanced.
For example, a $15 billion broad based tax relief program such
as was in the Reform Party platform during the last election
delivers financial transfers to the people of each province of
the following orders of magnitude. Listen to the orders of
magnitude. People do not seem to understand how much broad based
tax relief could deliver into the pockets of people, particularly
lower income people and businesses in the various provinces.
Newfoundland, $216 million. Nova Scotia, $396 million. New
Brunswick, $329 million. P.E.I., $56 million. In Atlantic
Canada $998 million in total can be delivered into the pockets of
individuals and businesses through tax relief, more than what the
federal government currently pumps in through regional
development grants. For Quebec, $3.256 billion. For Ontario,
$5.45 billion more. Manitoba, $498 million more. Saskatchewan,
$438 million. Alberta, $1.4 billion. British Columbia, $1.8
billion. This is the order of magnitude of what can be pumped
into provincial economies through broad based tax relief.
If this country had federal leadership committed to reformed
federalism rather than fossilized federalism, if this country had
a finance minister committed to the positive reform of
federal-provincial financial relations instead of mere tinkering,
what should have happened over the last year in discussions
between Ottawa and the finance ministers of the provinces should
have been this.
The finance minister should be meeting with every provincial
finance minister to discuss and agree on substantive measures to
stabilize and improve the financing of social services in this
country. When the finance minister meets with his provincial
counterparts, their discussion should occur with a simple table
that has four columns.
Column one would show what the province would receive through
simple, equal, per capita grants in support of social programs.
Column two would show what the province would receive in terms of
enhanced and better focused equalization. Column three would show
what the people and employers of the province would receive
through broad based tax relief which the province is free to
either let it do its stimulative work or to tax back in part if
it so desires. Column four would give the total and would show
that each province would be better off financially, better
equipped to finance health, education and social assistance than
it would be under the status quo and Liberal tinkering.
In conclusion, the official opposition urges parliament to
reject this equalization amendment bill as mere tinkering. The
government ought to be embarrassed to bring something like this
before the House. It is inadequate just as we consider the
financial components of the social union agreement juvenile and
inadequate and the tinkering tax changes in the next budget as
inadequate.
As more and more Canadians and more and more of the provinces
begin to see the inadequacies of this Liberal government's
fossilized federalism, I express the hope that at some premiers
conference in the not too distant future, instead of meekly
accepting these tinkering proposals of the fossilized
federalists, the premiers will take off their premiers' hats for
just a day and put on their political leaders' hats.
In their capacity as political leaders, I would like to see some
of those provincial political leaders, whose views on flexible
federalism are more advanced than that of the federal government
and more in tune with the need of the 21st century, discuss just
for once their vision of flexible federalism and the political
alliances and initiatives required to get a new government in
Ottawa which is prepared to make the substantive reforms of
federalism and federal-provincial financing required for the 21st
century.
1255
If and when that day comes, I assure those provincial leaders
who favour reform of the federation over fossilized federalism
that they will find an ally in federal Reformers united to create
a better alternative to this bankrupt administration.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to an important bill concerning equalization
payments in Canada.
First off, I wish to comment on what the Leader of the Reform
Party said earlier about the equalization program. The Leader
of the Opposion said that it was complex, incomprehensible and
riddled with political interventions. With all due respect, I
would differ.
If there is one program right now that is clear, technical and
technically comprehensible when one takes the trouble to look
more closely, that is fair to all Canadian provinces, that is
based on verifiable, scientific facts and not on political
decisions, that is the very foundation of what has been
described as the compassion of this regime from its very
inception, it is the equalization payment program.
For the benefit of all those listening, I would like to give a
brief explanation of the origins of equalization payments, what
they are, how they are calculated, and how they benefit the
public.
Equalization payments are not a recent phenomenon. They first
began in 1957. Why do we have them?
They are the result of the post-World War II Rowell-Sirois report,
a huge royal commission of inquiry into the workings of the
Canadian federation which, after months of discussions, briefs
and analyses, recommended certain directions that the federation
should take to ensure a fairer future for all Canadians.
One of the recommendations was equalization payments, a program
to ensure that provinces across the country, even those with
differing tax capacities, could all provide reasonably
comparable levels of public service.
For a self-respecting federalist, and even for a sovereignist
looking at the system from the outside, equalization payments
are the foundation of fiscal federalism.
They make it possible to reduce—but not eliminate—the disparities
from coast to coast, as the members opposite would say.
How are payments arrived at? Using a very specific formula, an
analysis is made of the tax revenues that each province and each
local government is capable of raising from their populations in
order to provide public services that are comparable from one
province to another without levying additional taxes that would
bleed taxpayers dry.
First, the sources of revenue for each of the provinces and
local governments are identified. When the program was first
introduced in 1957, three sources of revenue were identified for
each province. Now there are 30.
These include property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and so
forth, for a total of 30 categories. There is nothing political
about it. It is simply a list of 30 ways in which each of the
provinces generates provincial and local fiscal revenue. A list
is compiled for each province.
1300
Then, one takes five provinces considered representative and
puts them through the same process. For each of the five
representative provinces, such as Ontario and Quebec in
particular, a standard is developed against which every other
province will be assessed in terms of its capacity to levy taxes
on its territory.
These 30 fiscal parameters for each province, the standard
developed for the five representative provinces, will serve as
the basis for calculating the equalization payments each one is
entitled to, unless they are not eligible because they exceed
the standard set for the five Canadian provinces regarding the
capacity to levy taxes.
After all this has been done, the federal government agrees with
the provinces that, for the next five years, equalization
payments will be calculated per capita—and this is a very
important detail—so that each province can provide public
services in a fair manner, at approximately the same level,
taking into account its particular fiscal capacity and economic
strength.
There is nothing political about this, nothing off the wall, as
the Leader of the Opposition suggested. If there is a program
that is still appreciated, regardless of how much is paid to
each province, it is this one. We may come back to this later.
There are individuals who are getting a lot of political mileage
out of this. But regardless of the amounts paid, equalization
per se is a very good principle.
It is also a principle that would deserve further and more
serious consideration, and more social understanding as well,
especially on the part of a staunch federalist.
There is nothing complicated in equalization. Finance Canada has
put out a booklet, about 30 pages long, that outlines the
situation very well. For those with more inquisitive minds, who
put more energy into understanding what is going on in this
country, there is, of course, 450 pages of annexes. Hard work
can be done on every aspect of the fiscal parameters.
As I said, this is a matter of personal taste and preference. My
preference would be the fiscal system. It is a system that has
captivated me for many years.
Even though we have concerns about the estimates done for
certain of the parameters used to calculate equalization
payments per province, we will wait until the bill goes to
committee to ask more precise questions, in order to have an
even better idea of the results of the last negotiation and of
the new equalization system that will apply as of April 1.
In the meantime, allow me to set the record straight and to
denounce certain members across the way who are trying to score
political points in talking about equalization and Quebec—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: If I were the Minister of Human Resources
Development, instead of staying here, I would go back to the
drawing board and overhaul the employment insurance system,
which presently covers less than 40 per cent of the population.
It would be better for everybody if the minister did that
instead of commenting on what I have to say about equalization.
Concerning equalization in Quebec, there is a myth that has been
circulating for many years, ever since equalization payments
started, to the effect that Quebec is the great beneficiary of
equalization. I pointed out earlier that when we take into
account the 30 fiscal parameters of equalization—
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Four billion dollars a year.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell
my colleagues across the way that they should listen carefully
in order to avoid perpetuating a myth that is complete nonsense?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Thibeault): I would ask the hon. members
to listen with me to what the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has to say.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Do you know why they are talking and laughing
across the way? Because they do not want us to dispel a myth
arising from remarks that are sometimes so tendentious as to be
deceitful. That is why they are raising their voices. They do
not wish to hear the truth.
As I was saying, equalization payments are established per
capita for each of the provinces, which is understandable.
1305
Initially, in 1957, they said that each Canadian, from coast to
coast, should enjoy consistent public services without crippling
cost to the provincial governments. So equalization payments
were used for this purpose and calculated on a per capita basis.
Seven provinces currently receive equalization payments, and
Quebec is not the one receiving the most. Payment on a per
capita basis is the basis of the program. This year, Quebec
received $536 per capita.
Newfoundland received $1,743 per capita, or three times what
Quebec received.
Let us also look at New Brunswick. And in terms of figures, the
Minister of Human Resources Development is not so qualified,
because he cannot differentiate between 38% coverage and 62%
coverage. He mixes up the figures. His figures are also a
little tendentious.
So, New Brunswick received $1,322 per capita, again nearly three
times what Quebec receives.
An hon. member: And Ontario?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Ontario does not get any.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is doing the right
thing by leaving to go to work. I would advise him not to write
a book, but rather to work for the unemployed he has left on
their own for the past two years. It will be more advantageous
for everyone.
I submit that, taking a province such as Quebec with the second
largest population in Canada and multiplying the number of
people by $536 gives an impressive total. The principle of
equalization payments, however, is to calculate per person. I
have done a few quick calculations, and if Newfoundland had
Quebec's population, with its level of equalization payment per
capita, it would not get the $3.9 billion Quebec does, but
rather $12.736 billion. In other words, a total of four times
as much in equalization payments as Quebec, if Newfoundland had
the same population as Quebec.
It can be seen that it makes no sense to say that Quebec gets
$3.9 billion, or 47% of the equalization payments. No, no.
Equalization is calculated on a per capita basis, not a lump
sum. If Newfoundland had as large a population as Quebec, it
would get three times as much in total equalization payments.
Now a little trip to the west, the land of Reform. Let us look
at Manitoba.
An hon. member: Two out of four.
An hon. member: And what about British Columbia?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: British Columbia does not get any.
An hon. member: And what about Alberta?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, it is none too bright of those
on the other side to start making such remarks when a very
serious matter is being discussed. They are being totally
demolished by the Reform and do not want to hear any arguments
in favour of the equalization payment system. This seems
illogical. Sometimes the Liberals exhibit no logic whatsoever,
particularly the Liberals from Quebec.
As I was saying about Manitoba, if Manitoba had a population of
7.3 million instead of the 1,141,000 it does have, it would get
seven times as much in total equalization payments as Quebec.
One can fiddle about with figures like that, but the main point
is that there must be a fundamental respect of an act or of a
program.
This equalization program has been established on a per capita
basis, for the people the members across the way are supposed to
be serving. But instead of serving them, they are laughing and
saying any old thing. I would be ashamed if I were in their
shoes. It would not be a pretty picture if residents from the
riding of Beauce saw their member of Parliament act like a clown
in this House. They would go back to their riding and condemn
such behaviour.
With respect to the reputation of members of the political
profession, when we look at polls and see politicians ranking
dead last in terms of credibility, it is because of attitudes
like this.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe calls me a clown while he stands
there and quotes wrong figures. I would like to know which of us
is the real clown, and I wish remarks like these were not
allowed to be made in this House.
1310
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the member for
Beauce to choose his words carefully in referring to fellow
members.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, through you, I ask the member
for Beauce not to call me a liar, as he did in stating that the
figures I gave were not the right ones. Let him check, let him
do his job. The Liberals from Quebec should do their job and
take it a little more seriously. They will see that the figures
I gave were the real ones, the right ones. These figures came
from their own colleague, the Minister of Finance and member for
LaSalle—Émard.
As I was saying, we must be very careful with figures. We must
review the principles behind equalization. Since equalization
payments are calculated on a per capita basis, any comparison
should also be made on a per capita basis. On that basis, Quebec
does not benefit from equalization payments any more than the
other provinces do.
If one insists on making statements such as the ones we heard
from the other side, to the effect that Quebec is spoiled when
it comes to federal transfers, then one should provide the whole
picture. If one claims that Quebec receives more in equalization
and social transfers payments than the other provinces, one
should also say something about federal investments in Quebec
over the past 30 years and about the procurement of goods and
services in Quebec. If those Liberal members did their homework,
they would defend Quebec rather than begin by saying we are
whiners.
One has only to look at the data—and the data come from
Statistics Canada, the Department of Finance, and the Department
of Public Works and Government Services—to see that, since
1961, Quebec has never had its fair share.
For example, in terms of federal fixed capital investments, in
the past 30 years, only 18% of total federal investments were
made in Quebec. Yet, Quebeckers still account for one quarter of
the Canadian population. Given our demographic weight and our
contribution to the federal government's revenues, we should be
entitled to at least 25%.
The figures on the procurement of goods and services are not
jokes of false data. They can be checked. In fact, all the
figures that I am presenting can be checked. It is simply a
matter of not being so lazy and really going to check them.
In terms of the procurement of goods and services, we have had
only 18% since 1961, more than 35 years ago, while Quebec
accounted for more than one quarter of the population then and
accounts for one quarter of it now.
If we look at the whole investment picture and procurement of
goods and services, Quebec has a shortfall of $2.4 billion a
year. This is productive and job creating spending. This $2.4
billion in spending on goods and services from businesses could
help create 45,000 jobs in Quebec if it were properly and fairly
distributed to Quebec. If the federal government had acted
fairly, an extra 45,000 jobs could have been created in Quebec.
That is a lot.
The unemployment rate in Quebec with these 45,000 jobs would be
1.1% lower. That is significant.
These figures can and should be verified. It is true that, if
we look at only part of the problem, we could indeed say that
Quebec receives $1 billion more a year in equalization payments
and employment insurance than its demographic weight would
justify. We are not ashamed of that, especially since if the
federal government had made these fixed capital investments, and
if we had had our share of federal government procurement of
goods and services in Quebec, we would have made up this billion
dollars. We would not need the extra equalization payment,
employment insurance benefits or social assistance. We would
even have had an extra $1.4 billion to play with.
The federal government could keep the additional billion dollars
it pays us over and above our demographic weight, if it returned
to us the $2.4 billion it owes in job creation investments and
in procurement of goods and services from Quebec businesses.
In politics, two things in particular are important.
1315
There are a number, in fact, but there are two in particular:
honesty and moral integrity. Moral integrity, as in providing
accurate figures, and intellectual honesty demand that you look
at the picture as a whole, and not just say that Quebec receives
equalization payments. Yes, Quebec receives equalization
payments, as do Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan—
Mr. Claude Drouin: Ontario.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: The members opposite are laughable. But I am
not going to take the bait because it is not worth it on these
small points.
The overall picture has to be presented. Yes, it is true that
Quebec receives more social band-aids, because its levels of
poverty and unemployment are perhaps worse than they would have
been if the federal government had treated Quebec fairly for the
last 105 years.
As I said earlier, we are mentioning this not to complain but to
set the record straight and to put the debate in proper
perspective. Furthermore, the Leader of the Official Opposition
just made a thinly veiled suggestion that this is one national
standard Quebec finds to its liking.
I did not want to get into the federalist argument that, as the
spoiled child of the Canadian federation, Quebec receives more
than its share of equalization payments.
Given what we have been hearing for weeks from the other side,
and what I heard just minutes ago from the leader of the
opposition, I have no choice but to direct my presentation on
Bill C-65 to that aspect of the matter.
Getting back to the bill, in the days to come we intend to go
into further detail on certain aspects of the review of the
equalization payment system, on certain parameters such as the
demands brought to the table over the past 10 years, not just by
Quebec but by a number of provinces, particularly those relating
to the way property tax is handled. We are going to address
these further in committee.
We already have a meeting scheduled this week with people from
Finance, in order to go still further into the technical aspects
that are different.
There are, for instance, differences from the formula used in
the past five years. We are going to continue our efforts and
will be making recommendations to our party based on the final
outcome of this.
In the meantime, I would ask my Liberal and Reform colleagues to
take a look at equalization payments. It is not all that
complicated, a matter of taking an hour or two to read some very
well prepared documents. Some are summaries, while others are a
bit more complex. One can have a good grasp of the principles
of equalization payments even without the latter, however.
There is nothing magical about equalization payments, nothing
arbitrarily determined. The process is one of negotiation,
based on parameters that are highly technical but can be
verified in all the provinces of Canada.
It is being rather lazy intellectually to say “The system must
be torn up, got rid of, dumped. We must start all over again,
reform the whole business”.
In my view, the federal taxation system is not all bad. It
contains some things that are understandable, and the
equalization payment system may be one of them.
I thank my hon. colleagues for their attention.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
I listened with interest to the previous speakers and, on
principle, we in the New Democratic Party support the principle
of Bill C-65 on equalization. It is the ultimate form of an
attempt by governments to level the playing field on crucial
issues of social spending.
We all like the idea of level playing fields. We do not like
different playing fields or uneven playing fields. We now have a
level playing field for social programs, and equalization is a
step in that direction, where the three have provinces, British
Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, are not included but everybody
else is.
1320
Newfoundland will receive $1,648 per capita; P.E.I., $1,340; New
Brunswick, $1,154; Manitoba, $898; Quebec, $521; and
Saskatchewan, $232.
Looking at the history of this issue and the long lists of the
per capita entitlement of provinces over time since equalization
was first brought in, we notice something about the province of
Saskatchewan. This province moves in and out from being a have
province some years to being a have-not province in other years.
Every other province is consistent. British Columbia is a have
province, Ontario is a have province and Alberta is a have
province. All of the other provinces are have-not provinces, but
Saskatchewan is different. It comes and it goes. We wonder what
is behind these statistics until we factor in which party forms
the provincial government. By and large, it works like this.
The people of Saskatchewan elect a Conservative or a Liberal
government. It gets into financial and economic crises and then
the province of Saskatchewan needs equalization payments. It
qualifies.
Then the people elect a CCF-NDP government and everything is
back in order again and Saskatchewan loses its status. Then the
people elect a Conservative or a Liberal government which screws
up the economy again. Basically it is a history lesson.
Liberals and Conservatives screw up the economy and the CCF-NDP
governments get it all back in order again. It is a reflection
of the province qualifying or not qualifying for equalization
payments. There is an interesting history lesson in these
statistics.
I want to reflect on a view that was previously stated. We are
talking about one sector of this whole issue of equalization,
which is an umbrella for attempting to be fair. Yet sometimes
when it comes to health care the government has been very unfair
by unilaterally slashing beyond anything reasonable the health
care system to cause irreparable damage to that sector.
We would be hard-pressed to find a single Canadian who does not
say that our health care system is in disastrous shape because of
the Liberal government. There are some people who will
distinctly say that some provincial governments are involved,
which is true. Ontario is involved. But by and large the
slashing and hacking and the damaging records have been caused by
the Liberal government in Ottawa.
I was shocked when we added up all of the costs of health care
to find how much the federal government actually pays. I
remember the old days when it was 50:50. We all remember the
good old days when the federal government said it was an equal
partner in this marriage. It said that it was an equal player
and for every dollar spent it would pay 50 cents, that it would
pony up, and it did. That was the way it was supposed to work.
It was a family of the federal and provincial governments and the
federal government paid 50%. It was a nice balance. That was
the way it was supposed to work.
However, over the years that old playing field just about tipped
upside down. When we add up all of the costs of health care, 30%
is paid privately. There is nothing about dental work, eye
glasses and so on, which is all part of health care. Sixty-one
per cent is picked up by the provincial governments and the
federal government picks up 9%. That is a real embarrassment.
The Liberals should be hanging their heads in shame. They should
be apologizing. They should feel sorry for what they have done
and they should rectify it.
Let us understand that when we talk about equalization, which my
party has supported from day one, we cannot look at it in
isolation. It is important that we acknowledge that while the
government has devastated health care, it has now come forward
with a revised Bill C-65 which, on principle, my party supports.
Casino revenues are now taken into account with respect to the
provinces' abilities to raise revenues, which makes sense because
of the way the country is going. I do not want to comment on
casino taxes or anything of that nature because I got into
trouble doing that the other day.
1325
The bill also reflects the value of harvested timber as opposed
to the volume of harvested timber. It is fair to say that the
province of British Columbia has some of the highest quality wood
in the world. I do not know if it is the highest quality wood in
the world, but possibly it is. This measure is fair. Some of
the other provinces harvest a lot of timber as well, but it is of
a slightly different quality.
Also we acknowledge that the cost of obtaining new oil is much
more expensive than old oil. I know that old oil and new oil is
a favourite topic of yours, Madam Speaker, but it is something we
have to deal with.
At this point we, as well as some of our friends to the right,
consider this as being a bit of serious tinkering. We have to
take this more seriously. We have to see it in terms of the
context in which we consider all of the fairness of this. My
friends in the Reform Party reminded us about that little
adjustment just before the Newfoundland election, which we all
noticed and thought was interesting. Our friend Brian, from a
previous life here, will have a chance to balance his books.
Nevertheless, we have to get much more serious about how we
develop this kind of policy.
Let us consider how the social union was struck. There were
11 middle aged, white men stuck away in the Prime Minister's
residence playing poker with social policy: “I get this. You
get this. I get a bigger share than you. No, your share is
bigger than mine” and so on and so forth. They cut a deal.
Mark my words, what we do not know is what part of that deal was
left unstated. The Prime Minister said to premier X that
if he bought into the deal they could make arrangements about
X, Y and Z a little later.
We all agree that policy making in a crucial area such as health
care or social policy ought not to be done by a few guys sitting
in a secret meeting, cutting a deal over dinner. That is not the
way we should develop public policy. Unfortunately that is the
way it is done. That is the way the state of affairs has
progressed.
My friend from Regina is going to be making a number of comments
more specifically regarding his province. At this stage we in
the New Democratic Party support in principle the issue of
equalization. We have some obvious concerns which will come up
during the committee's work on this legislation.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my colleague's time speaking
to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act.
Equalization is a principle which provides certain revenues to
provinces that are deemed to be at a disadvantage from provinces
that are in an advantageous situation economically and
financially. This is a concept that I heard the Liberals, the
Tories and the Reformers talk about with respect to different
issues. For example, when it is the large international oil
companies that want tax breaks, the Reformers and the Liberals
talk about a level playing field for the international oil
companies.
An equalization bill is a good example of a level playing field.
It provides revenues to those provinces that are unable to
provide basic government services to their people because of
various economic disparities. The concept of equalization to
ensure that consistent benefits are paid to various provinces
that require them was enshrined in the Constitution when it was
patriated in 1982.
There are some interesting issues in this bill which I want to
address.
The first one that comes to mind is that each province which is
a have-not province, seven out of ten, have a different per
capita formula. For example, Quebec receives $521 per capita in
equalization payments from the have provinces and from the
national treasury.
Nova Scotia gets $1,209. For Manitoba it is $898. New Brunswick
gets $1,154. Newfoundland gets $1,648. P.E.I. gets $1,340. But
Saskatchewan, which has more miles of roads than any other
province in Canada even though we only have one million people,
only gets a per capita grant of $232.
1330
It is quite interesting that Quebec has 7,100,000 people and
gets $521 per person. Saskatchewan has just over one million
people and gets $232 per person. We in Saskatchewan have
national transportation commitments that Quebec does not have
even though we have less than one-seventh its population. Of
course we get only one-third of its grants per capita. I raise
this in the House and with the government opposite as to why that
inequity would be.
I can see that perhaps with P.E.I. and some of the smaller
Atlantic provinces that have had a long tradition of being
reliant on federal government revenues. It was appropriate for
the Liberal government in Ottawa and sometimes from time to time
a Tory government to provide those moneys to elect provincial
governments in Atlantic Canada.
I would like to monitor that and see what happens down the road,
in spite of this particular initiative, when an NDP government
gets elected. That may happen very soon in Nova Scotia. I want
to make sure that the money the government is giving to Nova
Scotia now is similar to what it will get when it becomes an NDP
government.
On the other hand, we have heard my colleague from Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys make reference to the fact that
when there is an NDP provincial government, as in Saskatchewan
for example, we are there to clean up the mess of the former
Liberal-Tory-Reform coalitions which have made every effort
possible to bankrupt our province. The people tossed them out
and elected an NDP government and we end up cleaning up their
mess. Not only are we a very modest recipient of fiscal
arrangements but on occasion we have been a have province and we
have shared revenues that have been derived from good management
with other provinces that require that assistance.
We see some key changes in this equalization agreement. My
colleague made reference to casino revenues. I will make
reference for example to the resource revenues which will reflect
the value rather than the volume of harvested timber. This again
benefits Quebec. British Columbia, with a very high quality
timber, is not affected at all because it is a have province. But
it provides a little extra money for Quebec and perhaps it needs
it. Perhaps the provincial government would be better suited to
manage the economy and balance its budget rather than continue to
have huge deficits.
There is an issue which is very important to Saskatchewan right
now. My province of Saskatchewan is experiencing an
agricultural crisis. Farmers are desperate to get their crops in
this spring. They have no revenues to do that.
We have some very significant problems in agriculture, not
because of a local management problem, but because of an
international situation which has arisen. European and American
governments nationally have funded and subsidized agriculture in
their countries to a very large extent while Canadian governments
are eliminating subsidies for agriculture altogether.
I am not saying subsidies are the answer, but when a federal
government abandons its farmers, farmers in Canada end up
suffering even though we are providing most of our products for
export while the European farmers and American farmers are the
recipients of huge subsidies from their governments.
The Liberal government has cut the Crow benefit which was a
transportation subsidy. It has taken $340 million a year outside
of our agricultural economy. Now the government is saying it
wants the Saskatchewan government to chip in 40% for an
agricultural program to help those farmers who are in need.
Agriculture is not something we benefit from locally in Canada.
We export a vast majority of Saskatchewan's production to other
parts of the world that require food. This is a national
agricultural situation. Actually it is international in nature
when it comes to subsidies, yet the Liberal government says it is
not going to provide any assistance to these farmers unless the
province comes up with 40% of the funding.
The government is offering only $450 million for all of Canada.
Saskatchewan might get 40% of that in a particular year. That
may amount to $5,000 or $6,000 per farmer which will not make any
difference in terms of substantially improving their position to
put a crop in this spring. The government has to consider that.
1335
Over and above equalization, or maybe including the
equalization, there should be some consideration that foreign
governments are subsidizing their agricultural base. We should
provide some reciprocity for Canadian farmers to make sure they
are not put out of business.
The Liberal Minister of Natural Resources, the member for
Wascana, is from Saskatchewan. He has said that Saskatchewan's
equalization benefits are being increased because of the problems
of lower income in agriculture and a substantial decline in
resource prices and that the Liberal government is going to give
us $3 million this year as an increase in equalization.
The minister has said that Saskatchewan should be able to put
that into its agricultural program. Yet he does not understand
that we are not being asked to put in three million bucks. We
are being asked to put in $45 million to $60 million this year
alone. But he is going to help out by taking $340 million out of
our economy from the elimination of the Crow benefit, giving us
$3 million back and saying “good luck, this is a real good
economic program for farmers and for western Canada”. The
farmers in western Canada have seen enough of this shell game
being undertaken by the Liberals to trick farmers into believing
the Liberals are actually doing something for the economy.
Manitoba is in an even more desperate situation with this
equalization bill. Manitoba is slated to lose $37 million over
five years. This accounts for 18.5% of Manitoba's overall
revenues, not the $37 million, but the total equalization
payment. I believe provincial officials are very upset about
this. They are opposed and are asking for amendments in the next
go around.
What is more disturbing than all the issues I have raised is
that the Reform Party goes on record as saying that it does not
support equalization. It does not support a level playing field
for the provinces and regionally based economies. Reformers do
support a level playing field for Conrad Black. They do support
a level playing field for the oil companies that are
international in nature. They do support a level playing field
for their large corporate friends, but they do not support
equalization for provinces and regions that require equalization
assistance from our national treasury.
I call upon the Saskatchewan and Manitoba members of parliament
from the Reform Party to stand in this House and say they oppose
the Reform Party's view that equalization is bad and it will not
support equalization payments to provinces that require them.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments.
The hon. member made reference to the situation in Saskatchewan.
I reiterate that I do not want the hon. member to give the
illusion to those individuals watching this program that there is
a different formula for Saskatchewan. The equalization formula
is calculated one and the same. We end up with different results
because of the varying capacities and abilities of provincial
governments to raise taxes. There is no inequity there.
The hon. member made reference to the fact that Quebec has a
higher per capita rate than does Saskatchewan and that somehow
that is unfair. If we go down that road and if I follow the
logic of the hon. member, the have provinces that do not get any
equalization are being treated unfairly. He said that
Saskatchewan has a lot of roads so it should get more. Quebec
does not have as many roads but it has a lot of ports.
Saskatchewan does not have ports. Should we follow that line of
thinking? Then we get on to the whole subsidization issue.
The member made reference to the amount of the increase in
equalization. He did not think it was very much. Will the hon.
member go back to Saskatchewan and tell the people that he does
not support an increase in equalization payments for the province
of Saskatchewan?
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, it is good that the hon.
Liberal member has raised the issue of ports. This is another
sore point for farmers in Saskatchewan.
Farmers, through their revenues and income, have supported the
ports of Canada. If we did not have ports, we would not be able
to ship our grain outside the country.
1340
Farmers are sick and tired of the Liberals continuing to
download to them all of the costs that are on the shoulders of
the Liberal government. For example, when there is a strike at
the port in Prince Rupert, on the coast, or up in Churchill, who
pays for the costs of demurrage or for the delay in getting the
grain to market? It is not the Liberal government or Quebec. It
is the farmers in Saskatchewan, the farmers in western Canada who
pay for this.
I am quite appalled that the Liberal parliamentary secretary
would say that farmers have nothing to do with the ports of this
country. I ask the hon. member to go to Saskatchewan, Manitoba
or Alberta and talk to the farmers. Ask them about the federal
government which is responsible for the ports, which cannot
deliver our grain to market because the workers are not paid
adequately and have to use job action to get a fair rate of pay,
ask the farmers who pays for all that. It is not the Liberal
member of parliament from Ontario. It is the farmers from
Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan who pay for those ports. I am
glad the member raised this issue.
My sense is that Saskatchewan, because of its involvement with
the equalization formula and which supports the concept of
equalizing payments, would be remiss if it did not take advantage
of an equalization formula which includes resource revenues,
which are now down in price and therefore the revenues are down
and equalization kicks in. This is something which is fairly
important.
Part of the reason that our farmers have record low net incomes
this year is not because we have equalization payments. Incomes
are low because they are spending a lot of money in ports and
other parts of the country to get their grain to market and the
Liberals are downloading the costs to the farmers.
I ask the member opposite to go to his Minister of Finance
before the budget and have the Liberal government change its
policy as it applies to farmers. Rather than have farmers pay
for all of the transportation costs, all the labour costs and all
the port costs, perhaps the federal government should undertake
responsibility in a financial way to help them out in that
regard.
I thank the member for raising that issue.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak on the equalization
renewal package.
The equalization renewal package on the surface is positive for
most of the beneficiary provinces receiving equalization
payments, with the exception of Manitoba which will receive less
money as a result of these changes.
In general, the suggested changes include changes in the
treatment of general and miscellaneous sales tax, lottery and
gaming revenues, forestry revenues, mineral resources,
miscellaneous provincial and local tax revenues and also gasoline
and fuel tax, hospital and medical insurance premiums, oil
revenues, natural gas revenues, payroll taxes, property taxes and
sale of crown leases. These are some of the changes that are in
the calculation of equalization which are taken into account in
this new package. I am going to focus on a couple which I do have
some concerns with.
One is on the lottery and gaming revenues. The government is
moving to treat casino revenues similarly to lottery ticket
revenues. Previously only the lottery revenues were considered. I
have concerns with this for a couple of reasons.
One is that casino revenues often bear significant social costs
to the provinces, with respect to the costs to health and social
programs. In Nova Scotia I have seen the impact of the casinos in
Halifax and Sydney. Frankly it is my own personal belief that
unless casinos are successful in attracting people from outside a
particular area, there is extremely high social costs in terms of
gambling addiction. In some cases there has been loss of
people's entire monthly incomes. There are costs to families in
the increases in things like spousal abuse and marriage break-up.
1345
Health costs are provincially borne costs. These changes would
effectively mean that the federal government would be considering
more casino revenue than it had previously. Thus provinces would
be penalized for their casino revenue. I would argue that in the
future casino revenues, when considered and balanced against the
negatives, the social costs and the health costs, are dubious at
best in terms of their benefit and their sustainability in the
long term.
I have some concerns about that particularly in light of the
government's irresponsibly slashing health care and the CHST
since 1993 to the tune of over $6 billion. I would argue that it
is short-sighted to consider these casino revenues. From a long
term perspective the sustainability of that revenue stream is
questionable and the benefits are at best dubious.
There are some concerns from our provincial counterparts
relative to natural gas revenues, for instance offshore natural
gas revenues and offshore oil revenues for some of the provinces
affected. Be it Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, the opportunities
for Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders or Atlantic Canadians to
bootstrap themselves into some level of prosperity in the 21st
century is largely contingent on these revenues. We should be
very careful not to create through changes in equalization a
clawback that effectively eliminates and reduces significantly
the benefits from the steps forward being made by these
provinces.
We have to be very careful that in our haste to respond to the
critics of equalization we do not eliminate the basic goals of
equalization, that is to enable provinces and citizens in have
not provinces not just to compete but to succeed in a global
environment. I would argue that those natural resource revenues
are pivotal and very important to those provinces.
We have to recognize the importance of equalization within
Canada. It is a cornerstone of Canada's social policy. It is
something we should be proud of as a country. It is difficult to
take a country of some 30 million people spread out over a
massive geographic land mass and try to create some semblance of
equality of opportunity.
While there are people who will be critical of everything that
has been done by previous governments, I would argue that one
thing we have done in Canada that is quite unique and quite
extraordinary is to create at least some semblance of equality of
opportunity in almost every corner of the country. That is
something we should be proud of.
I grew up in a rural part of Nova Scotia, in an area where there
was not a significant level of opportunity but where there was a
sound education system and a health care system that worked,
albeit the health care system has been gutted in recent years due
to draconian cuts from our federal counterparts. The quality of
the education and health care system helped to equalize the
opportunity for me and for other Nova Scotians. We are not
looking for and no Canadian should believe in some type of policy
that promises equality of outcome.
In the past governments have made the mistake of trying to
protect regions of the country from the risks of the future. In
doing so with successive social program spending and reinvestment
there have been times when governments, in trying to protect for
instance Atlantic Canadians from the risks of the future, have
unwittingly prevented Atlantic Canadians from participating fully
in the opportunities of the future. That is something we have to
be very careful of.
1350
We should be equally careful that we do not capitulate to the
critics of equalization who claim somehow this is a handout that
is unjustified and unfair to any Canadian. Equality of
opportunity is something that makes Canada unique. We should
treasure it as Canadians and be prepared to defend it.
It is important to recognize as well that the federal government
has a leadership role to play in creating equality of opportunity
across the country, but equalization does not go far enough. I
am talking about the federal government taking a leadership role
in some of the issues that are within provincial jurisdiction but
where the federal government could play a role in working with
the provinces to ensure better quality services.
In the last federal election our party had as part of its
platform a call for national testing in education. Recognizing
that is in the provincial jurisdiction, the plan we called for
was actually an optional plan that provinces could opt in or out
of. It would at least raise the bar across the country where
parents in any region of the country could demand and ask to know
why their student or child did not test well relative to a
student in another area, or why the education system was failing
one area of the country and succeeding in another area.
Parents, students and everyone in Canada want to know where
their education system stands up. It is not equalization or
strictly a financial area but it is a leadership area that the
federal government could play by implementing and working with
the provinces to develop a system of national testing such that
we could see an increase in the quality and excellence which
could be provided by primary and secondary education systems
across Canada.
We need to take a serious look at federal programs, for instance
the millennium scholarship fund. Before the government even had
a surplus, when there was just a vague whiff of a surplus, it
chose to invest $2.5 billion in the millennium scholarship fund.
These types of programs are in some ways difficult to argue with
because it is money for higher education, but we should be
looking very carefully at the design of these programs. First,
we should not increase tensions on a federal-provincial relations
perspective. Second, these programs should be designed in such a
way as to reflect not just where Canada is now and where
Canadians are now but where Canada is going and where we want
Canadians to go in the future.
I will give an example of the wrong-headedness of some of these
policies. The millennium scholarship fund is not available for
students going to private career colleges. I participated
recently in a conference on education. One of the things I
learned at the conference was that the wave of the future in
post-secondary education, and quite possibly in secondary and
primary education, would be in implementing more private
programming and more private delivery of what was previously a
totally public service.
Private post-secondary education is outgrowing and outpacing
public post-secondary education around the world. This is a
global phenomenon. Yet in Canada a scholarship program that was
recently developed does not reflect the realities of where we are
now and where we are going in the future in a global context.
We must be very careful to recognize that federal policies and
more money are not always the answer. We have to be rigorous in
providing the types of programs and investments that Canadians
want and need. That takes a little more vision than we are
seeing from the government on a number of these issues.
We would also like to see a more concerted effort on the part of
the federal government to work with the provinces in bringing
down interprovincial trade barriers, one of the structural
impediments to our global competitiveness and our productivity as
a country. Interprovincial trade barriers are an area that can
actually inhibit and prevent the growth and success of our
provinces and Canadians in various regions. These trade barriers
need to come down.
1355
I am talking about equalization of opportunity, not strictly
equalization payments. This is very important because we cannot
simply depend on money to solve the problems. We must recognize
that equalization payments are a way in the short term and in the
mid-term to equalize opportunity, but we have to work nationally
and provincially with our provincial counterparts to create
policies, economic development strategies that are rooted in the
free market. We have to recognize that the free market is only
sustainable if all citizens have access to the levers of the free
market. This means a sound education system, a sound health care
system, and the ability for people to bootstrap themselves and
become successful. This will take more than simply equalization
payments.
Our party is having a conference on February 23 in Halifax
called “The New East”. The name came from the phrase the new
west. I found when travelling in Alberta a sense of buoyancy and
optimism that is very encouraging. There is a sense of
self-reliance and opportunity that is leading the way. We want
to see equality of opportunity, that level of opportunity and
access to economic growth available to all Canadians. “The New
East” conference will provide us with ideas for sustainable
strategies that will provide in the future the types of free
market based policies which will give opportunities for Atlantic
Canadians to participate in the same level of economic growth
that other regions have had in the past and will have for the
foreseeable future.
It is not simply a matter of Atlantic Canada moving forward
because of increased revenues in offshore oil or gas. We now
need to move forward and take those opportunities we have had in
offshore petroleum or other resources and invest significantly in
the type of knowledge based infrastructure we need in these
regions to enable us to succeed in a global knowledge based
society. That again is a strong education system. It is also
recognizing some of the global trends in information technology,
for instance, the death of distance as a determinant in the cost
of telecommunications—
The Speaker: I do not want to turn off the microphones
too late, so I thought I would intervene now. The hon. member
still has five minutes left and will have the floor for that
length of time. That will give him a little better chance to
summarize at the end.
At this point I would like to proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to announce that there will be a celebration of
multiculturalism week in British Columbia in my riding of
Vancouver Kingsway on February 20. It is a community celebration
organized by my office and the Vancouver Society for Immigrant
and Visible Minority Women.
Vancouver Kingsway is a very culturally diverse riding. This
event will bring together Canadians from all cultural communities
to share and discuss their ideas and concerns with their member
of parliament.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is common knowledge that a farmer receives less than
8 cents for the wheat in a loaf of bread.
Last night I calculated that farmers receive about $1.20 for all
components of a first class roast beef dinner. Middlemen take
the rest, but they are pikers compared to government.
After freight and handling deductions, a Saskatchewan farmer
receives $3.15 for a bushel of malting barley from which about
300 bottles of beer can be produced.
Federal and provincial taxes including GST on that beer would be
about $165 or 52 times what farmer receives. Yet the government
does not realize that its great milch cow known as the farming
industry has to be fed from time to time. Farmers need emergency
assistance and they need it now.
* * *
1400
GENIE AWARDS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Thursday, February 4 members of Canada's film
industry gathered to recognize and celebrate our country's
cinematic achievements at the 19th annual Genie Awards.
Each year the Genies bring together more than 1,500 key film
professionals and crafts people from across Canada to honour,
celebrate and promote the talent and the accomplishments of the
Canadian film industry.
On the eve of the approval of a feature film fund for Canadian
producers, we witnessed the success of such films as The Red
Violin, Last Night, as well as A Place Called
Chiapas. These films demonstrate what can be achieved with a
clear vision and the support needed to turn the dream into
reality.
I congratulate both the nominees and the recipients. Their
dedication to their craft has not gone unnoticed. Evenings such
as these highlight the importance of the Canadian film industry
and showcase its talent.
* * *
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week is
Citizenship and Heritage Week, and the people of Laval West,
Quebec and all of Canada are celebrating their common attachment
to this country's ongoing history and to their Canadian
citizenship.
After the native people, came the French, then the English and
then people from the world over. People and cultures from all
over have therefore helped build Canada. Our country is not
only among the best countries to live in, it is an example of
democracy, tolerance and brotherly co-existence for the whole
world.
We Canadians of every origin are proud of our country and we
will show it with all our hearts throughout this week, which
concludes on February 15 with National Flag Day and Heritage
Day.
* * *
[English]
SARAH WHEATON
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate Sarah Wheaton, age 11, from Nakasuk school in
Iqaluit, the future capital of Nunavut. She is one of the
winners of a contest that tested space related knowledge of
Canadians.
Sarah Wheaton, along with other Canadian contest winners, will
watch on March 13 Canadian Space Agency astronaut Julie Payette's
launch on site at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida. This
mission marks Canada's first participation in an assembly flight
of the international space station, an ambitious scientific
engineering project to create the world's largest orbiting
laboratory.
I congratulate Sarah and her fellow grade six classmates for
participating. Bon voyage to the contest winners.
* * *
THE HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION OF CANADA
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is Heart on the Hill Day with the celebration of
the Heart and Stroke Foundation visiting Ottawa.
Cardiovascular disease is still Canada's number one killer.
February is National Health Month. Therefore I am proud to rise
today to pay tribute to a tremendous organization, the Heart and
Stroke Foundation of Canada.
In particular I want to praise the work of the branch of this
foundation in my home province of Saskatchewan. It would come as
a surprise to most people to know that in Saskatchewan this
organization has an army of some 20,000 volunteers. It is sad
for me to say that many of our top researchers have left
Saskatchewan simply because of a lack of funding.
I join with the heart foundation and my provincial colleagues to
ask the federal government to significantly invest in heart
research. In the province of Saskatchewan 80% of the $1,070,000
spent on health research comes from volunteer collections.
I salute the work of the volunteers for the Heart and Stroke
Foundation across this nation and indeed for the province of
Saskatchewan.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL YEAR 2000 PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has designated this week National Year
2000 Preparedness Week. During this week, every household in
Canada will receive a guide with information on their
appliances, vehicles, insurance, personal finances and
computers.
I encourage all Canadians to read this guide and to call
retailers and manufacturers, if they have any questions.
[English]
This week affords all of us the opportunity to remind and
monitor small businesses in Canada to ensure that they are taking
the necessary action to survive and flourish after the
millennium. Information on government programs to help small
business is available on the Internet and through the
government's toll free line at 1-800-270-8220.
1405
I invite all members of the House to join with the government in
spreading the Y2K preparedness message so that we can work
together to turn—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[Translation]
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since December
23, the Cirque du Soleil has been performing at Walt Disney
World, in Florida.
Whether in Las Vegas with the aquatic show called “O”, in
Orlando with La Nouba or in Paris with Notre-Dame de Paris,
performers from Quebec are recognized world-wide for their
exceptional skills.
Most of all, this new equal partnership between a Quebec-based
enterprise and the world's largest entertainment company,
Disney, shows that Quebeckers are capable of developing
socio-economic partnerships anywhere in the world.
Quebeckers are competent and considered to be creative and very
energetic partners; the Cirque du Soleil is living proof of
that.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last summer the leader of the Reform Party decided to use the
unprecedented tactic of going overseas to deride the Canadian
economy during a speech in Hong Kong to investors and business
professionals.
He claimed that the Canadian dollar and the Canadian economy was
facing a major economic crisis.
Fortunately the Reform leader's doomsday predictions have not
come anywhere near to being realized. In fact our government's
prudent approach in managing the economy has proven to be the
right one.
Consider the evidence. The Canadian dollar has now regained its
strength and unemployment is down to its lowest level in nearly
nine years. Youth unemployment in 1998 saw a net increase of
143,000 jobs, the best result in 20 years. This is just a small
part of the overall total of 1.5 million jobs created since our
government took office in 1993.
I for one am glad the government did not listen to Reform's
demands last summer to scrap the budget plan. I look forward to
even more of the responsible fiscal management we have come to
expect from our government in the upcoming budget.
* * *
THE LATE KING HUSSEIN
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the world mourns the death of King Hussein of
Jordan.
The King, ruler of his country for 46 years, was a beacon of
hope in a land entrenched in conflict. The shifting sands of
Middle East politics have claimed many leaders and it is a true
measure of the man that he was able to lead his people for so
long.
I had the privilege of meeting the King a few years ago. What
was most striking about him was his humility, grace and kindness.
Known to dress as one of his subjects, to take the pulse of his
citizenry, he was a true people's king. However, it is in his
last act that the King demonstrated his true colours.
It is said that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he
stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands in times of
challenge. So it is in his last gesture of flying while
critically ill to ensure that the Wye Peace Accord was signed
that the King may be judged.
Members of the Reform Party wish to extend our deepest
sympathies to the royal family, the Jordanian people and we
commit to support King Abdullah in his pursuit of peace and
security.
* * *
[Translation]
SOIRÉE DES MASQUES
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fifth Soirée
des Masques, a major theater event in Quebec, was held last
weekend.
Congratulations to all the nominees and especially to the
winners.
Quebec theater is alive and well indeed. Last week, the 50th
anniversary of the Rideau Vert theater clearly indicated that
our cultural identity as Quebeckers and francophones is not an
abstraction but an art that is widely shared and recognized.
This important cultural event was an opportunity to discover or
rediscover our local talent, in productions like 15 secondes, La
Décadente and Le Diable à quatre.
Congratulations to all the winners, actors and creators alike,
without whom there simply would not be a Quebec theater.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government's neglect of aboriginal people is an outrage.
Communities in my riding and across the country live in third
world poverty. There are no jobs. They are not able to buy
healthy food for their families. They have poor housing and
overcrowded conditions. Some do not even have clean drinking
water.
In the Shamattawa First Nation, four out of five young people
are addicted to solvents. The Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development sent me a letter saying that Shamattawa is a
high priority community. The chief and the council have been
asking the government for a healing centre for addicts in the
community.
1410
All they have received from the Liberal government is token
gestures like a few thousand dollars for a rec centre. If this
is the Liberal government's idea of a high priority community, I
would hate to see the low priority community.
The Liberal government always points to the gathering strength
program and the aboriginal healing fund like they will solve
everything. But I am hearing from my constituents about healing
fund applications being denied.
The Liberal government's programs for aboriginal people are a
sham. They do not go nearly far enough. It is time for the
government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many people rightly feel that the social union agreement
represents important progress in the evolution of Canadian
federalism
For instance, in the new agreement, the federal government takes
a large step in agreeing to no longer introduce new initiatives
supported by transfers to the provinces, whether cost-shared or
block-funded.
The federal government will limit its role to setting objectives
and will have to obtain the agreement of a majority of
provinces, which will then be allowed to tailor programs to
their own requirements.
This is the kind of overture the government has made with a view
to modernizing Canadian federalism. This is the kind of
overture our government feels would strengthen the provinces'
sense of being a part of Canada, while respecting their own
priorities with respect to development and approach in a sector
as vital as social services and health.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE KING HUSSEIN
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I would like to
extend my condolences to the Jordanian royal family and to the
people of Jordan on the loss of King Hussein.
As world leaders today mourn the loss of this great man, the
question arises: Where is the Prime Minister of Canada? U.S.
President Bill Clinton and three former U.S. presidents have
managed to make the time to go to King Hussein's funeral. The
leaders of all G-8 countries, except Canada, are in Jordan. Even
the Russian Prime Minister with his failing health, Boris
Yeltsin, is defying his doctors and has left the hospital to
attend the funeral of King Hussein. But our Prime Minister is
skiing in British Columbia. According to the PM's office he just
would not be able to get to Jordan in time for the funeral
despite 24 hours' notice and a government jet at his disposal.
This is a diplomatic snub. It is a slap in the face to Jordan,
an international news story and an embarrassment to Canada. It
is an affront to our historical leadership in the Middle East.
While we should be mourning the loss of Jordan's King Hussein—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE KING HUSSEIN OF JORDAN
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
the Bloc Quebecois joins with all those in the Middle East and
elsewhere in the international community who mourn the passing
of King Hussein of Jordan.
The Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to this man, who understood that
war was a scourge and who, until very recently, played an active
role in the peace process to bring about a reconciliation
between Palestinians and Israelis, between the Jewish and Arab
worlds.
Bloc Quebecois members wish King Hussein's successor, his son,
the new King Abdullah, a calm and peaceful transition, in the
critical days ahead.
They urge him to play a leadership role in the search for a
lasting peace in the Middle East, as King Hussein did for the 46
years of his reign, in order to restore Jordan to prosperity.
* * *
[English]
CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year's Citizenship and Heritage Week, which begins
today, gives us pause for reflection. It reminds us of the rich
history of our people—from the first nations and the Inuit to
the early settlers and newer immigrants—who collectively have
defined our common identity and shared values.
As a people, we come to help our neighbours during emergencies,
but do not wait for disasters to show we really care for our
fellow citizens. Witness the social union accord signed last
week by the federal and provincial governments. It enhances our
sense of belonging to one Canada where the quality of life of
citizens will continue to be held as the guiding beacon for
governance.
Truly, the unit of Canadian citizenship is neither you nor I
alone, but you and I working together to achieve our common
dream, the attainment of human dignity for all. This is the
essence of the week. We can all take pride.
* * *
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at times the heritage minister does some strange things. The
minister and her colleagues almost drove over $700 million in
film production out of B.C. and out of Canada. Now that is a
feature film policy.
The minister has launched a tape tax on churches recording their
services for shut-ins. Now that is promotion of the recording
industry.
The heritage minister is endangering thousands of Canadian jobs
in lumber, wheat production, plastics, textiles and steel.
1415
She is telling advertisers they cannot exercise free speech in
advertising in foreign magazines. If they do, they will face the
wrath of the Criminal Code of Canada.
That is a minister who will face the wrath of her own
constituents if she does not stop this misguided magazine bill.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
King Hussein was a leader, a diplomat and a fighter. But perhaps
his greatest legacy was that of a peacemaker, a man who helped
bring warring nations together.
Every world leader was in Amman today to pay their respects.
President Clinton and three former U.S. presidents were there.
All of the leaders of the G-8 were there, including the ailing
President Boris Yeltsin. Other than Saddam Hussein, the only
world leader who was not there was Canada's Prime Minister.
Why did he not go?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are saddened by the death
of King Hussein and we certainly wish to associate ourselves with
the expressions of condolences that have been expressed to the
family and of course to the people of Jordan.
Unfortunately it was not physically possible, given the time
when the death was made known to the Prime Minister, who was in
western Canada, for him to travel to Amman for the funeral.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the world has known that King Hussein was going to die as early
as Thursday. The Prime Minister had a lot of time to make plans.
This is about showing solidarity with King Abdullah, the new
Jordanian leader. It is about sending a message that Jordan is a
valued friend. It is about demonstrating that Canada wants to be
involved in achieving peace in the Middle East. It is about
proving that Canada cares enough to send its highest dignitary,
who should have known ahead of this impending tragedy.
Why did he not go?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I again repeat that the expectation
was that there would be 24 hours notice of the funeral of King
Hussein. Unfortunately there was inadequate time for the Prime
Minister to leave western Canada for Amman, Jordan and to arrive
in time for the funeral arrangements prepared by the Jordanian
authorities. Therefore it was simply physically impossible for
the Prime Minister to attend. It is with regret that he was
unable to attend.
The member knows full well that when there was a disaster in
northern Quebec recently the Prime Minister quickly changed his
plans to make himself available to be there for that ceremony.
He indeed sent staff from his own office to Amman to make
arrangements but—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
now it is someone else's fault. What a tragedy. The President
of the United States attended.
This one thoughtless act has the potential to undo a lot of hard
won diplomatic work. The Prime Minister had a special obligation
to Jordan today.
Canada is the chair of the United Nations Security Council. We
are trying to influence the peace progress greatly.
I would like the minister to stand and say what message the
Prime Minister is sending to the rest of the world by simply
refusing to show up at the funeral today.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statement of the hon. member is
inaccurate and I am sure she regrets it.
The Prime Minister wished to be at the funeral. Several days
ago he sent staff from his office to Amman to make arrangements.
However it was not possible for him, on less than 24 hours
notice, to travel from Vancouver to Amman.
I might add, despite the assertions of the hon. member, that
government leaders of several countries had a similar problem.
The leaders of Latin America, Australia and New Zealand had the
same time constraints and were similarly unable to attend.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the APEC inquiry has started again under a new commissioner, Ted
Hughes. Once again he has requested funding for the students. He
has said “the inquiry would not be a level playing field without
that funding”.
When is the solicitor general going to make the wrong right?
When is he going to announce funding for the students?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Mr. Hughes.
I and my staff are evaluating the letter. We will respond to the
letter in due course.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I guess he has been taking lessons from the justice minister: in
due course, in proper time, in a timely fashion.
1420
What is there to inquire about? Is the minister committed to
this being a fair process where they will be able to get to the
alleged effect of the Prime Minister on the APEC issue?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague, I
received a letter from Mr. Hughes. My staff and I are evaluating
the letter and we will respond to the letter.
* * *
[Translation]
AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1995 this House passed a resolution stating that Quebec forms a
distinct society and that all legislative and executive bodies
and powers would be bound by that resolution.
The Bloc Quebecois has always held that this resolution was not
worth the paper it was printed on, although the Prime Minister
has always strenuously objected to this.
If, indeed, this is not an empty resolution, could the Prime
Minister indicate to us what the importance of that resolution
was during the negotiations on social union?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would be awkward for me to respond without revealing
secret discussions between the governments during these
negotiations.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois could ask the Premier of Quebec
about this. He would get some answers that would surprise him
greatly.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is the first time the minister has invoked secrecy when asked a
question.
I would like him to explain to me how it is that, in the
agreement on social union, there is recognition and protection
of the rights of aboriginal people, while there is no
recognition anywhere of the rights or the existence of the
Quebec people? So what has become of the famous resolution on
the distinct society?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would beg the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to ask
that question of the premier, who I trust will openly disclose
the discussions that went on around the clause concerning the
unique character of Quebec society.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
subject of the resolution that was supposed to recognize Quebec
as a distinct society, the Prime Minister said, and I quote
“Once it is passed, this resolution will have an impact on how
legislation is passed in the House of Commons. I remind
Canadians that the legislative branch will be bound by this
resolution, as will the executive branch”.
I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when and
where during the negotiations or the agreement, the government
took account of its own resolution?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let the hon. member and leader of the Bloc put the
question to the Government of Quebec: Who did not want this
clause in the agreement?
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are
two examples: the millennium scholarships and the social union
framework where Quebec's position was dismissed.
Does this not prove that the resolution passed in this House on
the distinct society and the Prime Minister's promises on the
eve of the referendum in Verdun are devoid of meaning for
Quebeckers?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, I would recommend the member stop
reading his second question without listening to the answer to
the first, because this is becoming increasingly embarrassing
for him.
I repeat: Let him put the question to the Quebec minister of
intergovernmental affairs: Who did not want any clause
recognizing Quebec in the agreement?
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are saddened by the death of King Hussein, but they are
also saddened by the Prime Minister who failed to be in
attendance at the funeral to pay appropriate tribute to this man
of peace, a man who championed peace for 47 years.
Are Canadians to believe that the government and the Prime
Minister were caught by surprise at the death of King Hussein?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member apparently did not hear
the responses to the earlier questions. We certainly extend our
condolences to the people of Jordan and to his family.
1425
The Prime Minister had wished to be present. He indeed sent
staff in advance to Amman, Jordan. Unfortunately the notice
given was inadequate for him to leave British Columbia and get to
Amman in time for the funeral arrangements.
This was a disappointment to him and to the House but
unfortunately that is the situation as it occurred.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
politicians around the world face logistical problems about
getting to the funeral and not all politicians have a private
jet.
If the Prime Minister sent staff in advance to be in Jordan,
surely it is clear the Prime Minister had sufficient warning that
he himself could have got to Jordan in time to pay appropriate
tribute to this man of peace.
Why was that not a reasonable expectation for Canadians to have
of their Prime Minister?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the expectation we had was that there
would be a 24 hour notice given for the Prime Minister to be
present. Unfortunately that did not occur.
The situation has been that we are represented, and I am sure
extremely ably, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
What I think is important for Canadians and members of the House
to understand is that crass political gamesmanship about this
very serious issue is very unfortunate and inappropriate.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am continually frustrated by not having any answers when farmers
phone my office to ask me what is happening with the farm income
assistance program.
The minister of agriculture had 18 months when he took office to
know that there was a farm income crisis. We have not heard
anything since the announcement on December 10 of an intention of
a program.
Will the minister of agriculture stand in the House today to
make a ministerial statement as to the status of the farm income
program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's information amazes me
because I know he has personally met with a number of people on
the safety net advisory committee. They have filled him in on
their concerns and on the advice that they have given us.
Provincial and federal governments have been working together
with the industry to finalize the criteria which we will announce
to farmers in the very near future.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the reason I had those meetings with those people is that they
were self-initiated by me and those organizations, not by the
minister.
Farmers are asking where the programs are. Some provincial
agriculture ministers right now are thinking that they may well
have to go on their own for the programs.
Is the minister's strategy simply to do nothing and let the
provinces fend for themselves?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to talk about
ministers of agriculture he should go back home to his own
province of Manitoba which to date has not agreed to take part in
this assistance to farmers and the 60:40 split. As it has known
all along, it will have to participate if it wants Manitoba
farmers to have the same support as the farmers in the other
provinces of Canada.
I will tell the House again that the federal government will
treat every farmer in Canada that meets the criteria, no matter
what province they are in, exactly the same. If the provinces do
not want to assist they will have to explain that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians had better brace themselves for another shell game from
the finance minister in next week's budget.
The finance minister is proposing to give Canadians $2 billion
in tax relief, but on the other hand he is taking $2.4 billion
away from them because of bracket creep and CPP tax hikes. In
other words average Canadians get $143 but then he takes away
$171. They are $28 worse off.
Why does the minister not just admit that his Liberal tax cuts
are really a tax hike in disguise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have already said in the House, the difference
between ourselves and the Reform Party is not in the desire to
cut taxes. It is in fact the pain that the Reform Party would
inflict on the Canadian social fabric to accomplish its aims.
Last week the Reform Party presented its plan to the House. In
order to effect its plan in the third year there would be
required between $7 billion and $16 billion worth of cuts to
Canadian social programs to pay for them.
Would the hon. member now rise in the House and tell us what
programs he would cut?
1430
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is almost laughable, coming from a finance minister whose
budget projections have been off by $50 billion in the last five
years. He has a lot of nerve getting up in this place and
talking to me about numbers.
The Reform plan would put $4,660 back in the pockets of a family
of four making $30,000 a year. That would do a lot of good for
Canadians. Why is the finance minister raising taxes and telling
Canadians he is cutting taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in order to pay for the Reform Party's tax cut we would
have to gut old age pensions, substantially cut health care and
education, and virtually decimate equalization.
Why will the Reform Party critic not stand in the House and tell
us where he will find the $7 billion to $16 billion to pay for
those tax cuts?
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
would have us believe that it is good management on the part of
the federal government to set recovery quotas, because there is
always a certain amount of fraud associated with this sort of
program.
How can the minister say such a thing, when his department has
set recovery quotas of $600 million, even though his department
and the auditor general do not expect fraud to exceed $200
million? Why are recovery quotas three times higher than
anticipated fraud?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that the
money being recovered represents much more than just fraud.
Fraud accounts for one third, but there are also overpayments,
there are sometimes errors on the part of the department or the
taxpayer, and when there are errors, we put them right. That is
good management, designed to treat all workers fairly.
But fraud was not all I mentioned. I referred to overpayments
and other amounts that must also be recovered.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the department's website estimates that there
will be $198 million, a little under $200 million, in penalties
and overpayments. The minister should read the information his
department is putting out.
How can the minister stand there and deny the existence of
recovery quotas in the Department of Human Resources Development
when the vice-president of the department's employee union for
the Eastern Townships said last week, and I quote: “Managers
of—”
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will give the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques an opportunity to
refresh his memory, given his apparent confusion over the
figures, which are admittedly somewhat confusing.
Here are last Friday's figures again. These were probably the
ones he saw. In the month of January alone, 87,000 jobs were
created in Canada, thanks to the efforts of the Department of
Human Resources Development, among others. Because of
employment insurance reform and the youth employment strategy,
44,000 young people found full-time jobs.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in case the finance minister does not remember, it is he
who has taken $20 billion out of social programs in the last
three years. The questions today are about his proposed budget.
If he wants to know more about ours I suspect he might want to
read it very carefully.
The fact is that he is to give Canadian workers a $143 tax break
a year while his friend from the tax department sneaks in the
back door and takes $171 out of their wallets. That is a net
decrease of $28, for his information.
What does it take for the minister to realize Canadian taxpayers
are at the end of their rope and do not need a decrease—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one must discuss documents one has in front of the
House, but the fact is that in last year's budget we cut taxes by
$7 billion over three years. Next week the government can
present its budget and we can discuss that budget at that time.
The other document we have in front of us is the Reform Party
proposal.
The issue is: Why is the Reform Party afraid to tell Canadians
what its real agenda is? Why will it not tell us where that $7
billion to $16 billion worth of cuts in social fabric will come
from?
1435
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have heard straighter talk from a fly-by-night
used car salesman.
Here is the record, here is the agenda of the finance minister.
There have been $38 billion in tax increases since 1993. The
disposable income of Canadian families have shrunk by over $4,000
since 1993. He is ripping $7 billion off the EI fund and he is
the author of the famous pay more get less Canada pension plan.
Are there ever enough taxes to satisfy his insatiable demands?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Again I go
back, Mr. Speaker. In terms of intelligent debate in the country
and in terms of political morality, why is the Reform Party
afraid to put the facts behind its tax proposals? What is it
afraid of?
It is afraid people will truly understand what in fact it stands
for. As far as the Canada pension plan is concerned, we and the
provinces saved the Canada pension plan and we are proud of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thanks
to the leaks cleverly orchestrated by the Minister of Finance,
we now know that the next budget will include tax decreases for
the well-off.
Is the Minister of Finance not a bit uncomfortable about
preparing to lower taxes for the richest people by using the
money that has been collected at the expense of the unemployed,
thanks to quotas, harassment and performance bonuses for those
administering the unemployment offices?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again the hon. member is trying to jump the gun on next week's
budget, but we can look at last year's budget which exempted
400,000 Canadians from paying taxes.
At the same time, my hon. colleague introduced the national
child benefit, which put $1.8 billion into the hands of the
least well-off families in our country.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of lowering the taxes of the rich with the surplus in
the employment insurance fund, and with recovery targets set
three times higher than the actual amount of fraud, would it not
be fairer and more humane for the Minister of Finance to improve
the present employment insurance plan, which barely covers two
out of five unemployed workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct an error
if I may. There is an ongoing attempt to confuse Canadians.
The employment insurance program is in place for Canadians, and
will be for a long time. The employment insurance program
covers 78% of Canadians who lose or leave their jobs for cause.
For those not covered by our program, we have other programs to
help them into the labour force, the ones for young people for
instance, and the Canada jobs fund.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
access to information documents reveal that the air force is no
longer able to adequately patrol Canada's coastline. These
documents state “There are currently insufficient resources to
meet the total patrol requirement”.
I have a question for the defence minister. Who is guarding
Canada's coastline?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have an air force that does this. We
also have a navy with its patrol vessels, frigates and MCDVs.
We have the longest coastline of any country in the world and a
function of our Canadian forces is to make sure that we do
surveillance.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is obvious the defence minister has not even read his own
military department documents.
These defence documents show that budget cuts are forcing the
military to drastically cut back on the number of aircraft in its
fleet. I will quote again from those documents. “Even the
must-do roles and tasks” like coastal defence “would be
degraded from current standards”.
Who is guarding Canada's coastline?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not trust the hon.
member's reading of any document. From what I have heard from
him before, he does not get his research right.
We certainly have a navy. We have an air force. We have an
army. They are all doing their utmost to protect Canada's
sovereignty. That is one of their prime functions as is
identified in our policy framework in the 1994 white paper, and
they are doing a good job at doing it. Yes, we have fewer
resources. Things have been very tight but they are doing a
great job with the resources they have.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Information Office, or CIO, is definitely a rather special body.
In addition to flouting all the public service's hiring
practices, the CIO is permitted to award contracts of up to
$150,000, six times the usual amount, without going to tender.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works, or the chief
political organizer for Quebec, for they are one and the same.
How does he explain the fact that 80% of CIO's contracts over a
16-month period were awarded without tender?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to assure
the House that, right from the beginning of this period, the
Canada Information Office has always respected Treasury Board
guidelines.
Naturally, as is the case with any new body just starting out,
it has had to use the services of various professionals in order
to fulfil its mandate.
But I can assure my hon. colleague and the House that, since
August 1, 67% of the contracts awarded by the Canada Information
Office went to public tender.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question concerns the student summer job action
program.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development inform the House
if this program will continue for 1999 and if so, can the
minister tell our Canadian youth when they can apply for help in
the summer job search?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to launch the
1999 summer student job action program, to help young Canadians
get summer jobs.
This year we will invest $120 million to help 60,000 young
Canadians get summer jobs. This is building on our youth
employment strategy which has contributed to the creation of
143,000 student jobs for the young in 1998, the best performance
in 20 years, and 44,000 jobs in January 1999.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot wait for minister's statement period.
Last month Mark Poucette, a member of the Stoney nation, was
convicted of taking the life of Larry Labelle. His punishment
for this crime was a one year sentence. The Criminal Code allows
a judge to take into consideration during sentencing whether the
person is aboriginal or not. Why should a judge be required to
take that into account? What does it matter?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know the particulars of this case. Nowhere is it stated
that a judge has to take that into consideration. He has to read
the law and he has to interpret the law. I think that is what the
judge did in this particular case.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the Criminal Code, section 718.2(e) says that the judges must
take into account whether the convict is an aboriginal or not.
On January 20 Deana Emard of Vancouver argued that she should
not go to jail for killing her husband, in part because of her
aboriginal background. She was subsequently sentenced to
community service.
The families of the victims in both of these cases, who are
aboriginal, are asking why they are being discriminated against.
Why such pathetic sentences for these horrendous crimes?
Could the minister explain to the families of these victims why
they are treated differently under Canadian law—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since the cases are before the Supreme Court of Canada, we will
not comment on them.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are daily experiencing horrible situations in
our hospitals and in our health care system. This government
keeps saying to wait for the budget.
Just recently a Windsor resident was sent home from hospital
still bleeding and vomiting after having his tonsils removed.
There were no beds.
1445
How has the Minister of Health allowed our health system to sink
this low? Will the government now recognize that the situation
is extremely urgent? Will it attempt to cut a cheque immediately
for health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has made clear that health is the priority of
this government. He has made clear that in the budget to be
tabled soon that priority will be reflected. It will be clear
that we are going to ensure the future for our public health care
system, that Canadians now and in the future will have access to
high quality health care.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, time is running out.
As another example, Ontario cancer patients are now regularly
being sent to the United States for radiation treatment at
roughly double the cost to Canadian taxpayers. Incredibly it is
also looking at having U.S. specialists come to Canada to provide
the service. Imagine. Private U.S. clinics are ecstatic.
What guarantee can the minister provide that this undermining of
medicare will be stopped?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will know that hospitals are run and services are
delivered by the provincial governments. I urge her to take up
her complaints with the appropriate provincial Minister of
Health.
Speaking more broadly, let me observe that there are really two
ways to ruin medicare in this country. One way is to follow the
Reform path, repeal the Canada Health Act and bring in the
American private insurers. That will do it. The other way is to
follow the advice of the NDP and bankrupt the country so we
cannot afford health services.
We prefer to take a balanced approach and to preserve medicare
for now and into the future.
* * *
[Translation]
MANPOWER TRAINING
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
I would like to ask him why he agreed to sign the manpower
training agreement when it is obvious that all the regions in
Quebec are concerned about the total lack of programming.
Given that he was aware in his book that most of the people in
the regions of Quebec preferred dealing with the federal
government, why did he sign an agreement that seems to put us at
a disadvantage?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been disagreement on
the subject of manpower for a very long time and, contrary to
what the members of the Bloc Quebecois were saying earlier—that
the Prime Minister had made promises and we had done nothing—the
Prime Minister made a very important promise, which was to
establish a manpower agreement with the Government of Quebec, an
agreement that should help Quebeckers in time.
We are concerned about modernizing Canadian federalism, and we
concluded this agreement. We will evaluate it annually. We
will measure the impact of the transfers we are making to the
Government of Quebec annually so we can truly assess their
success for Quebec workers.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, there are jobs
in the Montreal area that are subsidized to the tune of $25,000
each.
I want to know whether this approach is part of the framework
agreement and whether the funds can be applied to the same
sectors or to different sectors to create jobs.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to reassure
the hon. member from Chicoutimi that the money the Government of
Quebec is investing, for example, in the jobs he mentions is its
own money and does not come from the agreement we negotiated on
manpower.
I can tell him that we also had the future of the regions in
mind and that I regularly hear that people find their relations
with the Government of Quebec too centralized, whereas they
appreciated the much more decentralized relationship they had
with the Government of Canada. But, it is up to the Government
of Quebec to resolve its problems of being overcentralized.
* * *
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois claims that we are neglecting francophones
outside Quebec.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State responsible for
Western Economic Diversification what the government is doing to
meet the needs of western francophones trying to make a success
of it economically.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my department has made a modest but important number of
investments, resulting in a number of projects, including the
hiring of economic development officers who work in French with
francophone communities and with the majority. And there are a
number of studies showing what we need to do to boost economic
development in French.
1450
Partnerships have been formed not only between communities, but
with entrepreneurs, men and women with businesses throughout
western Canada.
What is now going on is good for western francophones, good for
the West and good for Canada.
* * *
[English]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-55 will prevent Canadian companies from advertising in American
split-run magazines. But here at home Maclean's magazine
actually relies on—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We have a question here. The hon.
member for Peace River may begin again.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I will try that again.
Bill C-55 will prevent Canadian companies from advertising in
American split-run magazines. But here at home Maclean's
magazine actually relies on American and other foreign companies
for over two-thirds of its advertising budget.
How long will our magazine industry survive if Americans enact
mirror legislation? If Canadians cannot advertise in those
American magazines, perhaps they will not allow their companies
to advertise in ours.
Can the heritage minister please explain how that will help
Canadian publishers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in the law that prevents
any Canadian from advertising in any current American magazine.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
the auditor general, the value of employment insurance fraud
could reach $140 million. At its Web site, the department talks
of fraud, overpayments and fines of $198 million. The two
amounts do not match.
How does the minister explain to the unemployed, who are being
harrassed at employment centres, that the figure to be recovered
is three times higher than the higher of these two figures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no harrassment. The
employees are covered by a collective agreement, and, in a
department with 20,000 employees, we will find work for them
elsewhere.
Personally, I did not like the tone of the memo. I admit it, I
did not like it at all. But there is no harrassment, as they
are claiming on the other side of the House.
We should also point out the excellent work done by Human
Resources Development personnel in helping thousands and
thousands of workers integrate into the labour market. An
additional 87,000 workers joined the labour market last month,
and this figure includes 44,000 young people. This is what the
employment insurance reform is about as well. This is our
political philosophy. This is how we move people out of
poverty—through employment.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the new chair
at the APEC hearings has recommended funding legal counsel for
both sides at the hearings. He believes that this is a reasonable
course to follow as there are two sides to every story. In this
story, only one side is armed with a fleet of lawyers while the
other, the students, have none.
Will the solicitor general accept the recommendations of Mr.
Hughes to fund the students so that there will be a fair hearing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, I have
received a letter from Mr. Hughes. I and my officials are
evaluating the letter and I will respond to Mr. Hughes in due
course.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, according
to recent news reports, Canada is prepared to provide ground
forces for Kosovo.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has Canada
been invited to provide troops, and if so, when and by whom?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not yet formally been asked to
supply troops but there is preliminary work being done at NATO.
That is being done in connection with the peace talks that are
presently going on in Rambouillet, France. In those discussions
part of what they will be considering is whether a peacekeeping
mission could be agreed upon by the parties. If it is, then it
is quite likely Canada would be asked. In that case, I would
expect the government to make a decision after some consultation
with members of parliament.
1455
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Kosovo has been in the media a great deal for the past few days.
Can the minister give the House an update on the situation in
Kosovo, particularly regarding how it affects Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are into a 21-day period that the
contact group has outlined as being necessary to push the peace
process forward. It took seven days to get to the table. They
were at the table as of this weekend. They will have another
seven days to reach an agreement and another seven days beyond
that should that be necessary.
We have six CF-18s in Aviano, Italy in case the peace talks
break down and if NATO decides to proceed with its air strikes.
Also, if as part of the peace agreement, we do get a
peacekeeping—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
the information of the parliamentary secretary, neither case that
I mentioned earlier is going to the supreme court. They are a
done deal. This law was brought in under Bill C-41. It is
section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. The aboriginal people who
are the victims in these cases want to hear the answer. Why are
aboriginal killers being treated differently than any other
Canadian in these laws?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my answer to the question still stands. The case is before the
Supreme Court of Canada and I will not comment on a case that is
before the Supreme Court of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHING QUOTAS
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, during the summer of 1998, the attitude of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had the fishers of Gaspé on the
brink of despair.
Can the minister indicate what steps he has taken since last
August to deal with the backlash from fishers concerning his
department's delay in releasing fishing plans, as well as the
setting of quotas for the Gulf of St. Lawrence?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem to which the hon. member
refers is one that is of serious concern. There is no question.
There are areas where timing is of critical importance and where
decisions are made by the department and have been made by the
department in the past which do not give adequate warning to
fishermen of the upcoming seasons, the length, the openings, et
cetera.
We have instituted a new policy in attempting to speed up the
entire range of fishing decisions. We have done this in
discussion with the fishing groups. I will be happy to consider
any particular area, any particular fishery with any particular
member who may have concerns in that regard.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
mandate of Canada Post is to provide the best possible service at
the least possible cost. Now postal rates are going up. Service
is going down. Yet last year Canada Post paid the federal
government $200 million plus $12 million more in dividends.
I ask the minister responsible for Canada Post, where in the act
does it say that Canada Post has to be some cash cow for the
government? By what authority does Canada Post pay dividends at
the expense of service to Canadians?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's
financial structure has to respond to the competitive world.
Canada Post is not alone any more. It has competitors.
Therefore it is appropriate that its financial structure responds
to what the competition is doing.
Canada Post continues to invest in its retail service and its
delivery service. Every year 170,000 new addresses are added.
Canada Post just invested $100 million to address the millennium
bug. Naturally it will continue to have universal service for
Canadians.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question again is for the Minister of National Defence. Why is
Canada's Prime Minister offering troops at a time when we are not
capable of equipping, deploying or supporting in a situation like
the one in Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our peacekeepers have served us quite
proudly wherever they have served throughout the world.
In Kosovo we are facing a situation of enormous proportions in
terms of human tragedy. If indeed there is a peacekeeping
mission, if one is decided upon and agreed upon and deployed,
then I would think Canadians would want us to be a part of it.
We will go through a proper process to determine to do that. If
it is a high enough priority, we will certainly find the
resources to do so.
* * *
1500
THE LATE KING HUSSEIN
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, and fellow members, Canadians, the entire
international community and the people of Jordan are grieving
over the loss of His Majesty King Hussein.
Seldom in the years since the second world war have we seen in
one person, one statesman, the qualities of true greatness
possessed by Jordan's long serving leader.
The people of Jordan whatever their background owed much to King
Hussein. He brought his country into the modern world. He
encouraged the emergence of democratic institutions and made
human rights a priority. He ruled with a gentle hand, granting
successive waves of Palestinian refugees a home in Jordan where
they built new lives and were extended the privileges of
Jordanian nationality.
Most of all, King Hussein will be mourned and his memory
honoured for the steps that he personally took over many years to
find a just and equitable peace in the Middle East. He believed
and understood that Israel and its Arab neighbours needed to find
a way to live side by side in peace. This was never an easy task
when distrust and suspicions were everywhere, wounds were deeply
felt and old hatreds difficult to overcome. But King Hussein
persisted despite opposition from many of his neighbours.
At each crucial stage in the peace process of recent years he
played a key role. He was on the White House lawn beside Yitzhak
Rabin in July 1994. Three months later he formally brought
hostilities between Jordan and Israel to an end. Most recently,
although gravely ill, he left his hospital bed to help forge the
Wye accord between Israel and the PLO.
[Translation]
His compassion for the suffering and misfortunes of others was
legendary. Who can forget his moving tribute at the funeral of
Prime Minister Rabin, or the day he knelt to beg forgiveness of
the Israeli mothers whose children had been killed by a
Jordanian soldier in a fit of madness.
Canadians will recall King Hussein's various visits to Canada,
the last of these in March 1995.
As a firm ally of his country, Canada was always prepared to
provide moral and material support to his peace efforts.
[English]
Jordan's king will be sadly missed and not soon forgotten by his
country, in the Middle East, in Canada and indeed throughout the
international community.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to express our
deepest sympathies to his wife, Queen Noor, his family and the
Jordanian people as a whole.
To his successor, King Abdullah, I wish to pledge Canada's
support as he takes up the difficult task of continuing to foster
peace in this troubled region.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also rise today to join with other hon. members in
paying tribute to Jordan's King Hussein, a remarkable man who led
a remarkable country for 47 years.
Today we also pay our respects and send our condolences to Queen
Noor, and to King Abdullah, King Hussein's son who now takes up
the heavy mantle of leadership, and to all the people of Jordan
who today mourn the loss of a friend.
What is the difference between a politician and a statesman? I
think King Hussein helps define that answer, for during his long
tenure he demonstrated time and time again the courage and the
wisdom that made him a legend in his own time.
As the funeral proceeded this morning, it was evident that the
King's greatest skill, that of bringing together people who
differ and differ profoundly, will be his greatest legacy, that
even in death King Hussein was able to make the lion lie down
with the lamb.
1505
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid his respects
along with two former Israeli prime ministers and the widow of
Yitzhak Rabin. They attended, just as did Yasser Arafat and
Syria's President Assad. Four U.S. presidents were there, as
were the president and prime minister of Russia. That was the
kind of man King Hussein was, a man who believed in peace and
brought together others who saw the possibility of peace.
It is difficult to be a modern, moderate, peace loving man in
the Middle East but King Hussein excelled at that difficult task.
He was a bridge between the Arab world and Israel. He was a
bridge between the west and the east. He was among the first to
invest in peace in the region, to take his place among the
peacemakers, not the war makers. He did so at great personal risk
but that risk paid off. It is not an exaggeration to say that
much of the progress, what progress has been made with respect to
Middle East peace, would not have been possible without his moral
leadership and example.
On behalf of the official opposition and all Canadians, I pay
tribute to a great king. May God sustain and guide his successor
along the same path.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
death of King Hussein of Jordan was a great and unexpected
sorrow to the world, and a crushing blow to his people. An
unexpected sorrow to the world because, although he was known to
be ill, this pilot-king had been at the controls of the plane
when he recently returned to Jordan, so there was no indication
that his death would come so soon.
During his reign, the friendly relationship between Canada and
Jordan grew stronger and stronger. A number of Quebec
businesses contributed to the development of trade links with
Jordan.
Many Quebeckers have been involved, in a spirit of generosity
and openness, in international development projects funded by
Canada. We can only hope that these ties will be continued
under his successor.
I will take advantage of this opportunity to express my best
wishes, and those of my party, to his son, the new King
Abdullah. May his reign allow Jordan to continue to progress
along the road to modernization and peace.
The death of King Hussein was also a crushing blow to his
people. One need only watch the scenes on television to realize
that the relationship between the king and his people was more
than one of ruler and ruled.
King Hussein was obviously a great monarch, with the affection
and trust of his people. In every way, his long reign was a
totally remarkable one.
With leadership skills that were the envy of many, he guided his
people for nearly half a century.
This king, a member of his country's Hashemite minority, did not
have the benefit of the oil wealth of most Arab countries in
advancing his country economically and socially. He was able to
strike a wise balance between the internal demands of his
country, which was not exempt from the tensions relating to the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and the regional realities which dictated,
after a number of conflicts, the normalization of relations with
his neighbours, Israel in particular.
Despite the vicissitudes of international politics and of
regional conflicts, King Hussein will be remembered as a
peacemaker for his moderation in word and deed.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we
pay tribute to one of the most compelling figures to govern a
middle eastern nation in this century.
King Hussein ruled Jordan for 47 years. Throughout this period
he was at the very centre of Middle East politics carefully
advancing the interests of his own people while mobilizing around
the cause of peace in the region.
His achievements are all the more impressive when one considers
the pressures and forces levelled against him. He governed with
a mixture of vision, gritty determination and solid political
judgment. He demonstrated that the hand of friendship is a more
effective route to peace than the clenched fist.
His reign was characterized at times by turbulence and great
upheaval. By virtue of his single minded determination to improve
the welfare of his people and to modernize his country, he earned
the enduring affection of his own people and the admiration of
people around the world.
This was evident a few short weeks ago when thousands of people
lined the streets of Amman to welcome their beloved king home
from his most recent medical treatment abroad.
1510
[Translation]
King Hussein worked tirelessly for peace in the region.
[English]
His goal was to ensure that Jordan could peacefully exist in a
new regional relationship with Israel and the newly constructed
Palestinian territories. King Hussein's passing marks the loss
of one of the most formidable campaigners for peace in our
lifetime but his legacy will endure.
[Translation]
His contribution to the peace process in the Middle East will
live on.
[English]
I would like to convey on behalf of my colleagues and my party
heartfelt condolences to the family of King Hussein, to the
people of Jordan and to Jordanian Canadians. May his successors
draw strength from King Hussein's inspiration and achievements
and may we Canadians rededicate ourselves to the cause of peace.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I
would like to express our sympathy at the death of Jordan's King
Hussein.
People the world over are mourning the loss of this great man.
Not only was he recognized as one of the world's most respected
leaders both in the Middle East and around the world, but it was
just a few short months ago despite his illness that the king was
called upon to help forge the Wye peace accord between Israel and
the PLO. His reputation and stature throughout the world is
obvious given the fact that all of the world's important leaders
travelled to Amman today to pay their respects at the state
funeral.
During his tenure as foreign affairs minister, our leader the
Right Hon. Joe Clark had many occasions to meet the late King
Hussein in Canada and in Jordan. He noted that he had always
admired King Hussein's wisdom, foresight and calm strength during
very tumultuous times.
King Hussein ruled Jordan through some very turbulent years but
no matter what the obstacle, he always demonstrated a sense of
fairness and compassion. His years of leadership guided his
country toward democracy with human rights always at the
forefront.
To his son and successor, King Abdullah, we wish him well as he
works to continue the estimable legacy of his father. A king of
peace seeking reconciliation will be that legacy.
With the flag over our Peace Tower flying appropriately at
half-staff, the world has lost a great man. On behalf of our
leader the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada, we would like to extend to Her Majesty Queen
Noor and the entire family and the people of Jordan our deepest
sympathies.
The Speaker: It is only in exceptional
circumstances that we lower our flag on the Peace Tower to
half-mast.
King Hussein was an exceptional world leader. Will you please
stand and join me in one minute of silence on the death of King
Hussein of Jordan.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions.
* * *
1515
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 56th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92. This
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
(Motion agreed to)
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of
the Standing Committee on Industry entitled “The Year 2000
Problem—Canada's State of Readiness”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the violation of human rights continues to be rampant around
the world in many countries such as Indonesia.
The petitioners also point out that Canada continues to be the
champion of human rights around the world. Therefore they call
upon parliament to continue to express its outrage at human
rights violations around the world and to continue to seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such violations.
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I present a petition on behalf of people in my
riding.
Whereas Canadian families who choose to have one parent stay at
home with their children pay a substantial tax penalty for that
decision, the petitioners request that parliament eliminate this
discrimination against one income families and provide them with
the same benefits received by families who have others care for
their children.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased and privileged to be able to present a
petition on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadians
representing every corner of this land. They express their
concern about the state of our health care system.
The petitioners express their worry about the quality of our
health care system today and whether or not the principles of the
Canada Health Act are being upheld.
They call upon the government to stand firmly in support of the
five principles of medicare being universal coverage,
accessibility, portability, comprehensive coverage and federal
funding. They express the view that these principles are the
basic rights of Canadians everywhere in the country.
This petition was organized by members of the save medicare
committee of the Durham region coalition for social justice. They
are doing their part to work with Canadians right across the
country to send a message to the federal government on this
important matter.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 of the House I present a petition
on behalf of 47 constituents.
The petition requests that parliament enact legislation to
define its statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single man and a single female.
FRESH WATER
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of
constituents from the constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys.
The petitioners are deeply troubled about what they perceive to
be the government's intention not to proceed with legislation to
protect the fresh water of Canada. They want to see a moratorium
and the introduction of legislation and they keep hearing
promises and promises.
They are asking parliament to take whatever steps are necessary
to ensure that a moratorium is called and that appropriate
legislation to protect water for future generations of Canadians
is introduced as soon as possible.
CASUALTY AND PROPERTY INSURANCE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a
number of the independent insurance brokers in my riding and
people who support them.
They are calling on the government to reject the MacKay task
force recommendations to allow banks into the selling of casualty
and property insurance.
1520
MARRIAGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today on behalf of a number of
residents from my home town of beautiful Sundre, Alberta.
The petitioners are calling on parliament to enact legislation
such as Bill C-225 so as to define in statue that a marriage can
only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present
two petitions signed by residents of London, St. Thomas and the
Brantford area.
They urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting it is
not used in Europe and most American states as it clogs emission
control devices in vehicles.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it my honour, pleasure and privilege to stand in the
House today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition
on behalf of many Canadians who are very concerned about the
export of water to the United States from Canada.
They are also very concerned about the multilateral agreement on
investment which the Liberals, and in particular the chief
Liberal Don Johnston in Paris, are pushing under the instructions
of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to continue to
make sure that corporations have more and more power and
authority over our economy without any independence from any
country with respect to making their own decisions.
These citizens are from many locations across the country. They
are concerned the MAI will make it very easy for corporations to
take all of our fresh water and send it south so that the
Canadian population will be at the mercy of the Americans and the
large corporations.
I join with these individuals in presenting the petition on
their behalf.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 133.
.[Text]
Question No. 133—Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:
With respect to Ms. Manon Lecours, who worked as a special
assistant in the office of the Hon. Martin Cauchon: (a) on
what date did she begin working in this position; (b) on what
date did she leave this position; (c) what was her salary
throughout the time she worked in the Minister's office; (d)
what was the exact lenght of her leave without pay in April-May
1997; and (e) what is her current status within the federal
government?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
as follows:
a) February 12, 1996;
b) June 19, 1998;
c) annual rate of pay for a ministerial assistant to a secretary
of state may amount to $56,821;
d) from March 17 to June 8, 1997;
e) Ms. Lecours is no longer part of the Office of the Secretary
of State.
I am informed by the Public Service Commission of Canada as
follows: Ms. Manon Lecours is not currently employed in the
federal public service under the Public Service Employment Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inquire
about Question No. 132 which was asked on September 21, 1998, and
Question No. 138 which was asked on September 24, 1998.
I might remind my friend opposite that veterans families have
been denied benefits because they cannot get the information we
have asked for in these questions. I asked previously when I
might expect an answer and I was only told that the government
House leader would look into it. I wonder if I could get a
specific timeframe on that.
Furthermore, seeing as the government has had this question for
six months, would it be prepared at least to table part of the
question it has answered and give us an undertaking as to why it
has taken so long to answer this question?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I know the member's
concern. I heard his remarks this morning on a point of order on
this very question.
I will look into in great detail the whereabouts of Questions
Nos. 132 and 138. I will also look into his suggestion as to a
way in which we might obtain a response.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like
to ask a question of my friend, the parliamentary secretary. The
government had promised to introduce legislation this year to
protect Canada's water. That was actually last year and it is a
new year now. Could he bring us any kind of update?
The Deputy Speaker: I am reluctant to allow question
period to continue. The hon. member rose on a point of order. If
he is referring to a question on the order paper I would perhaps
allow his question. It does not appear that he is. This is
another, if I may call it so, bit of a fishing expedition.
I think the proper time for this is during business of the House
on Thursdays when the government House leader is here to deal
with it.
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1525
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an
act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period the hon. member for Kings—Hants had the floor and he had
five minutes remaining for his remarks.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
issue of equalization is fundamental to Canada. Equalization has
represented a cornerstone of the social and economic policies in
Canada. The equality of opportunity that has been provided by
equalization is pivotal and important if we are to ensure that
throughout Canada people have access to the levers of the free
market and a global economy.
It is very important that we recognize the differences of the
country and encourage people to succeed in their provinces and to
access opportunity. Without equalization, without this
commitment to what is essentially Canadian, we would be
imperilling that opportunity and that tenet of Canadian policy.
I mentioned earlier that in Manitoba there is some significant
concern over the reduction in equalization payments that this
adjustment process would result in. It reminded me of an article
I read last spring in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday,
May 17, 1997. It followed the Reform Party's announcement on
equalization and was called “Securing Your Future”. They were
calling for a cut in equalization payments by 12% or $1 billion.
They were looking at readjusting equalization so as not to
include some of the provinces that are currently receiving it.
Manitoba would be one of the provinces that would be cut out of
equalization. I will give an idea of the impact on Manitoba.
Manitoba's deputy premier Jim Downey at that time called the
Reform plan to cut equalization payments to only three payments
frightening. He said that at first blush it would cause a
remarkably severe impact on Manitoba and a loss of $1 billion or
about one-sixth of the province's gross revenues. He said it
would essentially wipe out 25 provincial departments or the
entire education budget. He was explaining what the impact in
the short term would be of this type of draconian policy.
We all believe in the free market. We must all understand that
the free market is only successful if all Canadians have access
to the levers of it. In a knowledge based society equality of
opportunity means equality of educational opportunities and
health care. All these policies tie together.
We will not stand by and see a ghettoization of Canada. It is a
remarkable achievement in our country that we have been able to
provide some semblance of equality across the country in terms of
opportunity.
We would like to see the government move forward not just with
an equalization policy to equalize opportunities but with
something more fundamental than that, an industrial strategy for
our country, which is clearly lacking; a commitment to reducing
interprovincial trade barriers; a commitment to reducing taxes; a
commitment to reducing the regulatory burden on individuals and
on small businesses; and a commitment to ensuring that Canadians
can not only compete in a global environment as we enter the 21st
century but can succeed in that environment.
Our party has always been committed to these goals. We would
like to see the government commit in the upcoming budget to the
type of fiscal policy and type of economic policy that would lead
Canadians proudly into the 21st century. Maybe some day
equalization will not be necessary because all regions of the
country will succeed and all Canadians will have an opportunity
to participate in the type of economic growth that everyone
deserves.
1530
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the member's final comments was with regard to the
ghettoization of Canada and I think that is an unfortunate
description of what might be in fact the effect of the
equalization program.
The member will know that equalization puts about $8.5 billion
into the hands of the provinces so their taxation levels do not
have to rise for them to be able to provide the same kind of
services across the country. It is basically a mobility issue.
The member should be careful in his choice of language. It
would be wonderful to think that over the long term all provinces
would be able to sustain their economies without equalization,
but the bill before us will renew the equalization program for
the benefit of all Canadians.
I would hope the member would want to clarify his views on
equalization in Canada.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comment.
The hon. member may not have heard the first part of my speech
which was prior to question period. At no time did I say that we
did not support equalization. In fact I defended the tenets of
equalization vociferously.
I agree with the hon. member that it is absolutely essential to
the equality of opportunity across the country that we maintain
and strengthen equalization.
I appreciate the hon. member's intervention because I would not
in any way want my words to be interpreted as not supporting
equalization. It is quite the contrary. We recognize it as a
cornerstone of Canadian social policy. Our party defends it and
we recognize its importance.
What I was suggesting, relative to ghettoization, is that
without equalization there would be a ghettoization of Canadians
because there would be some groups in some regions of the country
who would simply not have the same access to opportunity as
others. Without equalization we would have a ghettoization. I
hope that clarification is to the member's satisfaction.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to what the member had to say
and I agree with him that Canadians are fair and generous people
who really do not mind helping out their neighbour.
However there is a feeling among many that Ontario, Alberta and
British Columbia seem to be left holding the bag with this
equalization business. That perception is very real. Part of
the problem is that the whole process of the equalization formula
is complex, convoluted and confusing. Nobody really understands
why one province will be the beneficiary of funding while another
will not. Without getting into detail, we have to look at some
of the provinces and how wealthy they are in resources and ask
why that province is getting funding when another is not.
In all seriousness, how would the member give this whole notion
a better public relations face?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. He raises a very good point.
I would suggest that if the member wanted to see British
Columbia become a beneficiary province the best way to ensure
that would be to maintain a New Democrat government there for a
long time. In fact at some point in the future that may occur.
But seriously, it is an extraordinarily complex formula. We
were briefed several times on the formula and it is very
complicated, quite frankly, for a student of these affairs to
understand. From a public relations perspective I do not know
how to get the point across.
1535
What is important for Canadians living in the contributing
provinces to realize is that the people who are on the receiving
end do not use the funds in a wasteful manner. They are being
used for the basic social fabric, education, health care and
those fundamental areas that everyone in Canada values. What
makes Canada unique is our ability to provide the funds.
The people who simplistically say that we should cut off
equalization have to realize that those people would go somewhere
to find opportunities. Ultimately the social problems that would
exist in a particular region, such as Atlantic Canada, would
exist in another region if we were not able to provide some basic
level of service in the areas of social spending, education and
health care. Those problems would not disappear simply because
of the lack of equalization.
Through an industrial strategy we could ensure that in 10 or 15
years equalization would be less necessary. We have to move on
that type of policy. However in the short term it is a
fundamental tenet of Canadian social and economic policy that
simply needs to be maintained at this time.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate what the member had to say. However the
underlying question is: Are provinces, in a way, not like
people? Are we not creating, to a certain extent, some kind of
dependency on equalization, given that it is not clear to most
people just why the money is being given?
We are transferring huge gobs of money from one place to
another, from one pocket to another. Under what circumstances?
I do not know. To a certain extent we are creating a dependency
when the lines are not very clearly defined for these transfers.
Would the member comment on that?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that is
changing dramatically in Atlantic Canada is natural resource
development. There is natural gas development in Nova Scotia and
the Hibernia project in Newfoundland. We would hope that in the
not too distant future these provinces would actually be have
provinces.
I do not honestly believe that equalization payments contribute
to dependency. When I speak of social spending policies I am not
talking about income support, I am talking about education,
health care and so on.
Those areas do not represent a dependency. They represent a
basic quality of life that is required for anyone to succeed. If
we want Nova Scotians to succeed we need to provide enough
funding for a strong education system and for a good health care
system.
The hon. member raises the very important issue of dependency.
We must consider whether the government has over the past 30
years, in trying to protect Atlantic Canadians from the risks of
the future, actually prevented some Atlantic Canadians from
participating fully in the opportunities of the future.
He does have a point. I would suspect that some of the policies
which have been implemented have not been successful.
Equalization in itself, as a policy, has actually had some level
of success in at least providing a level of opportunity for those
people to succeed either in those provinces or to go elsewhere.
In particular, young people need to be provided with a sound
footing to get them through the first years.
I agree with the hon. member that we need an industrial
strategy. We need something that can actually harness the powers
of the free market in a global environment so that all Canadians
can succeed. However, that cannot be done simply through
equalization. It cannot exist in isolation from other government
policies and leadership in other areas. Frankly, that is what is
really lacking at this point.
1540
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to discuss amendments to the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act. This act provides the legislative
authority for parliament and this government to provide
equalization payments to the provinces by virtue of the fact that
all Canadians are equal and deserve equal access to equal
services. Fundamentally, that speaks to what this legislation is
all about.
We have heard in this House what the opposition parties feel
this bill should not be about. They feel this bill should not be
about equity, that it should not be about building Canada from
coast to coast to coast, that it should not be about providing
services to all Canadians, no matter the level of income or the
location of residence, on the basis of equity. We have heard
from the opposition that it should be about the principle of
every person for themselves; that every person, man or woman,
should fend for themselves, based on their ability to compete and
survive in a very turbid world of market forces, and that is the
way it should be. That would be a great speech in Washington,
D.C., but this is Canada. Canada was built on a principled set
of tenets. Canadians deserve equity in social programs from
coast to coast to coast.
I re-emphasize that this debate has been about what the program
should not be. This debate so far for the opposition has been
about what it should not be for Canadians. The opposition has
said that we should not have equity, that we should not have
regional distribution of wealth, that we should not build Canada
as a mosaic of regions where each region builds upon the
strengths of others and provides support where support is needed.
The opposition fails to remember that it was some of the eastern
provinces which first began the process of transfer payments. It
was the eastern part of this country that actually provided
transfer payments for the building of the west. That did not
happen last year, nor did it happen 10 years ago. It happened
literally hundreds of years ago, but it happened. That is an
example of how this country was built.
Do members of the House see me trying to profess that that was a
wrong move, that it was un-Canadian, that now my region or
province has been hard done by? No. That is what built this
country. A major principle that built this country is that all
Canadians should be provided equal access to government programs
and services, in particular social programs such as health and
education.
It is terrible that hon. members opposite are still heckling
that point of view. We are debating the fact that in this
country social programs will be provided to the citizens of St.
John's, Newfoundland on the same basis as they are to citizens of
Victoria, B.C. Hon. members opposite have some explaining to do,
not just to their own constituents but to their own consciences.
It is not a Canadian principle.
The Constitution has entrenched the principle of equity for
Canadians. It has done so through the principle of providing
services to Canadians.
I am very proud to be a Canadian. I am also proud that
opposition members still defend the principle of equity.
Unfortunately they do not come from the Reform Party, but I think
there are a few members across the way who still quietly, while
not disturbing their caucus ranks, realize and understand the
value that Canada is not a dog eat dog society, that there are
still some principles of building a country and that those
principles are based on the fact that Canadians in need will be
assisted by Canadians who, at that point in time, have a little
more to offer.
We could simply take a snapshot in time of what Canada is today,
but we must remember that Canada changes over time. The east
coast was the economic engine of Canada not too long ago. We
were the economic engine that provided resources to help build
other parts of the country.
We have not heard any new ideas from the opposition about
rebuilding the federation and building on the social programs and
services which Canadians enjoy. What we have heard is how to
take them down.
1545
That is what the Reform Party has based its entire debate on.
That is what the Reform Party and other members of the opposition
have based their entire discussions on. Their question is how do
they take down the program.
How do we take it down? By simply providing tax relief to
Canadians. What will this tax relief do? It will provide the
provinces with the opportunity to be able to tax their citizens.
It is more appropriate for the provinces to tax their citizens
based on the individual capability to provide the services.
What does it really boil down to? It is so that the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador will be able to use their own money to
provide all the programs and services they would need in order
for them to be equal Canadians.
What does that really say about the Reform Party's position?
This means every man, woman and child must stand solely for
themselves. No matter what the financial circumstances of the
provinces, no matter what the circumstances of the region,
everybody should be on it for their own. Is it a great country
building principle? Quite frankly it is one that I reject out of
hand.
Reformers are really saying that they want all persons to fend
only for themselves. I do not accept that notion. I do not agree
with it whatsoever. It is a very short term view of what Canada
is all about and what Canada has been in the past.
We are already seeing in the House indications that when it is
appropriate for members opposite to rise and demand additional
services and programs for their own constituencies they have no
problem doing it, but do not ever institutionalize a program in
the Constitution or in legislation which actually provides for
the basic principle that Canadians help Canadians. Do not ever
do it unless it affects Reform Party constituents. Then it can
be done because it is completely appropriate.
The country was built on a more solid foundation than that. They
country was built on the foundation that through time, through
place and through any sort of political arrangement Canadians
help Canadians.
I am very delighted that I am allowed the opportunity to speak
on equalization. It has been very helpful to my province in a
period of economic need. Over 25% of the budget of Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador literally is achieved through the
equalization program. If we were to suddenly eliminate that,
what kind of health care would Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
receive? What kind of education would they receive? How could
they participate as full Canadians in a system which means that
they will not receive the same levels of service as any other
Canadian?
How productive or meaningful would our country be if we actually
allowed that to occur? By providing government programs and
services based on a province's individual capability of taxing
its own citizens as opposed to drawing upon the collective
strength of all Canadians is a very un-Canadian principle. Quite
frankly, why have Canada? Why be a collective? Why be a nation
based on principles of equity? Why do it?
Hon. members opposite have no response for me because they
realize that just as in any organization, just as in any family,
just as in any circumstance, sometimes men and women are called
upon in time of need, time of crisis, out of friendship and
compassion to help out where they can. That is the principle
that built the country and it is not being reflected in the House
or during the course of this debate. That is why I am quite
honoured to be able to have that entered into the debate.
The equalization program provides a significant amount of
revenue which my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed
the other provinces of Atlantic Canada require. If it were not
there the people of Atlantic Canada would not be as well served
as they are today. They would not be provided with government
programs and services. They would not feel like full Canadians.
The fact that it does exist despite the fact that it does have
some shortcomings speaks well of Canada.
It exists in a form that allows for equal participation not just
of the provincial governments but of their citizens.
1550
Equalization, according to this act as we have changed it,
allows for a significant additional increase in incremental funds
to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because we
are in need right now and it is judged by our ability to tax our
own citizens.
In terms of the formula based approach to the equalization
formula, which is transparent, up front and very accountable to
all citizens of Canada, we provide a basis to transfer moneys to
provinces in particular need of those services so that they can
provide equally to their constituents. That is a principle which
is being aggressively attacked by the platform and statements of
the opposition parties.
Why is it that they feel this is such irresponsible behaviour on
the part of the government? They define it as irresponsible in
that the net effect of it is to reduce personal incentive. Why
would they say that to a region such as Atlantic Canada or to
certain regions in the west which also receive equalization and
still profess to be a party that wants to build the country?
Quite frankly this is not the way that Canada was built. Nor
should it be. It is not the position of our government. Nor
will it ever be. It is now enshrined in the Constitution that
equalization is part of the basic fabric of our country.
I am very pleased to announce in the House this afternoon that
Newfoundland and Labrador will be receiving additional
incremental payments under the equalization formula as amended in
this act.
I think the reaction from the members opposite speaks to the
fact that it is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. I
always want to make additional improvements to the bill, but I am
very satisfied to stand in the House right now to defend an
amendment to an act which allows my province the ability to
provide government programs and services such as health and
education at a higher level than it would if members of the
opposition were in power. That speaks to itself. It speaks to
what Canada is all about. It speaks to my role as member of
parliament in addressing the particular issues. It speaks to
what we do in the House, which is debate ideas.
It is very clear that the idea of Canada as expressed by members
of the Reform Party and other members of the opposition is not
the idea that I share. We are a caring, sharing country where
not every man, woman and child will have to fend for themselves
according to their own means of the day. It is where we share
resources, wealth, ideas and where we share the common greatness
of our country.
That may be odious and terrible for the opposition. I hope the
microphones are picking up the catcalls that are being put
forward in the House. Equalization is a very important element
of what we are doing in terms of providing equity and wealth
distribution for all citizens throughout the country.
I want to say very clearly that the increased economic
performance of Newfoundland and Labrador will mean in due time
that we will not require the assistance of equalization payments.
We will not require the assistance of any other transfers because
that is our objective.
Just 10 short years ago Newfoundland and Labrador trailed the
nation in terms of gross domestic product. We not only trailed.
We were in negative growth. Today, Newfoundland and Labrador
leads the country in economic growth. Our gross domestic product
as predicted by some leading financial institutions is predicted
to continue to grow into the 21st century. I am very proud of
that. That growth will define the fact that we will no longer
require equalization payments.
However, right now we have a dependable program of the
Government of Canada to provide for some of our needs. Why that
is even being debated on the other side speaks again to their
positions.
1555
Newfoundland and Labrador has representatives in cabinet and
within the finance ministry who are protecting its interests,
ensuring that the lives of the people of Atlantic Canada are
better today than they were yesterday. That is accomplished in
part through equalization.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his “Canada is a social program”
speech. It was very heart rending. I am thrilled to hear that he
has embraced collectivism and has spoken warmly in favour of it,
but I want to point out a few things to him.
He talked about how much his government cares about social
programs, but he forgot somehow to mention that his government
has cut $20 billion out of health care in the last few years.
There was not a word about that. Somehow that slipped his mind.
Could the hon. member across the way tell us, if his government
cares so much about social programs, why it cut $20 billion out
of health care over the last few years?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, what is painfully left out
of the hon. member's question is the fact that if the Reform
Party had its way, if Canadians actually let it in through the
democratic process, it would not be a question of cutting
billions of dollars out of health care. It would be a question
of when and how fast would it eliminate health care and have it
just completely a user pay based system.
Let us be very clear about a couple of points. This is the
party whose leader stood in Atlantic Canada some two or three
years ago and said that when it comes to the fishery it has been
such a boondoggle and expense on taxpayers “let's take 10
seconds and tell Atlantic Canadians that it is over”.
Today the Atlantic fisheries are producing more in terms of
gross domestic product than they were 10 years ago. The value of
exports are double. Our economy is growing. This is a party
that continually would abandon Atlantic Canada given the
opportunity, but we will not let them have the opportunity.
Health care is a prime concern of Canadians. Everybody in the
House knows that unless we did something about our fiscal house
in Canada there would not be any question of how much would we
have to cut from health care or education, or any other program
today. It would be how we would deal with the destruction of all
social programs in Canada.
It gives me no joy to admit there were cuts to social programs.
When a $42 billion deficit is eliminated it is not possible to
turn to a neighbour and say it is okay because it is very
important to eliminate a $42 billion deficit. It is important
that the Government of Canada not spend $42 billion a year more
than it takes in. When the question is asked whether that means
we should cut $42 billion in government programs and services,
they do not have an answer.
We rebuilt the economy and our ability to fund health care and
education programs while at the same time trimmed our deficit to
a responsible level. Now we are seeing a dividend from that. We
are seeing a reinvestment into health care and education. We are
seeing it on a very stable platform: one where there will be no
further cuts in the future, one that will see Canadians have
stable fiscal arrangements in the future, and one that builds
upon a very much stronger Canada. That is a Canada that the
Reform Party does not understand.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have risen from my laryngitis simply because I feel compelled
to remark that of the many atrocious speeches I have heard in
this place the member's ranks toward the very top of the list.
It is fascinating to have learned from the hon. demagogue
opposite that he and his colleagues are in favour of equity,
civility, collectivity, sweetness and niceness and little furry
kittens, and the opposition is in favour eviscerating all that is
good and civil about our society. I am delighted to see that the
hon. member has a very mature Manichaean view of the political
pluralism in the country.
I will bring the hon. member's attention to a speech delivered
by the hon. leader of the opposition this morning. The hon.
member opposite suggested that the Reform Party opposes all
manner of equalization carte blanche and would eliminate such
programs.
1600
This is simply, completely, totally inaccurate, false, wrong and
misleading. The hon. member would know that, had he been here
this morning to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition say that
the Reform Party “supports equalization”. We support the
principle of equalization. The people of Alberta, B.C. and
Ontario generally support equalization as well. He went on to
say that this is an important principle in our federation. What
the hon. Leader of the Opposition did say, and I would second his
comments, is that we have concerns about the way the formula is
calculated and the way the program is applied.
The hon. member suggested that Newfoundland this year has the
highest rate of GDP growth in the country. Marvellous. Kudos to
Newfoundland and Labrador. We can all join in commending the
people of that province for moving ahead economically. However, I
would point out that that region is receiving hundreds of
millions of equalization dollars from the taxpayers of British
Columbia who are right now in a recession.
Given the hon. member's kind-hearted generosity, compassion and
care for all, would he be prepared to adjust the equalization
formula so that the fastest growing province in the country could
help the only province that today is in recession?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting
and amusing to see the policy gymnastics of the Reform Party.
What the hon. member has referred to is the fact that there is
substantial economic growth occurring in Newfoundland and
Labrador. As a country we are going to see the shared dividends
from that economic growth.
What the hon. member fails to point out is that there is still
some significant catching up to do. Newfoundland and Labrador
will become a have province, a sharing province which is indeed
our objective, but we still have some ground to make up. That is
why the equalization program is stepping in right now. It is to
be able to provide that opportunity.
It is not our objective over the long term to be a recipient of
equalization. It is the objective however of the Reform Party to
keep us in that position.
The Reform Party's position has always been that tax cuts are
the answer. Can the revenue of a family be cut from $30,000 a
year down to $25,000 and still provide the same level of
purchasing power as there was at $30,000? The obvious answer is
no. Yet the hon. member and the Reform Party continue to raise
the idea that we can cut the revenues of the Government of Canada
very substantially, very quickly and very heavily and still be
able to provide the same levels of support, programs and services
such as health care and education for Canadians.
Thank God the people of Canada are much, much smarter than the
Reform Party members will ever give them credit for being. They
just do not understand this fact. Reform members change their
policies time and time again whenever it suits their needs. They
never actually address the real issues. They continually read
the polls, find out what the polls may say in their
constituencies and actually design polls so they say what they
want them to say and then they create ideas or policy documents
based on those polls.
Polls do not say much when it comes to building Canada. What
hon. members do not understand is that Canadians throughout the
country share a very sound value which says let us build the
economy, let us build jobs, let us have growth but at the same
time, let us try to be fair to all the regions of the country.
The Reform Party members do not understand that and it is about
time they did.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member obviously does not know what he is talking about.
The Reform government will put $2.5 billion back into health
care. Furthermore we will reduce the tax burden on a family of
four earning $30,000 by $4,000 a year. That will put almost $1
billion more into Atlantic Canada than is presently being
distributed in Atlantic Canada through all of those pork jobs the
Liberals love to keep the strings on.
Our position is that we believe a dollar in the hand of the
consumer beats the heck out of a dollar in the hands of the
member. What is wrong with putting money into the hands of the
people in Atlantic Canada who can be responsible and use that
money in a far more responsible way than ACOA or any other
program could think of?
1605
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Now we are getting to the heart of it,
Mr. Speaker. What the hon. member is suggesting is that a dollar
taken away from the hands of a public health care institution is
far better served put in the hands of someone who is of a higher
income bracket. Any tax cuts that occur take away funds from
public institutions and put them in the hands of probably those
who need them the least.
Tax cuts are important but they have to be focused. They have
to be directed at the people who need them the most. Low income
and middle income Canadian families are the people who deserve
the tax breaks the most. Let us put it in perspective. What the
hon. member is suggesting is that if we take that tax dollar, we
reduce the ability of the Government of Canada and the individual
provincial governments to provide those services and we put it in
the hands of the rich. The rich quite frankly will be able to
afford those health care services when they go on the free market
to buy them. That is not universal health care. It is not
universal health care and it is not a Canadian health care
system.
We have one tier medicine where everybody, regardless of income
level, regardless of their location of residence have equal
access to the same medical services. That is something the
Reform Party does not agree with. They cannot stand it—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the
parliamentary secretary when he is in full flight, but the time
for questions and comments has expired.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to address Bill C-65.
Unfortunately the Reform Party cannot support this bill. As my
colleague from Calgary Southeast said and earlier my leader from
Calgary Southwest said today, Reform Party does support the
concept of equalization but we do think that the program as it is
structured now not only is wasteful, vague and ill-defined but
actually does some damage. We would like to see a different
approach taken.
Before I get into that I simply must respond to something my
colleague across the way said. He said that we have one tier
health care in Canada today.
Let me inform my friend across the way that about 30% of health
care in Canada today is funded by private individuals. Maybe he
did not know that. Maybe he did not know that only 9% is funded
by the federal government now. It used to be 50%, but the
federal government did its disappearing act which it chronically
does when the going gets tough, and now the provinces have been
left holding the bag.
Of course, the member and his government provided the latest
example of that when they dumped about $20 billion in spending
cuts on the provinces, including his own native Newfoundland
which really could hardly afford to bear that kind of loss. My
friend across the way should explain to his constituents if he
cares so deeply for social programs, how it is that he let his
own government eviscerate health care in Newfoundland like he
did. I think he has a lot of explaining to do.
I will get into some of the specifics of this bill. The Reform
Party has problems with Bill C-65 for a number of reasons. I
should explain first of all what this is. This is an equalization
bill that seeks to extend the current equalization agreement with
some tinkering for another five years. It means about $8.5
billion in expenditures or somewhere in that range per year, in
other words about $42 billion over the next five years.
That is a tremendous amount of money. It amounts to about 8% of
the federal government's budget every single year. Yet are we
having a major task force look into this? Are we having a big
discussion about this? No. We had three days notice that we were
going to debate it today. Probably not too many days beyond
today it will be pushed through by this government because that
is the way it does business.
I would suggest that this is one of the most important pieces of
legislation that can be brought before this House. There is
almost universal agreement that the legislation, and I guess it
is in the Constitution now, the whole formula and idea of
equalization needs radical reform. There is hardly an economist
in the country who would argue that the current design is good.
I want to start by pointing out that it is fraught with
opportunity for political manipulation. I will mention this to
my friend who just spoke, because he comes from a riding that was
formerly held by the current premier of Newfoundland.
1610
Not very long ago in January the premier of Newfoundland
announced to everybody that there was was going to be a $30
million deficit. This was a great disaster. Lo and behold two
days later we found out that the federal government did some
tinkering with the equalization payments. All of a sudden he has
$30 million in excess of his budget. He will have a balanced
budget. It shows us how open to political manipulation the
current system is. He went ahead and called an election on the
basis of his balanced budget. That is ridiculous. It is an
insult to Canadians. We need to have a system that is a lot more
transparent than that.
I point out that we have a Constitution that says that
equalization should provide reasonably comparable levels of
public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. That
is about as clear as it is. In other words it is wide open to
interpretation. However the current government in power wants to
structure it, it will structure it. It does not need all the
provinces to agree because the federal government, if it so
deems, will go ahead and structure a side deal with one of the
provinces. We have side deals now with Newfoundland and Nova
Scotia that provide different set-ups.
One of the problems with the formula, which is the most
confusing convoluted thing I have ever laid my eyes on, is when
it talks about calculating revenues. For instance for forestry,
it does not take into account the cost of production. When we go
to the people's republic of British Columbia where it costs a
fortune to cut a tree and compare it to what it costs to cut a
tree in Alberta, there is a huge difference. That is not
reflected in the formula. Some provinces are discriminated
against because of the huge discrepancies in the cost of
production. In my judgment we have another disaster there.
We also have problems with this piece of legislation because it
does not take into account the other types of social spending
that come from the federal government. I want to give some
examples of that. In my judgment and in the judgment of people
who have followed this for a lot longer than I have, we
constantly see in Canada various programs that seem to be
equalization programs of some sort.
Look at employment insurance which is structured on levels of
unemployment in particular areas. People in Alberta have to wait
half a year to get unemployment insurance benefits. People in
Atlantic Canada where there are high levels of unemployment may
have to wait 10 or 12 weeks. It is now on an hourly basis but it
boils down to somewhere in that range. That becomes a big
transfer, a big equalization program.
Look at something like the infrastructure program. A lot of
people did not realize that in itself was also an equalization
program. It was based on levels of unemployment. Again we see a
whole bunch of money going from some provinces into other
provinces.
Look at regional development which is heavily skewed toward
certain provinces. Look at defence spending. There is a good
example. All these military bases are being put in particular
ridings not because it makes military sense, not for the nation's
defence, but because the government wants to plough some money
into it.
I would argue that we need transparency. I would argue that we
need a system today where we take into account all of this
spending. Then we ask whether or not it is an appropriate
amount. Maybe there needs to be a more straightforward formula.
My leader spoke of that earlier today.
I do not want to make that the central part of my speech today.
I want to talk about how we create have provinces. My friend
across the way talked about the need to have ways to bring
provinces that are currently receiving equalization into the
mainstream so that they do become have provinces. I agree with
that. We all agree with that. We believe there should be ways
to do that. But I can guarantee that having income tax top
marginal rates of 69% like they have in Newfoundland is not the
way to do it.
My friend across the way who embraces collectivism or spoke of
collectivism in some warm way, and gave a speech about how Canada
is one big social program, would be shocked to find out that many
businesses do not want to set up shop in a province with marginal
rates of 69%.
They are scared away by high marginal tax rates. They find it
passing strange that an equalization program that actually
provides incentives to provinces to have high income tax rates,
because that is how they receive equalization payments, actually
exists.
1615
I think he would be shocked to find that out. But I encourage
my friend to consider that perhaps there is a better way to make
Atlantic Canada work better. Maybe there is a way through
lowering taxes to attract investment to Atlantic Canada. That is
why last week the Reform Party spoke of a plan to give Canadians
$26 billion in tax relief. My friend across the way will say
“Oh, but you are going to cut social programs”. Not at all. In
fact we would increase spending on social programs.
We would cut spending for some things that Canadians do not
consider to be very important. We would cut spending for the
CBC. We think that $800 million a year spent on CBC television
is a horrible waste. We think that the money that currently goes
into regional development has become a huge pork barrel industry.
My friends across the way will know that even in Atlantic Canada
many people are extraordinarily cynical of ACOA. They see all
the manipulation that goes on whereby government ministers reward
their friends.
I point out the situation in the Prime Minister's riding where
all kinds of chicanery is taking place. Somebody who bought a
hotel from the Prime Minister has received a bunch of federal
grants. That is a little bit ridiculous. I see my friend
getting hot under collar, but sometimes the truth stinks.
We argue that those things need to be cut. We would like to see
the CRTC cut. It is a terrible waste of money. We would like to
see all kinds of money eliminated from the bureaucracy of
different programs like Indian affairs. Every year the auditor
general pillories the department of Indian affairs for its
wasteful expenditure of Canadians' money. In his last report the
auditor general chastised the department for spending $91 million
to negotiate treaties, yet not a single treaty had been
negotiated. That is what goes on in the Liberal government.
We argue that we need to cut spending, absolutely; not in the
high priority areas, but in those wasteful areas to which I just
referred. We are going to continue to push for that to happen.
I will speak a bit about the best way to help people across the
country. It is not by giving them a program. It is not by
becoming a huge welfare state. It is not by embracing big
government welfare programs like my friend across the way would
have us do. We think that is the wrong approach. In fact I
would argue that has failed in every country where it has been
attempted. Instead it is time to see reality and to understand
that it is the private sector which will create the jobs. It is
the private sector that will create prosperity for people.
The political allocation of scarce economic resources simply
does not work. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the
same thing over and over again and expect to get different
results, yet that is exactly what this government does. Every
year it thinks that if it just throws a little more money at the
problem it will get better. So it throws more money at the
problem, but it never gets fixed. It just keeps getting worse
and the government cannot figure it out.
It is time that my friends across the way embraced a new
approach. We offer them an idea whereby we take the money that
they currently dole out to their friends and instead leave it in
the hands of taxpayers, entrepreneurs, investors and homemakers,
the people who know far better than the government how to use
that money.
I would argue that Canadians after a generation of seeing taxes
go ever upward really do deserve a tax break. It is time for tax
relief.
The hon. finance minister spoke in the House today about how he
wanted to give Canadians tax relief. His department has been
floating for weeks the idea that it wants to give Canadians a $2
billion tax cut in the next budget. What a joke. What the
minister does not mention is that this year the government is
going to increase taxes by $2.4 billion.
1620
CPP premiums are rising by about $1.4 billion. Bracket creep
takes about a billion dollars out of people's pockets every year.
What the government trumpets as a wonderful tax cut is actually
a tax hike in disguise, and so it has been with this government
for five years.
Every year the government says “We are going to provide
targeted tax relief because we are Liberals and we care”. It is
simply not so. In fact since this government came to power we
have seen taxes go ever upward. We have seen disposable income
fall like a stone. Canadians have to pay $38 billion in taxes
this year that they did not have to pay in 1993.
I would argue that Canadians can ill afford that. It is
interesting that as revenues for the government went up $38
billion we saw the savings rate drop $31 billion. Who really
balanced the budget? Was it the finance minister?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Monte Solberg: My friend opposite, the junior finance
minister, says it was. I disagree. I think that Canadians
balanced it. The finance minister balanced the budget on the
backs of taxpayers. He balanced it on the backs of people who
are sitting in hallways in hospitals waiting for beds because he
took about $20 billion out of spending for health care. He took
billions out of essential programs but left lots of money for his
slush fund. He left lots of money for ACOA. He left lots of
money for the departments that funded the Prime Minister's hotel
deal. We need to put an end to all that.
Let me talk about some specific ways in which we can benefit not
only the people in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, but the people in
provinces across the country.
Reformers believe that we could deliver about $26 billion in tax
relief over the next three years if we hold the line on spending
at $104.5 billion.
Already the government is headed for a budget this year of
around $109 billion. It will probably be $4 or $4.5 billion over
budget. It was $3 billion over budget last year. People
probably have cause to be pretty concerned about the government
falling into its old habits of spending like crazy.
If the government holds the line on spending at $104.5 billion,
that frees up a lot of money. It frees up about $17 billion
which could be used for debt reduction and about $26 billion
which could be used for tax relief.
When that is broken down, it means about $342 million a year, or
somewhere in that range, in tax relief for Newfoundland every
year. As competent as my friend opposite thinks he is, I can
guarantee that the people of Newfoundland would much rather have
that money in their own pockets than give it to him to spend for
them.
I would argue that the people of Atlantic Canada who would get a
total of $1.5 billion would much rather have that money in their
pockets than allow hon. members opposite to spend it for them.
We believe that the people of Ontario, who would get $10 billion
in tax relief, would much rather have that money in their pockets
than allow bureaucrats and politicians to spend it for them.
We argue that people in British Columbia, who could sorely use a
tax break right now, would love to have billions in tax relief.
It would mean a lot to them, especially as they toil under the
socialist government which has done so much damage to that
economy.
Our argument is very simple. We think that the money would be
better used in the hands of individual taxpayers, investors and
homemakers, rather than leaving it in the hands of bureaucrats
and politicians who so often misuse it.
Let me touch on some of the things that we would do to help
Canadians. We would eliminate the 3% and 5% surtaxes. We would
fully index the tax system again so that we would stop this
automatic tax increase of a billion dollars a year.
We would cut capital gains inclusion rates in half so that when
people make an investment and help the economy they are not
penalized heavily just because their investment may happen to
keep up with inflation.
We have situations now where people invest in the economy. Their
investment keeps up with inflation. All of a sudden they want to
sell it, only to find that they have not made a cent in real
terms but that they have to pay all kinds of tax. That is
absolutely ridiculous.
We want to raise personal and spousal allowances to $7,900.
1625
We want the child care exemption to be given to all families, no
matter how they look after their children. We want to have a
refundable child care credit so that people on low incomes would
actually get a cheque in the mail if they were not paying any tax
at all.
We want the rate on the employment insurance fund to come to an
end. Instead of giving back a paltry 15% of the money that has
been taken, money that was overpaid to the EI fund, we want to
give it all back. We want to give back to Canadians the entire
overpayment because we believe it is their money in the first
place.
Those are some of the things we want to do. We want to drop the
three rates down to two rates. If we add up all of those things
it comes to $26 billion in tax relief. It would mean that a lot
of money would go into people's pockets.
Let me give one example as I close. For the average family of
four making $30,000, it would mean $4,660 in their pocket every
year. That is what tax relief would do for Canadians.
My friend from Newfoundland would argue that his government
could spend it better. I think that family would argue with
that. It is time to embrace a new approach instead of continuing
with the things that have failed for the last generation.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been some comments made
by members across the way that I think need to be corrected.
There was an assertion that there was political interference in
the budgetary deficit of the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador that could be mysteriously re-corrected by some
political interventions by the federal government in order to
solve a political problem.
The hon. member has demonstrated that he clearly does not
understand equalization. Therefore, when he makes these
assertions about the effects of tax cuts and other measures, he
is obviously talking from a very ill informed point of view.
Equalization works on the basis of a formula. It is a very
transparent, very accountable process that is defined and
entrenched in legislation. The payments that are given to the
provinces over the course of time are based on the formula.
There are adjustments to the variables which are input into the
formula based on facts: population statistics, growth in the
economy, growth in the ability of the province to tax. Those are
the basic variables that are put into the formula, which is very
accountable, very transparent and very upfront. It is not
subject to political manipulation.
During this entire conversation hon. members opposite have been
speaking about the positive influences and effects of a $384
million tax cut for Newfoundland. I would like the hon. member
to go to Newfoundland and ask this simple question of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians: “Do you think that it would be
acceptable to cut $384 million in public programs for health,
education and social services?”
I would like the hon. member to ask that question. That
question was asked in the provincial campaign. The answer that
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians gave was emphatically and
categorically “No. We want strong public institutions and the
ability for people to provide for each other”.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, what did Labradorians and
Newfoundlanders say to him when he cut $20 billion out of health
care? I would like to know that.
The Reform Party of course would not cut spending for health
care and social programs. We would increase it. We have made
that pretty clear. We would increase it by $2.5 billion.
My friend across the way has asked a question and I think he
deserves a serious answer.
In the last election campaign we laid out exactly where we would
cut about $9 billion in government spending. We sent it out to
about 15 million households across Canada. I invite my friend to
revisit that, but I will touch on some of the highlights again.
As we said then, we would make cuts to the CBC. We think that
CBC television should be a private broadcaster. We think it is
time, in a day and age when there are all kinds of private
broadcasters providing services across the country, to privatize
the CBC. We made that very clear.
We would make cuts to the Department of Canadian Heritage. We
think that all of these grants for special interest groups are
ridiculous. We think it is ridiculous to spend $100,000 on a
dumb blonde joke book. I am sure even my friends across the way
would question whether that was a wise expenditure.
1630
We would cut all the pork barrel spending that goes on in
regional development. It is a very unfortunate joke on Canadian
taxpayers when they are paying for all kinds of patronage deals
that benefit friends of the Liberal Party. We think that is
wrong. We would cut the bureaucracy of Indian affairs. We have
made that very clear.
Those are some of the areas where we would cut. If my friend
would simply go back and review Fresh Start, he would see that we
lay out the entire menu for him. He could go through it and he
could use it to guide him when he wonders again where these cuts
would come from.
The final point I would make is that it is interesting to me at
a time when the government has cut so drastically in health care,
and even with the increases it will still be about $4 billion shy
of where it was, that it has still managed to ratchet up overall
spending pretty significantly, by about $4.5 billion this year
alone.
I have a question for the member across the way. Why is the
government spending so much more on frivolous programs like
millennium grants and things like that? If the hon. member cares
so much about health care, why is it increasing in areas like
that when it is cutting the heart out of Canadian health care?
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the CBC is
essential for the north because there are a lot of places private
broadcasters will not serve.
My other concern is around land claims negotiations and the
price we pay for them. Our other alternative is to go to court.
When we go to court that means we have no control as politicians
or as people. We cannot be a part of a legal process. Therefore
we would have absolutely no say in or any control over what we
would pay.
Would the member rather we take all our treaties to court to
have them negotiated rather than have a process that we can
actually be involved in?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
her good question. We have made it very clear we would not cut
CBC radio. We understand that there are remote communities which
do not have access to private broadcasters. We have specifically
said CBC television.
With respect to the land claims issue, we do not argue
necessarily with the idea of having the government engage in
treaty negotiations. It would be nice if it could actually come
to some kind of agreement. After spending $91 million and not
reaching any agreements I would come to question whether or not
that is a very good use of taxpayers money.
The final point I would make on treaty negotiations is what is
really important is that there be finality. When a deal is
reached we do not want to see it reopened again which is what we
are seeing now with Treaty 8 in northern Alberta. We think that
is a huge mistake. We would like to see these things settled and
settled once and for all. We think we owe that not only to
natives but to Canadian taxpayers in general.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the member's speech when he was talking to the bill on
equalization he referred to the employment insurance system as
being an example of other ways in which equalization can take
place. He specifically said that in Alberta people had to wait a
half year before they got employment insurance benefits whereas
in the maritimes it was obviously much less and therefore that
equalization was giving more to the maritime provinces.
Would the member like to reconsider his statement? It is
important for Canadians to understand we have an EI system that
is the same for all Canadians. There are some exceptions which
reduce benefits and reduce claim periods, but in terms of
eligibility for benefits it is the same for all Canadians.
I raise this matter because if the member is incorrect on this
item, how many other items in his statements can we believe?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, we can make the same
argument about equalization itself. We could say that there are
pockets of Alberta where the economy is not perking along like in
Calgary and therefore they should have equalization. I do not
buy the member's argument.
Previous to 1971 when the reforms were made to employment
insurance on the basis of regionally extended benefits previous
we had a purer type of insurance program, a program that looked
at individual needs and not so much at the needs of regions.
Insurance should be something that is based on individual needs,
not on regional needs. When we have that we see political
manipulation of scarce economic resources.
We see politicians using the EI fund just like we saw in the
recent raid on the EI fund. We see politicians using huge piles
of money for their own political ends.
1635
In this case it has been extraordinarily damaging to workers and
small businesses that paid into the fund. They have seen what
happens when governments are given control over huge piles of
money like has happened through employment insurance.
I reject the member's arguments. I think they are false. I
would encourage him to consider that basing employment insurance
on a personal insurance basis probably makes a lot more sense for
everybody involved.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-65
which renews the equalization agreement. Like my colleague from
Medicine Hat I am a little disappointed that the government has
seen fit to have such a short debate and to rush something
through the House when it knew it was coming. It has made no
effort to really look at what equalization payments are or at the
need for restructuring and some massive reorganization. It seems
to think it can add a few band aids and every thing will be okay.
Bill C-65 makes technical amendments to the formula that
determines equalization payments. I want to review the three
sections. It provides for the phasing-in of tax base changes
over the period from April 1999 to March 31, 2004. It adjusts
the definitions of resource revenue and revenue to be equalized.
It changes the minimum and maximum payment provision.
The question that some Canadians will be asking is what exactly
is equalization and what is it for. I would like to review some
of its history for Canadians who may be watching the debate this
afternoon.
It was introduced in 1957 and it was an effort to balance the
vast disparity in potential tax bases among the provinces to
ensure that every Canadian citizen had access to similar levels
of social programs. Equalization is included in the Canadian
Constitution. It is found in section 36 of the 1982 act. It
reads:
Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of
Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to: (a)
promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
(b) furthering economic development to reduce the disparity in
opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of
reasonable quality to Canadians.
Section 36(2) goes on to read:
Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the
principle of making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide
reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation.
Most Canadians support this concept. Very few Canadians have
difficulty in supporting the concept of equalization, but when
Canadians get into the details they start to have some problems.
I want to share with them an experience I had with the unity
panel in B.C. In the fall of 1997 I was asked by Premier Glen
Clark to sit on the B.C. unity panel. It toured the province of
British Columbia with regard to the Calgary declaration. Its
purpose was to gauge public support for the declaration. The
unity panel used various means to measure the support of British
Columbia. It included a mail-in questionnaire, public meetings,
focus groups and a province-wide telephone survey.
In the telephone survey the unity panel asked questions about
equalization. I want to share some of the results. One question
that was asked was: Should the provinces and Canada work together
in setting up national standards. They felt they wanted a shared
partnership between Canada and the provinces.
1640
The question on equalization was:
The federal government has an equalization program whereby the
four provinces receive tax dollars to allow them to provide a
similar level of public services to those available in richer
provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Generally
speaking, do you strongly support, somewhat approve, somewhat
disapprove or strongly disapprove of federal equalization
programs?
I am glad to share with the House that 37% strongly approved and
44% somewhat approved of equalization programs. The vast
majority of participants supported the principle of equalization.
To quote from the B.C. unity report:
However there was a great deal of reluctance to accept the
possibility that British Columbia should, therefore, receive less
than other provinces.
Many participants commented that British Columbia's population
has special needs itself such as its specific demographic
characteristics, seniors and immigration, that needed more
funding and that there should be some recognition of this
situation in federal transfers and there should be flexibility in
arrangements to respond to this.
It was because of the results of the efforts of this B.C. unity
panel that travelled the province that the B.C. government added
three additional principles to the Calgary declaration:
(1) That British Columbia supports national standards for health
and believes that these standards are best set co-operatively by
the federal government with the provinces;
(2) That British Columbia supports the federal government's
equalization program and believes that for other federal
transfers for health, education, and social programs, provinces
should receive the same level of federal funding per person;
(3) That British Columbia believes that provinces should be
able to assume greater responsibility in areas that are important
to them, such as fisheries in the case of British Columbia.
This resolution passed unanimously in the B.C. legislature. It
is the second additional principle that is relevant today.
British Columbians widely support the concept of equalization,
but we have to remember that it goes far beyond this equalization
program.
The federal government unfortunately has built in equalization
bias in all of its transfer to provinces. When it comes to the
three so-called have provinces, B.C., Alberta and Ontario, they
get a reduced level of transfers from the federal government.
There is not only the formal equalization program but the
transfers to the provinces that show discrepancies. When we
combine the formal equalization program with these other biases
we get a different picture. I want to share some of the issues
that are evident.
In the province of Newfoundland 43.7% of the provincial budget
is from transfers from the federal government. In Nova Scotia it
is 40.3%. In New Brunswick it is 38.2%. In Quebec it is 15.3%.
In Prince Edward Island it is 36.8%. In Manitoba it is 29.3%.
There is heavy reliance on federal government transfers. On the
other hand we have Alberta with 9%, British Columbia with 8.8%
and Ontario with 10.9% of their provincial budgets coming from
federal transfers.
This system of bias permeates through all the programs the
federal government has with the provinces. It is very evident
with the federal spending on immigration settlement in the
provinces.
Let me provide the House with some numbers from 1997 when I was
the Reform Party critic of immigration. This is the money that
is sent to provinces to help new immigrants settle in their
chosen home. Quebec, which is a have not province, receives
$90,000,000 a year. B.C. receives $23,373,000.
1645
The province of Quebec which takes considerably less immigrants
than the province of British Columbia gets three times as much
money per capita per immigrant. The province of Quebec gets
$3,067 per immigrant. The province of B.C. gets $1,000 per
immigrant to help them settle in their chosen home. It is not
only in the transfer payments, it is in all these other payments
that we see the bias.
I have sat in the House for five years listening to members of
the Bloc Quebecois tell Canadians how Quebec is not getting its
fair share out of the Canadian federation. Yet when I look at
the figures in the equalization program, that is not what I see.
In the last complete fiscal year, from April 1, 1997 to March 31,
1998, the federal government spent $8.987 billion on
equalization, almost $9 billion, of which $4.177 billion or 46.5%
of the equalization program went to Quebec. It would appear to
me, although we hear many complaints from the Bloc, that Quebec
has done quite well in this regard.
When we talk in billions and millions of dollars, it is quite
easy for the eyes of the viewers back home watching this debate
to glaze over. It is incomprehensible to them. I would like to
relate what we are talking about on a more individual basis.
When going through the website looking at the various programs
that are provided to various provinces, I was struck by some
differences. In viewing the Quebec government's website, I came
across a wonderful program that is available to all Quebec
children under the age of 10. Every child under the age of 10 in
Quebec has access to free dental coverage.
In the province of British Columbia that is not the case. In
British Columbia the parents are responsible for the dental care
of their children. In effect the have province of British
Columbia is helping the have-not province of Quebec to provide a
health program to its children that is not available to the
children in British Columbia.
British Columbia sees it as somewhat unfair that it is expected
to have less and not to have the same advantages and the same
level of care as a have-not province. It sees its money going to
allow a have-not province to have better services and better care
for its children. Is this equal and fair? I think many British
Columbians would say no, it is not. This is only one example.
I will go to the example of the cost of universities. This
country has three so-called have provinces. In 1998
Maclean's reviewed the universities in a special issue. It
indicated that there were 24 universities in Canada's three have
provinces. The average tuition fee in those have provinces was
$3,581. By comparison in Quebec where there are seven
universities, the average tuition fee was $2,109 for Quebec
residents. It amounts to 60% less in cost for a student from
Quebec to go to university than a student in the three have
provinces. Even when it charges more for out of province
students, it comes to $56 less than the average of the three have
provinces.
1650
Once again we have a situation where the three have provinces,
the provinces that contribute to the equalization program, are
not getting the same benefits out of Confederation that the
have-not provinces receive. It is a question of a level playing
field and a lack of understanding why the provinces that are
always putting in get fewer services from the government and why
we are always being asked to pay more for those services than the
have-not provinces.
British Columbians ask if this is fair. Is this equal? Does
the equalization program mean that the have provinces will give
money to the have-not provinces to provide services that they do
not have themselves?
Then there is the province of New Brunswick which uses the
largesse, the money it gets from the have provinces, to subsidize
businesses to move to New Brunswick. British Columbia lost some
of its UPS people and offices because the money it sent to New
Brunswick was used to subsidize the businesses to move out of
British Columbia to New Brunswick. For some reason British
Columbians do not think it is fair that their money should be
used to take jobs away from them.
The largest flaw in the equalization program is that it has lost
sight of what it was supposed to be about. It is about providing
reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation.
The complexities and intricacies of equalization are an
accountant's dream. They probably cannot believe this
equalization formula, how it is derived and how it is used. The
basis of the formula looks at 33 tax elements of the economies of
five provinces: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
British Columbia. It tries to estimate how much revenue the
province can raise in each category. This may work if every
province had the same kind of tax system but they do not. They
are all different. It also does not take into account some of
the geographic differences in the country.
In this bill the formula has been amended so that forestry
revenues will no longer be based on the volume of wood harvested
but changed to the value of production. Like my hon. colleague
from Medicine Hat mentioned, this formula does not take into
account the cost of production to obtain the forestry revenues.
It costs significantly more to harvest trees in the rugged
mountainous terrain of British Columbia than it does to cut the
same value of trees anywhere else in Canada.
Similarly the equalization formula does not take into account
the costs of providing services in each province. Once again let
us compare the cost of building 100 kilometres of highway in
British Columbia to the cost of building 100 kilometres of
highway in Saskatchewan. The disparity in costs seems to be
irrelevant to the formula. The government seems to think the
cost of delivering services to Canadians is the same everywhere
and that is just not so. Because B.C. has the potential to raise
more money, it not only has to fund its own highways by itself
but it also has to contribute to the building of the highway in
Saskatchewan.
I would suggest that there is a grave need for change in the
equalization program and Bill C-65 just provides more tinkering.
It does not address the real problem. I would suggest that the
real problem is why does a country like Canada have seven
have-not provinces and only three have provinces? This is what
this issue is all about and what needs to be dealt with in the
discussion of equalization programs.
1655
The Reform Party of Canada fully supports the notion that all
Canadians must have access to the same level of health care,
education and social services regardless of the province that
they live in.
However, we should also be honest about the program. In the new
Canada act we recommended changes to the federal-provincial
fiscal relations and I want to quickly go through those. One is
to make all payments to the provinces under jointly funded
programs in the form of equal per capita grants. Another is to
address disparities and regional opportunities through a single
equalization cash transfer based on the relation of the per
capita gross domestic product of a recipient province to the per
capita gross domestic product of Canada. I would like to remind
the House of the third element that the Leader of the Opposition
brought up earlier, by recommending broad based tax reductions to
give the citizens of all provinces additional money to spend, and
aid in improving all provincial economies.
I would suggest that the biggest flaw in Canada's equalization
payments is that it is only looking at the symptoms and not the
ailment itself.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, APEC Inquiry; the hon.
member for Churchill, Aboriginal Affairs; and the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre, Employment Insurance.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member's comments with interest.
I am surprised that someone did not jump up to make note that
the pants of the member for Medicine Hat were in flames as a
result of some of the whoppers he delivered to the House.
Interestingly enough I found the same kind of attitude coming
from the Reform Party again in the comments of the member who
just spoke.
The member talked about immigration. She talked about numbers,
here is how much per capita in Quebec, here is how much per
capita in another province and then just asked the rhetorical
question is that fair.
The duty of members of parliament is not simply to raise
spectres but to convince the House and others that they have done
their homework and that they have made sufficient inquiry so that
any obvious reasons for differentials would be taken into
account. They are not to raise those spectres and somehow leave
everyone hanging as to why, what reasonable explanation could
there be.
The member knows that the legislation before the House is
renewing the equalization program for another five years and that
the basic elements of the program have been reaffirmed by two
years of consultations with all of the provinces and the federal
government. Does the member know better than each and every one
of the provincial representatives at the table discussing the
elements of our equalization program? The important element here
is that this member has only raised to the House questions which
she has not attempted to answer herself.
If the member would look, for instance, at the whole area where
she was Quebec bashing and was against the whole issue of
bilingualism and the importance of our official languages in
Canada. She did not even inquire whether or not the cost of
providing services ostensibly in both official languages in that
province had a significant amount to do with that and
furthermore, that providing those support services with regard to
immigration was also to provide support to the rest of the
provinces which also have an obligation to provide those services
in one of the two official languages on the basis of need.
There is something going on here which the member did not give
credit for. The member did not explain it and did not attempt to
explain it. Not only that, the member did not attempt to inquire.
All she wanted to do was to raise spectres about inadequacies
which she believes are there. Each and every premier and the
federal government do not agree. The member should explain
herself.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly explain
myself. I am sorry the member did not listen to my speech. He
only picked out points that he wanted to challenge me on, but let
me explain.
1700
The point at hand is that the equalization program is supported
by Canadians. It is a fair program and the understanding of it
is supported by the Reform Party. We believe in equalization,
the purpose of which is to bring the provinces to the same level
of being able to provide social services and health care. We and
Canadians have a problem when the federal government brings that
equalization bias into every program.
By no means was I using Quebec as an example other than as a
demonstration of how Quebec, which has fewer immigrants needing
resettlement than British Columbia, gets three times as much
money. Quebec gets the benefit of the investment dollars from
the immigrants but the investors move to British Columbia.
Although Quebec gets the benefit of the investment dollars and
the $90 million a year even though it does not have the
immigrants to support, British Columbia receives one-third of
what Quebec receives although the majority of immigrants move to
British Columbia. British Columbia does not have the benefit of
the investment dollars to create economic growth which could be
used to create the money to support them.
I was using that as an example of the equalization bias that is
carried over in every transfer program the government has for the
provinces. I do not apologize for that. I would like them to
explain to Albertans, British Columbians and Ontarians, people
from their own province, how they can justify always making those
provinces pay more to get less. That is not equalization.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am always
very interested in what my Reform Party colleague has to say.
She does her research well.
But I would like to draw to her attention a few of the concerns
that sprang to mind as I was listening to her.
It is true that Quebec's share of equalization payments, aimed
at evening out the ability of the various provinces to provide
services for their people, has unfortunately dipped dramatically
in recent years. But that is only one facet of the movement of
money between Quebec and the other provinces and the central
government here in Ottawa.
The other is the taxes paid to the central government and then
used by it to purchase goods and services or to fund research
and development.
It is a fact, and there are figures to prove it, that the
government spends the lion's share of its dollars in Ontario,
not in Quebec or in the prairies.
It does not spend the lion's share of its dollars in the
Atlantic provinces, but here in Ontario.
That leaves us with the paradoxical situation of Quebec sending
approximately $30 billion every year to Ottawa and receiving $30
billion back. Unfortunately, while Quebec is forking over
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, its share of goods and services
falls well short of its share of taxes, while Ontario's exceeds
it by about 15%.
Then the transfer payments kick in to even things up. But now,
and this is the question I put to my colleague, we have the sad
situation where Quebec is not receiving job creation money, but
transfer payments instead. The same is happening in the
Atlantic provinces, and that is what is unfair. The only
solution, obviously, is for Quebec to become a sovereign nation.
1705
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from
Quebec is concerned about not getting any contracts or
procurement from the federal government, he should try living in
British Columbia where we get a very small amount in return.
An hon. member: Ontario gets it.
Ms. Val Meredith: There is no question that Ontario gets
the largesse of government. It is no wonder with 99 members
sitting opposite representing Ontario. The government is Ontario
and that is part of our problem.
I share with the member from the province of Quebec that some of
our concern is that although Quebec gets 46.5% of equalization
transfer payments to level the playing field, that kind of bias
is in other programs.
I mentioned the immigration program. The province of Quebec
gets a very large share of the settlement dollars which other
provinces do not get. Quebec may feel it is hard done by and I do
not argue that Ontario gets the largesse of government, but B.C.
is certainly far worse off than the province of Quebec.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I apologize in advance that my voice is not as robust as usual; I
am suffering from laryngitis. There is simply too much to shout
at the government about. It is difficult to maintain one's
voice.
I am pleased to rise today to address the bill dealing with
equalization. At the outset and contrary to some of the comments
by members opposite, the Reform Party supports the principle. We
object to the equalization which is entrenched in the charter.
Contrary to what some members opposite might have us believe, I
and others in my party share the belief that Canadians from coast
to coast should have access to generally comparable standards of
public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. We
have some significant differences with the current structure of
equalization which is perpetuated in the bill.
We have some very serious objections to the process by which
Bill C-65 came before us. Equalization is an automatic
entitlement program, a statutory program, which causes us to
spend $8 billion a year annually out of the public treasury with
no specific annual grant by parliament.
Rather, it is an amount that is automatically included in each
year's federal budget and automatically spent out of the federal
treasury under the authority of the statute we are discussing and
amending today. It is an automatic statutory entitlement
program. I have a very large problem in principle with programs
of this nature because they do an end run around normal
safeguards, checks and balances of accountability in parliament.
It is important we not create programs of this nature that
simply proceed on auto pilot year after year spending literally
billions and billions of tax dollars without a close methodical
serious review of their cost, their design and their
implications.
We do not have such a methodical review in the debate on Bill
C-65 before us today. Quite to the contrary, the government gave
the House only three days sitting notice that the bill would be
debated today, a bill which will essentially authorize roughly
$35 billion in expenditures over the next five years.
1710
This is one of the largest expenditures of the federal
government which parliament authorizes. Yet we have quite a
remarkable circumstance of being given three days to prepare for
debate on an extremely complex and complicated bill that deals
with a formula which, as colleagues have said, nobody really
understands expect for a handful of specialist accountants in the
government.
The government is attempting to collapse debate by not putting
up any other speakers. It is so serious about this $8.5 billion
public expenditure that I think it has had one prepared speaker
on the bill and another who just stood and gave us 20 minutes of
hot air. That is how serious it is about a parliamentary review
of an $8.5 billion expenditure. It is shameful.
That is why we ought not to rush through the automatic rubber
stamping of this huge public expenditure every five years as we
are today. Rather we ought to calm down and make a serious,
slow, parliamentary public review of the design of the entire
equalization system.
We ought to be allowed to have the bill go before a
parliamentary committee for extensive hearings, to bring forward
academic experts, to speak to the entire concept and design of
equalization, and to hear from Canadians on how they feel this
matches with their ideas of social and fiscal equity. We will
not do that. We will just ram it through yet once more, treating
parliament and the people who represent Canadians as a kind of
rubber stamp in the system.
A lot of experts would have a lot to add to the debate. In
October the C. D. Howe Institute produced an excellent,
thoughtful study on the entire balance of fiscal federalism with
emphasis on equalization. It was authored by an esteemed
professor from the University of Alberta, Dr. Paul Boothe and
sponsored by Koch Oil. Other studies have been done by people
like eminent fiscal expert Professor Thomas Courchesne at Queen's
University. We ought to be receiving the benefit of the
expertise of these people and not just rushing through it.
One of the many problems with this formula is that it is
extraordinarily complex. A very simple principle involved in
responsible government is that spending and taxing decisions
should be transparent. They should be easy to see and understand
at least by a reasonably well informed layman. I do not think
there is a reasonably well informed layman in the country who is
not an expert in the Byzantine rules surrounding equalization
that really understands the process.
Even the auditor general pointed out that among the many
problems with the equalization formula is the inclusion of
property taxes in the assessment of the average tax rate in
various provinces. It is incredibly difficult to get to the
bottom of that. The auditor general in his 1997 report flagged
as a very serious problem the inclusion of property tax in the
formula for 33 tax sources. The finance department responded by
saying that it would address the issue of property taxes in the
renewal process, that is in this bill. There is nothing in Bill
C-65 dealing with this one very complicated element of
equalization.
Another problem is that the government tells us that this is all
governed by a clean, clear mathematical formula but that is not
the case. For political reasons we have ended up establishing a
roof and a floor of equalization transfers.
Let us look at Newfoundland which is going through a period of
considerable growth and suppose that it continued or in fact
doubled or tripled over the next couple of years. Newfoundland
would find its unemployment rate tumbling down. Let us hope that
happens. Revenues would be flush in the provincial treasury but
Newfoundland would still receive substantial transfer payments
under equalization based on the notion that from a given year to
a given year the reduction in equalization can only be x
amount.
1715
Even if the formula states that one province should no longer be
considered a have not province and should be regarded as a have
province, that province would continue to receive the benefit of
a transfer from hardworking taxpayers in other parts of the
country.
Similarly, if my province of Alberta, which seems to be a
perpetual have province, were to suddenly suffer the fate of an
enormous reduction in commodity prices, energy prices and
agricultural commodity prices and suddenly were to fall into a
regional recession, we would not suddenly receive a large
equalization transfer payment.
Let us look at British Columbia. Today it finds itself in the
worst recession ever since 1981, a very serious and deep
recession. B.C. taxpayers are having to work harder and longer
than they otherwise would in order to send extra revenues into
the federal treasury. Those revenues are then spun around in
this enormous costly machine we call Ottawa and sent out to parts
of the country which are actually growing and which have
considerable growth rates.
Family incomes are on the rise in some parts of the country.
They are on the decline in British Columbia yet those hardworking
families, because of the bizarre mess of the equalization
formula, end up having to pay net into the system so that others
can receive the benefit. I think that is just plain wrong.
What we need is a system that is transparent and accountable and
one that ordinary people can understand. We also need a system
that is fair. I have talked about the unfairness inherent in the
system today.
One of the points that Dr. Paul Boothe has raised in his many
studies on this issue is that if the objective in equalization is
equity, if it is to establish a modicum of social equity through
fiscal transfers, then the equalization plan as currently
designed is surely not the way to do it. It takes money from
every taxpayer in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, every
single person who pays GST, federal income tax or pays in any way
into the federal treasury. Even if they are below the poverty
line, as hundreds of thousands of them are, they all end up
making a net contribution to the fiscal transfer through
equalization to even the highest income taxpayers in the
so-called seven have not provinces.
Incidentally, I have a hard time believing in one of the
wealthiest countries in the world, in a country that enjoys a
level of prosperity and a standard of living almost unparalleled
to any other country at any other time in human history, that
seven of our ten provinces are purportedly have not provinces. I
think that is part of the problem with the formula.
Having said that, a single mom in my riding who has a minimum
wage job and is earning $14,000 a year and is trying to raise a
couple of children on that meagre, paltry sum is still paying
federal income tax because of the enormous equity in our tax
system. She is paying federal income tax, the goods and services
tax and other taxes which come to us in this parliament. What we
are going to do under Bill C-65 is take some of the money from
that single mother in Calgary Southeast, spin it around in this
bureaucracy in Ottawa and then send it out to subsidize the
delivery of social programs, including health care, which accrues
in part to the benefit of billionaires who might live in another
province.
One could say that my low income constituents, because they
happen by accident of geography to live in what is deemed by this
formula to be a have province are forced to pay, according to Dr.
Boothe, 9% more in taxes than they otherwise would in order to
benefit the Desmarais family, the Bronfmans of Montreal or the
Irvings in New Brunswick, or the Purdues, or the Crosbies in St.
John's, Newfoundland.
That is not equity; that is inequity. This is not how to design a
system of social equity.
1720
If we want to help people who really need help, if we really
want to equalize opportunity and living standards across the
country, we need to come up with a system of equalization that is
sensitive to income, not to the arbitrariness of region or
geography or the accident of where people happen to live, but
with respect to the very real circumstances of their standard of
living.
That is why we propose that there should be a much clearer per
capita transfer from the federal government to the provinces for
the various social programs and, I believe, an equalization
system on top of that which should be designed on the basis of
individual transfers. What does that mean? That means we should
look to the tax system which can respond to the different levels
of income that people have as the way to transfer wealth in this
country.
Really that is what this is all about. If we get all the
bureaucratic gobbledegook, legalese and accounting gimmicks out
of the way and what we are talking about in this bill is how we
transfer wealth from those who have a lot of it to those who have
not much of it. I submit we do not do that by penalizing the
lower income taxpayers in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario to the
financial and fiscal advantage of higher income taxpayers in the
rest of the country.
My colleague from Medicine Hat mentioned that an Alberta family
that earns $30,000 to $40,000 pays 9% more in taxes to the
federal government than it otherwise would, whereas its
counterpart family in P.E.I. generates 20% more income. These
are families with the same standard of living. They have the
same jobs. They are working just as hard. The family in P.E.I.
is not living in poverty and is no less able to provide the
necessities of life than that family in Calgary, Medicine Hat,
Toronto or Scarborough, but it gets the 20% advantage.
This reminds me of a study that was conducted some years ago by
the Canada West Foundation under the auspices of Professor Robert
Mansell, an economist at the University of Calgary. It was the
first real effort to quantify the net impact of what we call
fiscal federalism, all of these transfers back and forth between
Ottawa and the provinces.
This was in about 1992, several years ago. Professor Mancel
found in 1992 that the total cumulative cost of fiscal federalism
to the province of Alberta, my province, was nearly $150 billion
since 1960. That is to say that because of equalization, because
of other transfers and things like the national energy program,
the federal government had managed to extract $150 billion more
out of Alberta than Albertans received in benefits or transfers
from the federal government. There was a huge net transfer out of
British Columbia and Ontario, not nearly as large. I think it
was in the neighbourhood of $20 billion for British Columbia and
$30 billion to $40 billion for Ontario.
We are talking about massive transfers of wealth largely based
on geography. I just do not think that is equitable or fair in a
society which is trying to assist those who need the help the
most.
Another problem with the current equalization system is the
classic welfare trap, as it has become known by sociologists. As
a way of explaining it, the welfare trap is if we subsidize
something we are likely to get more of it.
The current equalization plan essentially subsidizes provinces
which do not have high rates of economic growth. It subsidizes
provinces which keep their tax rates low. Provinces such as New
Brunswick give special tax deals to corporations to locate there,
as my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley pointed
out, yet they still receive the benefit of equalization.
1725
It creates this perverse situation where if a province raises
its taxes or generates more economic growth, it will be deemed to
be a have province. Based on the Byzantine equalization formula
its transfer from the federal government under equalization will
decrease. We are penalizing success. We are in a sense creating
a perverse incentive for regional economies not to succeed.
I am not suggesting that any premier or his cabinet would set
out to generate low rates of economic growth in order to avoid a
cut in its equalization payments. I am not suggesting that for a
moment. Surely the provincial finance minister realizes in the
back of his mind when he is planning his annual budget that if he
raises certain tax rates and if on the other hand they generate
significant growth, that the province's equalization payment from
the federal government is going to be cut. That is inevitably
going to be a factor. We have entrenched this kind of welfare
trap into federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
For all of those and many other reasons, I am vigorously opposed
to this bill. I do not think it is in the best interests of
social equity in Canada nor is it equalizing opportunity or
creating greater harmony between the provinces and individuals
within this wealthy and diverse country. I hope my colleagues
will look more closely at this issue.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments on
what the hon. member said.
One comment concerns the property tax issue. He is correct that
the auditor general has flagged it as an issue of concern. The
federal government has indicated that the property tax issue is
one that the provinces and the federal government are continuing
to discuss. It is a bit of a difficult situation.
Some provinces were recommending that we go to market value
assessment although it does not necessarily allow a province to
generate the same type of revenue when we compare the market
value assessment of a home in British Columbia equivalent to a
home in Quebec for instance. That has some flaws in it as well.
For the information of the hon. member, the property tax issue
would remain on the agenda until there was a solution that is
acceptable to the provinces and to the federal government.
The hon. member also went on to talk about the impact on British
Columbia that commodity prices are having and why British
Columbia is not receiving any sort of equalization given the
economic turmoil it is going through. I advise the hon. member
that there is a fiscal stabilization program. The federal
government compensates even the have provinces if their revenues
decline more than 5% due to economic circumstances. Even for the
have provinces there is a safety net with respect to drops in
revenue.
The hon. member said that equalization provides a disincentive
for provinces to raise revenues. It is hard to believe that a
have-not province would take into consideration the fact that it
is receiving equalization and based on that receipt of
equalization that it would not engage in any type of economic
activity, that it would not want to create employment for its
people. I dispute the argument that equalization is a
disincentive to provincial economic development.
I offer the opportunity to the hon. member to speak to that, to
put himself in the shoes of a provincial finance minister or
premier who would say “I am not going to work in partnership
with businesses in my community because we are receiving
equalization. We do not want any sort of economic development in
this province until we have no more equalization and then we will
engage in economic development”. I just do not follow that
argument.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, my colleague from Stoney
Creek does not follow the argument because he did not listen to
it.
With respect, I said explicitly that I did not believe for a
moment that any provincial finance minister sat down and
contrived ways not to generate economic or revenue growth in
order to avoid the reduction in federal equalization payments
that might result.
1730
However, I said that it does put them in a difficult position.
Let us take one concrete example.
The province of Quebec maintains substantially lower corporate
tax rates than the province of Alberta. I am all in favour of
tax competition in the federation. I think it is great. The
problem is that if the Quebec finance minister raises that tax
rate he will likely lose a corresponding amount of revenue or
even more revenue out of the federal equalization transfer. So
he is much less likely to make that policy change, which means
that essentially Alberta, Ontario and B.C. businesses are
subsidizing artificially low corporate tax rates in the province
of Quebec.
I am not suggesting that the provinces should end up
constructing their entire fiscal and economic policy to avoid a
reduction in federal transfers. I am saying that we are creating
a perverse incentive and it is not a good thing. If we move in
the direction that I am advocating, which is to create a system
of transfers that are sensitive to individuals and their income
regardless of the accidents of geography, that would avoid the
kind of disincentives which exist in the current system.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member is debating Bill C-65, which has to do with
equalization payments. I know that he is the finance spokesman
for his party and is well aware of the fundamental principles,
one of which is that on a province by province basis we do not
take individual provincial tax rates into account but rather the
average of five provinces. It would be very difficult for any
province to structure tax rates which would allow it to maintain
equalization payments.
Frankly, I was astounded by the answer that was given to the
question posed by the parliamentary secretary. The insinuation
by the member was that equalization is a disincentive. He denied
it and then he went on to explain how it is a disincentive. It
is sucking and blowing at the same time. He cannot have it both
ways.
The question to the member is simple. Does he believe that the
equalization program, agreed upon by all of the provinces and the
federal government following two years of consultation, is a
disincentive for growth in a province which would otherwise have
opportunities for jobs? Does the member believe a province would
turn down opportunities for economic growth simply to maintain
equalization payments?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, to be clear, I believe
that it can act as a disincentive.
Furthermore, I do not believe that provincial governments
necessarily respond by electing policies which slow growth or
revenue. However, it is unfortunate that it can have the
unintended consequence of penalizing provinces that see
significant growth. It is an unfortunate outcome of this kind of
system.
With respect to the member's point on an individual tax in an
individual province, yes, the five province average which takes
into account 33 different criteria is the average against which
each individual province's fiscal load is measured in the
determination of whether it qualifies for equalization transfers.
In the instance I raised, the level of revenues that the province
of Quebec generates from corporate taxes is a factor in its
overall fiscal load as compared to the five province average.
This system does create a situation where provinces can maintain
artificially low levels of taxation, levels of taxation which
would definitely be higher if there were no equalization
payments. That is the whole point.
In some cases the provinces are able to maintain much lower
levels of taxation in order to create de facto subsidies. I
raised the case of New Brunswick which provides all sorts of
corporate tax holidays for people who locate their businesses
there.
1735
Again, I am in favour of tax competition, but I am not in favour
of a system where the federal government gives a financial
advantage to those provinces which use those kinds of tax levers
in their competition to attract business.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker,
following on the whole issue of the tax question, has the member
given consideration to the benefits received by a province that
engages in economic growth and job creation? Does he believe
they are simply dollar for dollar with the equalization payments
or does he believe that the benefits to a province would greatly
exceed the value which it would otherwise receive under the
equalization program?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I would admit that it is
possible, but I would also admit that it is possible that
provinces take into account the loss of equalization revenues
that they would receive if they reduced taxes or increased
growth.
It is a problem and that is why I recommend my idea of
transferring to individuals on the basis of income and need and
not to the provinces on the basis of geography.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this is my first speech of 1999. I will begin by wishing my
colleagues and all of the constituents of Calgary East a happy
new year.
As we approach the new millennium Canadians are looking to their
elected representatives, and especially the government, for
visionary and bold leadership. The role of the official
opposition is to point out to Canadians when their government
does not meet these expectations. With this in mind, I rise
today to voice my concern over Bill C-65. I do so because I am
convinced that this piece of legislation does not address the
economic inequalities which exist among the provinces in our
federation.
The concept and the intent of provincial equalization payments
in order to guarantee all Canadians comparable services and
standards of living is indeed a noble goal. My party supports
this concept.
Reform members who have spoken today have made the point very
clear that we support the concept of equalization and of
Canadians having a guarantee of comparable services and
standards across the country.
The role of every government, including the federal government,
is to ensure that the equality of all Canadians is guaranteed.
That is the cornerstone of my party's policy. Therefore, why are
we opposed to this legislation? This legislation falls short of
achieving this goal.
What amazes me is that after so many years of experience—and we
have had this program for close to 40 years—one would think that
this government would have learned to use our financial resources
more effectively. However, what we have before us today is a
status quo piece of legislation which is flawed and does nothing
but pour more money into this program.
Why do that? Every program this government introduces costs
more and more, while Canadians are burdened with oppressive tax
rates and coping with the crisis in our health care system. Can
the government not use taxpayers' money more prudently?
Apparently not.
I am also amazed to learn that in a country rated as one of the
best and richest in the world we have seven have not provinces
and three have provinces. Why is 70% of the country made up of
have not provinces? It is difficult to understand.
One can readily understand a province needing assistance when an
important sector of an economic activity collapses.
1740
The current fisheries crises on the east and west coasts require
attention and the injection of resources. The federal government
should intervene to ensure that Canadians living in these regions
do not suffer undue hardship.
However, that being said, the systemic equalization program that
we are discussing today is inefficient, a waste of resources and
fails to address the underlying problem of regional economic
disparities.
This morning the Leader of the Official Opposition and my
colleagues outlined some of the major problems and flaws in this
program. Let me highlight some of them again.
The formula for determining the distribution of funds is overly
complex and convoluted. It is based almost entirely on
assumptions and not on hard facts or statistics. The current
program ends up pitting province against province and results in
resentment and conflict, the haves versus the have nots.
There is no accountability, leaving the entire process open to
political manipulation and bureaucratic interference. It
penalizes provinces which display industriousness and innovation.
I would like to elaborate on my last point. In my home province
of Alberta the cornerstone of our prosperity has been the oil and
natural gas sectors. We are and always have been proud to share
these resources with our fellow Canadians despite the
introduction of the unfair and discriminatory national energy
program during the early 1980s.
Today oil prices are quite low. This has led to hard times and
layoffs in the oil patch. However, due to the resilience of
Albertans and their government, Alberta is not facing an economic
crisis. This is because Alberta has diversified its economy to
avoid such situations.
The federal government could learn much from the Government of
Alberta. It could also take some pointers from the Government of
Ontario. The Ontario economy is booming through low levels of
taxation and job growth.
The question still remains: What are we to do with this
inherently flawed equalization program? The official opposition
suggests a new approach. For starters, let us discuss a new
approach to equalization through open and honest debate in
parliament.
We are supposed to be the custodians of the public purse. It is
up to us to find cost effective ways to ensure that all Canadians
have comparable services. We must also eliminate the
arbitrariness of the current program and eliminate bureaucratic
interference. We must create a transparent and accountable
manner of addressing regional inequalities. This could be
achieved through a simpler formula.
The official opposition's new Canada act proposes two basic
reforms which have been outlined by speakers from the official
opposition. I am going to repeat them so that members opposite
will understand what we are trying to say. They are: the equal
treatment of all Canadian citizens with per capita grants to
provinces for shared cost programs, and a single equalization
grant based on a macro indicator of per capita provincial GDP
compared to per capita national GDP.
Canadians are respected around the world for their generosity
and desire to help others. The citizens of our country are
compassionate people who will go to great lengths and sacrifices
to ensure that their neighbours are well taken care of.
However, this government should not take this goodwill and
generosity for granted. I am sorry to report that our current
method of equalization takes advantage of the compassion inherent
in Canadians.
I will conclude by stating that what is needed is a frank and
open discussion in parliament over the nature of equalization
payments in our confederation. I humbly submit that the Reform
Party's new Canada act proposals merit serious consideration in
the debate over the equalization program in our country.
1745
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first and foremost the Canada act to which the member
refers is a misnomer. This is not legislation. This is merely a
proposal on the part of the Reform Party. If that party were
very serious about it, it would introduce it as legislation,
possibly as a private member's bill.
I would like to take the member to task slightly in his
suggestion that the way to correct or to reform the equalization
process is to treat all Canadians equally. The problem with that
concept is that there is great disparity across the country. In
fact Canadians do not have equality of opportunity either in
terms of their resources or their industrial base.
The member suggested that 70% of Canada is have not because
seven provinces are recipients of equalization payments and three
are the actual ones that give out the equalization payments. This
illustrates the weakness in the submission in the Canada act that
the key is to treat everyone equally.
In fact, 70% of Canada does not quite describe the situation
when the member was talking merely about provinces. The three
have provinces probably account for 80% or 90% of the actual
industrial and resource base of the country.
Would the member perhaps reconsider his approach to treating
everyone equally and consider the disparity of opportunity that
exists among Canadians rather than ignoring the inequalities
among us all?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy that
my colleague asked a couple of questions and made some comments.
We will introduce the new Canada act when we are over there and
they are over here.
The second factor is that under no circumstances will we give up
the cornerstone of the policy that all Canadians and all
provinces are equal. How did we suddenly come to recognize the
factor that 70% of the provinces are have nots? It was from the
formula those members came up with that is so complex nobody can
understand it. People in my province cannot understand this
formula. It is they who have created have not provinces versus
have provinces. The Reform Party has stated that.
We agree with equalization. We agree with the policy that all
Canadians are equal, but we are asking for a better allocation of
resources like we have proposed. Those members must have been
listening to what we have said about how the equalization program
should work.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. One thing
he did not talk about was a provision in the new act to tax
casino profits. The federal government has realized that some
tax dollars are being generated in gaming whether we talk about
casinos or VLTs or whatever. I know VLTs have become quite a
contentious issue in Alberta, the member's home province.
Would the member share with us whether he thinks there is a
taxable net benefit to society? We have Gamblers Anonymous and
the social ramifications of family break-ups and so on that are
being caused. Does the member really consider that the federal
government will see a net taxable benefit in that regard? I know
Saskatchewan is struggling with the concept of whether there is
anything there that is taxable.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
point. I am sorry to see that it was introduced. The member is
right that my province is struggling with it. I personally
believe that VLTs, as has been done in my province, should only
be in casinos where those who want to go there can go. They
should not be accessible to the general public. The member is
right. I do not agree.
1750
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the
member's suggestion that the new Canada act will not be
introduced until the Reform Party forms the government. I would
suggest that the new Canada act may never be introduced at all.
I would also suggest that he kindly consider calling it
something other than an act which suggests that it is already
legislation that has passed. He could call it a bill but it has
not actually been submitted before parliament. Would the Reform
Party be up front and call it what it is, which is simply a
proposal?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who will decide
who will be sitting on that side. I rest assured that Canadians
will ensure that if the Liberals carry on with heavy taxation and
continue the health care crisis they will on this side pretty
soon. Let us not worry about that. We will leave it to the
decision of Canadians.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to express
opposition to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act. Many of my colleagues have spoken very
well from different angles and I shall be looking at some of the
technicalities in the bill.
The subject matter of the bill is commonly referred to as the
federal-provincial equalization payment arrangement. Every five
years since 1957 the federal government through the finance
department reviews the equalization program. Bill C-65 deals
with the period from 1999 to the year 2004.
The purpose of the equalization program is to equalize the
provincial revenue raising capacity which enables provinces to
provide reasonably comparable levels of the public services at
reasonably comparable levels of taxation. In the absence of
equalization payments wealthier provinces would be able to
provide more services to their residents than poorer provinces
with the same level of taxation. The equalization program is
important to the Canadian Confederation. This program is only as
good as the process that allows it to keep pace with the
provincial tax system.
Let us look at the process. The key element in the equalization
formula is the representative tax system commonly called RTS. The
RTS is a hypothetical tax system which is representative of the
actual systems of the separate provinces. The key to success
rests on how well the RTS reflects provincial tax systems. The
RTS ought to be comprehensive, representative, accurate and
appropriately categorized.
The RTS should include all revenue sources used to support
public services comprehensively. Also a partial coverage of the
revenue sources yields a biased picture of relative fiscal
capacities of the provinces. The RTS should use definitions of
tax bases that reflect the tax structure actually used by the
provinces to reflect what governments actually do. It should not
represent imaginary, unfair or unrealistic measures. It should
be representative of the actual tax system.
The data used to measure the various tax bases must be as
accurate as possible for it to be a reliable measure. The items
in the RTS that make up a category or revenue source should have
common characteristics, the ability to be taxed at a similar rate
and should be appropriately categorized.
1755
The finance department currently uses such criteria for its
assessment of the RTS but nowhere is it explicitly set out. The
finance department has not formalized the set of principles to
guide its review of the RTS. It is necessary to arrive at a
common way of estimating the tax base.
For many of the 33 revenue sources used by the department the
bases are not straightforward and no consensus exists. I will
give six examples to prove what I am saying. For example, some
provinces calculate their payroll taxes on the total payroll of a
business while others tax only a portion above a certain
threshold. Still other provinces charge no tax at all. For the
purpose of RTS the base chosen across all provinces must be
common.
For sales taxes the base used in the RTS is no longer
representative of the tax structure used by all provinces. The
four provinces that account for a third of Canada's population
use a common sales tax base, the GST, which is different from the
one used in the RTS. We are comparing apples to oranges. They
are not equivalent. There is a need to review the way the sales
tax base is currently measured.
Another example is user fees. User fees are not part of the
current federal-provincial discussions for the 1999 renewal. It
is very important to mention here that governments at every level
are resorting to alternative revenue sources such as user fees.
It is a tax with only a semantic distinction.
Provincial and local governments receipts from user fees doubled
from $6 billion in 1984 to $12 billion in 1994. In just 10 years
it doubled. How these revenues are treated in the equalization
formula can have a significant effect on overall equalization
payments. User fees imposed by the provinces have been part of
the equalization of the RTS since 1967.
Similar fees imposed by the municipalities were brought in with
the 1982 renewal. Currently they are included under the
miscellaneous revenue category of the RTS. This is a category
that is altogether different and impacts on the calculations of
the complicated equalization formula.
The fourth example is that since 1977 lottery revenues have been
treated as a separate revenue source in the RTS, with gross
revenues from the sale of lottery tickets constituting the
lottery base. It worked well until the provincial gaming sector
became significantly transformed.
Today provinces are operating video games, casinos, bingos,
VLTs, break-open tickets and other games of chance. The RTS base
does not cover these newer gaming activities. The revenues are
treated differently for equalization purposes. Where a casino is
operated by a provincial lottery corporation profits are
equalized under the lottery revenue source. If the casino is
operated by a government department the gross revenues of the
casino are equalized under the miscellaneous revenue source in
the RTS. Again we are mixing apples with oranges.
Similar inequities arise in the treatment of revenues from other
games. The RTS has become less representative of the provincial
taxing policy. We will see if the government is addressing these
gaming inequities in the bill.
The fifth example is resource taxation. Resource taxation is an
area where the ground is always shifting. The resource revenue
bases in the RTS are measured on the basis of the value or volume
of production. Ideally they would be measured on the basis of
economic rent or the value of the resource over its cost of
production. Rent is a measure of taxable potential, not actual
but potential.
It consists of a value that can be taxed without affecting
production because natural resources in different locations can
differ in quality and production costs. Rent associated with
them can also differ significantly. These differences are not
captured by the value or volume of production.
1800
Also, there are separate sources, for example, new oil, old oil,
heavy oil or mined oil.
Saskatchewan argues that the current equalization formula lumps
together oil sources that have much different profit potential.
The resulting national average tax rate overstates the extent to
which the low profit oil can be taxed. Royalties generated from
low profit oil may not be sufficient to compensate for the loss
in equalization payments associated with the production of that
oil. Production of such oil may cause a province to lose more in
equalization transfers than it gains in oil revenues.
Similarly, forestry revenues include income from logging plus
royalties, licences, rentals or fees. The tax base used in the
RTS for forestry revenues is cubic metres of wood cut on crown
land. The province of Quebec argues that trees are not a
homogeneous product and I agree. Spruce grown in Quebec is not
equivalent in value to the cedar grown in B.C. The revenue used
for forestry products is related more to the value of the product
than the volume of production.
To get technical, the revenue yield of forestry products is
related more to the value of the product than the volume of
production. The current RTS base for forestry revenues may
exaggerate the fiscal capacity of Quebec and other provinces with
large volumes of relatively low value wood products.
The Department of Finance has failed to find a way to
accommodate provincial concerns in the area of resources taxes
and appropriately categorize them.
The sixth example is property taxes. It produces $2 billion in
this category, the second largest amount of entitlements in the
equalization program, almost 22% of the total. When the RTS was
first adopted, municipal property taxes had been left out of
equalization because there was no suitable measure available to
determine the base for the real property tax. Still the
government has not developed a suitable measure. The government
is using the wrong yardstick instead of the 36-inch one.
Comparable data on real property values across provinces has
always been difficult to obtain. The base needs to be assessed
rather than observed. The tax base is the income earned by the
taxpayer, not the potential. The base is a stock of
heterogeneous items, only a small portion of which changes hands
each year. The value of the stock must be estimated or assessed.
Assessments inevitably involve judgment and judgments can
differ. They can differ from item to item. The problem is
compounded by the fact that the assessment practices differ from
one class of property to another, from one province to another
and from one municipality to another.
In addition, the assessments are infrequent and use different
base years. Thus the assessments are not comparable within the
same municipality either. The government therefore lacks a
common measure of property values. There is no agreement on the
appropriate base for taxing property. Market values are volatile
and changes in the market value do not necessarily reflect
changes in fiscal capacity. The current property tax base
measures relative fiscal capacity.
The weights used in the formula to distribute property values
across provinces are arbitrary and the formula is not
sufficiently sensitive to changes in property values. The
formula is not consistent with the basic RTS principle that the
tax source used should closely represent what provinces actually
tax.
Not even one province levies property taxes on the basis used in
the equalization program. Despite the red flag by the auditor
general, the Liberal government has done nothing to rectify this
problem. It continues to measure a yard with a 26-inch
yardstick.
1805
There are many flaws in the present equalization program. It
should be completely reformed. We know the equalization's
provision has limited the cumulative growth of total equalization
payments to the cumulative growth of GNP from the base. Ceiling
and floor levels were also introduced. I will not elaborate on
that but it does not work favourably. Rather it would make it
difficult for the provinces, particularly those close to the
floor level, to plan their budgets.
There is asymmetrical treatment of underpayments and
overpayments. The overpayments are treated as non-interest
bearing loans to the provinces. Last year it cost the federal
government $38 million. Free use of federal funds is not
necessarily shared equally by all receiving provinces. The
federal government does not charge interest on the underpayments.
The government has manipulated the program for political
favours. Our leader reminded us that the premier of
Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, was given a gift before the election.
The program could be more effective if the federal-provincial
committee on equalization began its review of outstanding issues
earlier in each new equalization period.
The final decision about this program rests with parliament. The
Department of Finance should have made a greater effort to
educate parliament and the Canadian public in general. It could
use parliament more effectively by soliciting advice from a wider
circle of interested parties rather than just relying on the
advice of a federal-provincial committee working behind closed
doors.
The government has had five years. Just three days ago we
received notice of this bill without draft legislation. I wonder
what the government has been doing for five years. The Liberals
have denied the opportunity for public consultation or academic
input into this case. This process is characteristic of this
government. We all know the Liberals are masters of the top
down, arrogant, manipulative process. The least the government
could do would be to establish a committee of parliamentarians to
study this issue in detail.
The constituents of Surrey Central and I have some serious
problems with the unnecessary and traditional way the political
leadership of our country has handled the equalization program.
Evolving over many decades, every five years the traditional
political parties have given us an extremely convoluted and
complex process. Its design is so archaic and cryptic that it
defies logic and reason. It is not fair that our system is such
a conundrum. There is no reason for that to be the case. This
could be a simple series of calculations. That is where the
problem begins.
Liberals are failing Canadians by not providing a system that is
capable of providing measurements of provincial revenue raising
capacities that are comparable from province to province. What
is worse is that the Liberals are satisfied that the best
measurements possible are being used. This is unacceptable.
The measurements should be accurate, reliable and sound. In this
case they are not. Why would the Liberals allow such measurements
to be used? In the five years the Liberals have had to prepare
for the new equalization program they have done nothing but
tinker with it.
The Reform Party has advanced the new Canada act which seeks to
improve the Canadian political and economic system.
There is a need for a single social union agreement on transfers
from the federal government to the provinces. The program
presently costs $48 million. Eventually it will cost $242
million.
1810
I and many Canadians wonder why every proposal from the
government costs Canadian taxpayers more money. Equalization as
it is structured is divisive. It pits one Canadian against
another. The program is used as a political gift, as mentioned
earlier in the case of Premier Brian Tobin of Newfoundland.
In conclusion, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I am
voting against the bill. The people of Surrey Central do not
want me to rubber stamp my approval on the work that the
government is doing on Bill C-65. I will not do that. I am proud
to represent my constituents who would not do that either.
Like British Columbia and Alberta, Ontario is a contributing
province. We will see how the 101 members from Ontario will vote
and justify it to their constituents.
I oppose the bill until the whole equalization program is
completely reformed.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member's remarks give me an opportunity to express
feelings that I have with respect to gaming. Mr. Speaker, if you
will forgive me I will go slightly off the topic but I hope that
the member will react to my comments.
I have been increasingly uneasy with the way provinces have more
and more been exploiting casinos, gambling and lotteries in
general. I fear that this is creating as many if not more
problems than is worth the money that is being collected. In
other words the provinces are causing addiction, breaking up
families, contributing to all kinds of problems that in the end
the federal government will have to address by increases in
transfer payments for social and health spending.
Gaming is becoming a serious addiction, on the same order as
alcoholism and drug abuse. We, as legislators, be we at the
federal level or the provincial level are forgetting our duty to
the citizens by allowing the spread of this terrible problem
simply because provincial governments want to make money easily
without having to raise taxes. They want to make money by
exploiting the weakness of people. This is a serious problem
that the governments are going to have to address eventually.
I ask the member whether he agrees that gaming has become a
serious sickness in society, that it is aided and abetted by the
provincial governments and that sometime the federal government
should intervene in order to protect the interests of Canadians
who obviously cannot protect their own interests.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the
hon. member for bringing forward this issue. I know he is
sincere in coming forward with his question.
Last weekend I was in Windsor, Ontario, a city with casinos. I
noticed that the small businesses, particularly the restaurants,
were closing in that area. The reason is that the casinos were
subsidizing the food and the smaller businesses were suffering.
The revenue from the casinos was not going to the community where
it was doing the damage to the community. The smaller businesses
were suffering and complaining. At least seven businesses
complained to me. Three of them were restaurants.
Particularly in the gambling industry it is is recreation on the
one hand but on the other hand it is a serious disease. It is
mostly seniors who are affected by the disease. It is a
provincial jurisdiction and I cannot comment on what it should do
or what it should not do. Definitely this is a point that all
politicians at whatever level should look at seriously so that we
can preserve the social values in our society and protect those
who are addicted to gambling.
1815
Maybe once in a while it is fine for people to go and enjoy it,
but it hurts me when those who are addicted find all their life
savings drained into gambling.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, at second reading.
I have spent some time listening to the debate of hon. members
and thought it would be appropriate to get back to the bill and
to put on the record some of the principles with regard to
equalization.
The equalization program is one of the cornerstones of the
country. It has played a major role in defining the Canadian
federation. Equalization ensures that all provinces have the
resources they need to provide reasonably comparable services to
Canadians, no matter where they live, without having to resort to
higher levels of taxation than other provinces. That is a very
important principle within equalization.
Equalization is also an unconditional federal payment and the
provinces can use it as they wish. Seven provinces currently
receive equalization payments: Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. They all currently qualify for payments.
The proposed Bill C-65 would renew the equalization program for
a five year period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004. The
basic structure of the equalization program would remain the same
as proposed under Bill C-65. There is no change to the basic
structure of the program.
The bill includes changes to the program to ensure that it
continues to measure the ability of provinces to raise revenues
as accurately as possible. These improvements will increase the
costs of the equalization program by an estimated $242 million
and the changes will be phased in over the course of a five year
renewal period. The bill also includes changes to the ceiling
and floor provisions of the equalization program which protect
against unusually large fluctuation in equalization transfers.
The proposed amendments are the result of over two years of
extensive consultations and review of the equalization program by
the federal and provincial governments. It is important for
members to know that the review of this process that has been
with us for some time took two years to look at the rationale of
the program, its benefits, its fairness and its equity. The
premiers and provincial representatives along with the federal
government concurred with the principles of our equalization
program.
At the time of the 1998 budget it was projected that
equalization in 1998-99 would amount to $8.5 billion. The last
official estimates released in October show an increase to $8.8
billion. New estimates of equalization will be provided when the
1999 budget is tabled in the House on February 16.
The bill also includes changes to the ceiling and floor
provisions of the equalization program which protect against
unusually large fluctuations in equalization transfers. The bill
would also renew the provincial personal income tax revenue
guarantee program for the same five year period. This program
protects those provinces participating in tax collection
agreements from many major revenue reductions that may be caused
during the course of the year by changes in federal tax policy.
Those are the principal elements of the bill before the House.
This is second reading. The speaker who just addressed the House
raised some concern that he did not want to rubber stamp approval
of the bill and that he was opposed to it. This is not the time
to deal with approval of the bill. This is the time to look at
some of its elements. The bill will go to the finance committee
which has representatives of all parties.
Members of parliament do a lot of their work in committee where
officials appear before the committee—
1820
An hon. member: If you believe it, pal.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Reform members want to deny the fact that
at committee important work is done. I know that, having been a
member of both the health committee and the finance committee. We
have had the opportunity to deal with officials, to deal with the
minister responsible and to hear witnesses on a whole host of
things.
I know the Reform Party has made some suggestions. It is useful
to have suggestions on how the equalization program may be
modified or may possibly be improved. The time to get these
points before the House is through its committee system. That is
why it is there.
I spent the afternoon listening patiently to the speeches. I
intervened on a couple of points which I thought were concerning
because they may have given Canadians the wrong impression about
what the situation was with regard to the equalization program.
One of the examples given by the member for Medicine Hat dealt
with the employment insurance system. The member suggested that
the EI program was biased and a form of equalization in itself.
The member also went on to present the House with a fact, at
least in his own mind, that somehow people in Alberta have to
wait longer to get EI benefits than somebody in the maritimes.
I am sorry but that is just not correct. It is absolutely wrong
and the member should correct the record for what he said. They
do not have to wait a half a year. The member said the people of
Alberta had to wait a half a year and that is just not the case.
The employment insurance system is very specific. It is
prescribed benefits for all Canadians. It has a clawback
mechanism as well as intensity rules for frequent users which
actually would reduce benefits, but in terms of eligibility for
benefits what the member said to the House was absolutely wrong.
The member should clarify the record.
The member from South Surrey presented the House with a very
creative argument about immigration and how it was awful that
Quebec was getting so much money per capita more than anybody
else. She tabled the numbers and said that was $3,000 per capita
here and $1,000 for somebody else. It begged a question. If the
numbers were in fact that different, if the numbers were as they
suggest unfair, why did the member not present to the House what
the reasons were from the officials, from the department, from
the minister, from any colleagues in this place? If only she
asked the question, she would have had the answer.
Rather the whole strategy of this debate on behalf of the Reform
Party was not to give answers but rather to raise spectres, to
raise simple allegations and not to answer them, to leave
Canadians hanging, saying that they said so, so it must be wrong.
That was not the case at all. The member for Calgary Southeast
decided that he would try to slip one through on taxation by
saying that all a province had to do was keep the tax rate low to
continue to collect equalization payments. If they raised their
taxes then they would lose some equalization dollars.
It is not as simple as one province increasing its tax rates and
somehow losing some equalization payments. The system is much
more complex than that and takes things into account. It
provides for five-province averages of tax rates.
The allegations or insinuations in the House in many of the
speeches given by Reform members have been to suggest that there
is an inequity, to suggest that there is a wrong, to somehow
suggest there is something going on that should not be going on.
They have used time and time again a rhetorical question: “Is
this fair? Look at these numbers. This could not be fair”.
Not one member rose in his place and actually said “I made the
inquiries and I now understand why the numbers are different”.
1825
Every member of parliament has heard these questions before on
things like Canadian film production subsidies where Quebec gets
a disproportionate amount of subsidies for French film production
on a per capita basis.
There is a reason for that and I will offer it to the House. The
reason is that production for French language film is centred in
Quebec and provides that film for French speaking Canadians
across the country. It is not just for Quebeckers. It is for
francophones in Canada who want to enjoy French language film.
That is the explanation. If we take that into account we will
see that the numbers are fair and equitable.
We will see with regard to immigration, with regard to property
taxes and with regard to many of the examples the Reform Party
raised as spectres of inequity that they are explainable. The
question then becomes why did these members not do the right
thing and explain the variances that they found in some of these
issues. Why did they not try to answer the question? The reason
is that it is politically opportunistic to raise the rhetorical
question, suggest it is wrong and leave it there.
Canadians have a right to know all the facts. With due respect,
I think what we have seen today is an example where members have
not given all the facts. I do not think they have done Canadians
a service by presenting facts without proper investigation,
without proper inquiry to ensure that the allegations or the
insinuations they are making were correct. These are important
points for Canadians to know.
One of the most repeated allegations by the Reform Party today
was that this system provides disincentives for the seven
provinces that presently receive equalization to pursue economic
growth, to create jobs and to improve their lot. This is
basically saying that all premiers who receive equalization feel
that they will get a better benefit by keeping equalization than
there would get by having more growth and more jobs in their
province. That is just not the case.
The economic spinoff and the ripple effect of economic growth
and job creation in provinces create value added benefit for the
provinces that is worth far more than simply the loss in
equalization payments that they would otherwise receive.
It is absolutely absurd to suggest that a province would value
equalization payments more than it would value jobs for its
citizens. Yet throughout the entire debate the Reform Party has
suggested that somehow the provinces, the treasury officials, the
premiers and so on all get together and connive to see how they
can screw the system.
When the provinces get together and they present their cases
they know exactly who gets what. They know what the rules are.
It is a transparent process. They know what the calculations
are. There are adjustment features as the other member from B.C.
mentioned. Those things are taken into account.
We have a system that is already in place. We have come forward
to renew it for another five years. Effectively it has the same
fundamental principles of equalization for the benefit of all
Canadians which basically promote equity among Canadians
regardless of where they live and regardless of where they choose
to live because we are a mobile society. I think that is a very
important aspect. The equalization program continues to support
Canadians as a mobile society no matter where we choose to live,
to work or to play.
Those things are there so that we have the services that we can
get, no matter whether we are in the east or in the west. From
coast to coast to coast the equalization program is there and
working to ensure that all Canadians have those services.
I appreciated the opportunity to put some of these points on the
record. It is important to understand that we are here at second
reading.
1830
I heard some suggestions where there may be some discussion
about how we might change it. I welcome those suggestions from
the members. I hope their representatives will be at the finance
committee and that they bring their briefing books along to deal
with the officials and to explore these possibilities. This is
the opportunity to do it. If they believe they have adequate
opportunity, they can make changes. That is the way democracy
works.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When the House resumes
consideration of this item, the hon. member will have six minutes
remaining in his time.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, tonight we will talk about APEC for four minutes. I
want to start off by reading into the record exactly what
commissioner Ted Hughes received in a letter addressed to him on
February 3 regarding his role in the hearing. In the public
interest, he is to inquire into all matters touching upon these
complaints, to hear all evidence relevant thereto and to ensure a
full and fair hearing with respect to these complaints.
In his letter to the new solicitor general, Ted Hughes points
out very clearly “I have concluded for the purpose of the
present inquiry, a full and ample opportunity to present evidence
to cross-examine witnesses and to make representations can be
best achieved by the complainants having counsel. Accordingly I
write to recommend in the words of Madam Justice Reed that the
state fund counsel. That is the purpose of this letter.
“The question I have under study is not whether state funded
counsel should be provided but rather whether I have as a matter
of law the authority to order that it be provided. You will
appreciate from what I have said that my answer to the former
question would very definitely be in the affirmative. While it is
going to take time for me to study and research the legal
question before me, I believe that, as a courtesy to you while
that process is occurring, I ought to make my view of the funding
issue known to you and communicate it to you in the form of a
recommendation pursuant to the protocol sanctioned by Madam
Justice Reed. If such a recommendation has not been previously
been placed before you, I believe this is a fair and reasonable
course for me to follow”.
Mr. Justice Hughes is a well respected person in British
Columbia. He has been on the bench. He has worked for
governments in British Columbia. The Reform Party is very happy
that he is now heading up this inquiry. We know from his past
record he will not be pushed around. He will do what has to be
done to make sure that justice is served in this purpose.
I find it very strange that today in the House the minister was
asked again by our critic for the solicitor general whether he
will agree to these recommendations by Justice Hughes and yet we
are still looking at it. This is not something that just happened
yesterday. The letter has been there for close to a week, but
the government has known for a long time. The previous
commissioners requested funding.
There cannot be a fair hearing unless everybody is well
represented. I hope Justice Hughes in his own research will find
that under the act he has the power to do this funding on his own
in case the government refuses once again to go by what he is
asking it for.
This whole APEC situation has been a black eye on Canada. A
number of things have happened in this inquiry. A minister has
had to resign over this issue. The former chairman of the
commission has resigned over this issue. The two other
commissioners have resigned over this issue. Here we are back now
with Justice Hughes starting into this hearing and looking at
getting some more support from this government to get ahead and
do what needs to be done.
The government in hundreds of questions in this House on this
issue has always said “Let us let the inquiry get going. Let us
let it happen”. Now the new commissioner is saying to fund the
other parties so that we can get this under way in a fair and
prudent manner.
I would implore this government to do that. Make sure it is
funded. Make sure it moves forward. We are all looking forward
to the results that Mr. Hughes will come out with.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the more things change—
For months now, we have been peppered with questions about APEC
and the events in Vancouver. For months now, the opposition has
held to a position that is fundamentally contradictory.
1835
On the one hand, they are calling for a public inquiry while, on
the other, they want the commission to be allowed to do its
work. But when we agree that the commission should be allowed to
do its work, they go back to their call for a public inquiry.
The opposition's position is completely illogical.
Mr. Hughes, who is now chairing the commission, has said
himself, and I am quoting very freely here, that he will do
“whatever it takes to uncover the truth of what went on in
Vancouver”. He himself, therefore, is saying that the
commission is able to get to the bottom of things, to
effectively determine what happened and to submit a report,
which, I would remind members, will be made public.
We received a letter from him, and this letter was released
Friday at noon.
What could be more natural than for elected officials to take
the time to read this letter, to examine it and reflect on it,
and to respond in a balanced manner that takes into account the
full proposal, the present context in its entirety, and the
mandate of the commission.
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
neglect of first nations is an ongoing black mark against the
Liberal government. It should be ashamed of the way it ignores
the huge problems facing these people. The government claims to
be concerned about the problems but it does little about them.
First nations in my riding live in third world poverty.
Unemployment is over 70% and over 90% in some areas. There is
homelessness and a lack of clean drinking water. Preventable
diseases like TB are prevalent. When I go to these communities I
can hardly believe what I am seeing. The human tragedy of these
conditions is heart breaking.
Last November I questioned the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development about conditions at the Shamattawa first
nation. Shamattawa is a sad example of all of these problems.
Four out of five children in this community have been or are
addicted to solvents. Since 1992 there have been over 100
suicide attempts in this community of under 900 people.
Last week I got a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development saying that Shamattawa is a high priority
community. If it is such a high priority, why has the government
ignored its appeals for a healing centre to treat addicts within
the community? Why did the government promise to pay for a
recreation centre and only commit 16% of the needed funding? If
this is what the Liberal government calls a high priority
community, I would hate to see the low priority community.
Shamattawa is not the only community that this Liberal
government has abandoned. In my short time today I cannot
possibly list them all but I will mention a few.
One that I definitely want to mention is Garden Hill. This
community of about 2,700 people was shaken by a terrible tragedy
last month. An infant choke to death because no nurse at the
local nursing station was able to respond to the call in enough
time. The station is supposed to have eight nurses but only had
three at the time.
The lack of health care professionals does not only affect first
nations. Thompson has a severe shortage of doctors. These days
someone who wants a simple physical has to book months in
advance. Doctors are leaving and nurses are being laid off
because of government cuts. These cuts are affecting all
northern communities, first nations and non first nations alike.
That is why the New Democratic Party is calling on this
government to reinvest at least $2.5 billion into health this
year. Anything less will not be enough to patch up the holes we
are seeing in our health services.
Earlier I mentioned the poverty and poor housing on first
nations. I want to point out the link between this and the
health problems we are seeing.
Take the God's Lake first nation. This small community of 1,200
accounts for 10% of all the cases of TB in Manitoba. That is a
shocking number but not surprising when only about 10% of the
homes on the reserve have basic sewer services. If the
government would do something about these kinds of problems, it
would save millions in health care costs.
The Liberal government must do more to address the conditions on
first nations. These conditions would not be tolerated in
Toronto or Shawinigan. It is a double standard to ignore the
first nations. The Liberal government always points to the
“Gathering Strength” initiative and the aboriginal healing fund
as if they are going to solve everything. They do not even come
close to what is needed.
We need a real investment in first nations housing, health care
and economic development.
Token gestures and empty words are not enough.
1840
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased today to respond to the hon. member for Churchill on
behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
concerning the social problem at the Shamattawa First Nation.
The Government of Canada is concerned about the living
conditions facing the residents of Shamattawa. We are working in
partnership with the first nation to take action in addressing
the social conditions.
Numerous meetings have occurred among regional officials and
the chief and council over the past few months. On November 20
officials from Health Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development met with Chief Massan of the Shamattawa
First Nation and Chief Francis Flett of the Manitoba Keewatinowi
Okimakanak. They discussed the first nation's desire to build a
multipurpose complex which would contain an arena. On December
24, 1998 a letter committing $400,000 toward the cost of this
multipurpose complex was provided to the first nation. These
funds include $200,000 in advance to the first nation's base
capital allocation and another $200,000 provided through social
and educational reform components of the gathering strength
initiative.
In addition, $150,000 was made available to enhance education
facilities. The first nation anticipates the construction of two
portable classrooms to begin in the spring.
Construction of a water treatment plant is also under way at a
cost of $4,736,000. A further $33,000 has been identified to
assist the first nation in the development of a human resource
strategy that will target education and employment opportunities
for youth.
Finally, I understand that the community is working on a
proposal to access dollars from the Aboriginal Healing
Foundation, to which the member referred, to address its needs
for a healing centre on the reserve.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
asked a question recently of the Minister of Human Resources
Development regarding EI and the changes to EI that have had such
an impact on the riding I represent. I was not at all satisfied
with the answer. In fact I do not really know where the comments
of the minister came from.
The minister maintained that it was our party which has been
calling for a reduction in premiums. Clearly our party has been
fairly constant in our position that we want the eligibility to
be increased and the levels of benefits to be increased, but we
certainly do not want the premiums to be lowered. That certainly
was not our prime motivation.
The New Democratic Party has been looking at the impact of the
cuts to EI for quite some time. In fact our EI critic, the
member for Acadie—Bathurst, has toured the country recently,
going to virtually every community, getting input from working
people and asking them about the impact the cuts have had on
their working lives. Certainly the feeling has been that the
current system has had an impact greater than I think the
government even realized when it introduced the recent changes to
EI.
My riding of Winnipeg Centre has seen a cutback or a withdrawal
of funding of $20.8 million. One can imagine the impact it would
have on any community to pull out that kind of capital.
Looking at the inverse, if a business were to come to Winnipeg
with an annual payroll of $20.8 million, one could imagine that
any level of government would pave the streets with gold to try
to attract that type of business to the riding.
Certainly this has had a devastating effect. The riding I
represent has two of the poorest postal code zones in the
country. Already an awful lot of people are living very close to
the poverty line. It is a very marginal area. To pull $20.8
million out of that community meant that many more people were
pushed over the fine line from living marginally close to the
poverty line to living in abject poverty. It has had a huge
impact.
We believe the changes necessary go far beyond what is being
hinted at or alluded to.
1845
We believe there have to be dramatic changes in the eligibility.
We want at least 70% of all unemployed people to be eligible for
benefits. They should be getting benefits in the neighbourhood
of 60% of their working earnings. They certainly should not be
penalized the way they are now in terms of clawbacks, where if
their income is over a certain level they have their benefits
clawed back.
One of the harshest rules that has come into effect recently
which has caused the biggest inconvenience is the divisor rule,
where the benefit is calculated using all of the 26 weeks
preceding the date on which one files, including the dead weeks
that one may not have worked. Obviously rolling those weeks
where one has no income into the average will bring down one's
monthly benefit.
Again, I do not believe the government realized how sweeping
this would be. Cases came before the public hearings held by our
critic. People came forward who had previously received in the
neighbourhood of $350 per week. Their weekly cheques are now $38
per week. Surely this was not the intention of the government.
We are hoping that substantial changes will be put into effect in
the next budget.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has criticized our reduction of the EI premium rate from
$2.70 to $2.55, but we feel the new rate provides a moderate
reduction for both employers and employees and still provides
money to help Canadians find jobs.
The premium rate reduction does not jeopardize benefits to the
unemployed. We will spend an additional $800 million per year on
active employment measures under EI, bringing federal funding to
more than $2.7 billion annually by 2000-2001. We will create
even more jobs by using the $3 million transitional jobs fund now
in place and by using general revenues to serve high unemployment
regions.
On December 14 the minister announced the Canada jobs fund, a
permanent program which will build on the highly successful
transitional jobs fund initiative. This annual commitment of
$110 million will help a greater number of regions across Canada
and will help create approximately 10,000 new jobs each year.
We also recently announced that we will be injecting another
$465 million over three years into the youth employment strategy
to help young Canadians enter the workforce.
The employment insurance system is about making sure people who
are laid off or quit with just cause get help in between jobs. A
recent study of the system determined that 78% of such people
were eligible for benefits. We believe our approach is working
and Friday's employment figures bear this out.
We have to remember that the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%
in January, the lowest level in nine years. Last year 143,000
jobs were created for youth, the best performance in 20 years.
Last month alone 87,000 jobs were created and 44,000 of these
were for youth. Since October 1993, when we came to office, 1.6
million more Canadians are working.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)