36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 50
CONTENTS
Monday, February 2, 1998
1100
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EUTHANASIA
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 123
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1115
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1130
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1205
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1250
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1310
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1330
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1350
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1355
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1400
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FLEUR DE LYS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK MERGER
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1415
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR BURNABY—DOUGLAS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVACY
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDICIAL SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE IN ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-3
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1505
1510
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1515
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1520
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ice Storm
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-5. First Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1525
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Wheat Board
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1530
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STARRED QUESTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1625
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1630
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1635
1640
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1655
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1700
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1720
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1810
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1815
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1830
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration Appeal Board
|
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 50
![](/web/20061116193904im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 2, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
[English]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the
following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is
desired: Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and
the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with
disabilities and other matters and to make consequential
amendments to other acts and Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada
Shipping Act (maritime liability).
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
EUTHANASIA
The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On debate, the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Louis with eight minutes remaining.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since we last had this debate the member for
Burnaby—Douglas had a pretty bad accident. I wish him all the
very best on returning to the House.
When we started the debate in which I had two minutes of
speaking time, I alluded to a reference from Drs. Herbert Handin
and Gerald Klerman from the American Journal of Psychiatry in
1993 in which they concluded as follows, and I will repeat the
quote to put it in the context of the debate:
If those advocating legalization of assisted suicide prevail, it
will be a reflection that as a culture we are turning away from
efforts to improve our care of the mentally ill, the infirm and
the elderly. Instead, we would be licensing the right to abuse
and exploit the fears of the ill and depressed. We would be
accepting the view of those who are depressed and suicidal that
death is a preferred solution to the problems of illness, age,
and depression.
[Translation]
What we are discussing here is not the act of artificially
prolonging life. I believe there is a general consensus within
society that medical means ought not to be used to artificially
prolong the lives of those suffering so much that, to all intents
and purposes, their lives no longer have any meaning.
1105
That is not what we are discussing here. What we are
discussing here is the proactive act of helping in someone's
suicide or death.
[English]
We are not debating the withholding or withdrawal of life
support systems but whether physicians and others should help
suffering individuals to cause their own death. Where do we draw
the line once we have crossed the threshold of active euthanasia
or assisted suicide?
The patient is inevitably influenced by someone else whether it
be a doctor, a relative or a friend. This advice, and more so
the act of helping the death of another, can be influenced by so
many factors, many emotional, as to become very subjective. Who
are we to decide to deliberately terminate a human life? What
happens if our judgment happens to have been wrong? It is then
too late to change it.
I have a son Peter who is severely handicapped, intellectually
handicapped. He cannot hear and almost cannot speak. Lately his
kidneys collapsed. I remember meeting with a renal surgeon at
the Montreal General Hospital. We were examining whether Peter
should be given the same chance as somebody who is productive in
society.
Some in society would look at the bottom line and say no, Peter
should not have a chance to have dialysis, that it should be
given to another person who is productive in society. To the
tribute of Dr. Kaye, he decided Peter should be given that same
chance as anybody else. Today he goes to dialysis three times a
week and brings joy to the people there. He brings joy to the
nurses by the fact that he accepts this imposition on him with
joy. He has a smile on his face. He brightens up the place.
Maybe he is not productive socially. Maybe he is not productive
in dollars and cents, but he brings a lesson, which has been a
huge lesson, to my own family, to me, to my wife and to our other
children.
Who are we to decide? Should we decide that he who is not
productive should not have dialysis and so we assist in the
termination of his life? What is more, do we decide in our
subjective opinion that somebody like him should be terminated
earlier to avoid suffering or to avoid his having to go to
dialysis considering that already his life is pretty well
impaired?
Once we cross a line in the sand that gives any of us the legal
authority to help terminate someone else's life, we breach a most
sacred trust, the tenet of the sanctity of life.
Today some will hold that Peter should not have been born at
all. We have technological instruments that tell us whether a
child will have Downs Syndrome or be severely retarded before his
birth, so some say he should not have the right to be part of
society because he will not be productive and will be a hindrance
to his family.
Thank the Lord that we never thought that way. He brought joy
to us. He brought a tremendous amount of comfort to our life. He
brought an example. Because of him my children are more aware of
others with handicaps and of others who are weak in society. I
rejoice in his life.
I rejoice in the life of every person. Every person has the
right to live. We as human beings, so frail and subjective, have
no right to decide when a person should die, when we should
extinguish a life.
1110
I am totally against the motion. I hope it is rejected.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is in a spirit of respect and compassion that I rise
today on Private Member's Business Motion M-123, moved by the hon.
member for Burnaby—Douglas and amended by my colleague for
Berthier—Montcalm last November 4.
That motion, if adopted as amended, would read as follows:
That a special committee be appointed, pursuant to
Standing Order 105, to review the provisions of the Criminal
Code dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
and that the Committee be instructed to report to the House.
This is not the first time in this House that I have addressed
this very sensitive issue of growing concern to our fellow citizens
of Quebec and of Canada. The purpose of the amendment put forward
by my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm is ensure that the
parliamentarians who will address this matter in committee will
have all the latitude necessary for such a debate. The committee
will then be able to carry out its in-depth examination without
needing to concern itself about the very significant and demanding
requirements that drafting a bill on this matter demands.
What we are debating here today is one of the great ethical debates
in developed countries. In the recent past, and particularly these past
few months with the so-called Latimer case, it is becoming clear that
public opinion about assisted suicide is polarized.
Everyone remembers Sue Rodriguez' fight for the right to die with
dignity. More recently, just last week in fact, a citizen of Manitoba
was charged with murdering his wife in another case of assisted suicide.
The House of Commons cannot ignore such situations. It does not
have the right to bury its head in the sand.
It is therefore essential that a committee look into these issues,
hear what the people and stakeholders have to say, and report to the
House.
It will then be up to the government to legislate on the matter, while
showing respect for values and for individuals.
Since the late 1960s, public attitudes about physician-assisted
suicide have changed considerably. A 1968 Gallup poll showed that 43% of
respondents believed a physician should be legally authorized to end a
patient's life when officially instructed to do so in writing by the
patient.
The increasing number of cases that have arisen in recent years
dictates that we take a serious look at this issue which involves legal,
ethical and moral considerations.
I believe this debate is basically about the right to dignity, the
right of terminally ill patients or those with deadly diseases to decide
when and how they will die.
There have been tremendous advances in medicine during the 20th
century and we all expect miracles from medical research. In addition to
saving many lives, medicine has extended life, holding death further at
bay.
Palliative care designed to reduce suffering in terminally ill
patients has greatly improved too. Everyone recognizes that unbearable
pain is incompatible with the kind of respect owed to a person, with a
person's right to dignity. Unfortunately, this care is not always the
panacea it is made out to be. There are patients who continue to suffer
not only physically, but also psychologically and emotionally.
1115
If people are suffering from some irreversible illness which
seriously affects their quality of life, they should have the right, if
it is their wish, to choose when and how they want to leave this world.
However, let us be very clear: the decision must be made in an
informed and competent manner. An increasing number of people are making
what is called a “living will” so that, should they become sick or
suffer a serious accident, they can choose not to receive care or stop
treatment.
The purpose of this motion is not to deal with the advisability of
euthanasia for those who do not request such a measure, or who are not
in a position to make such a request or to do so in an informed manner.
The decision to resort to euthanasia rests with the person. It is an
extremely important decision. The decision rests with the person alone.
In this regard, the Latimer case raised major concerns among
handicapped people and the groups representing them. Such concerns are
understandable and legitimate. This is another reason to consider the
issue of assisted suicide from every possible angle. To rule out the
right to die with dignity is to negate the very real right of a person
to choose how his or her life should end.
The ban on assisted suicide, as stated in section 241 of the
Criminal Code, can also lead to other types of abuse.
A large number of assisted suicides are conducted illegally. This
situation has an adverse effect on the dignity of the person. How can we
accept that an act conducted illegally, often away from close ones, in
a foreign environment, could be the accepted standard in our society? I
do not think this could be the case, because compassion is a value in
which we all believe.
A parallel can be made with the abortion issue. Abortion was long
considered a criminal act. Still, women had abortions. They had them
clandestinely and in conditions that could put their life at risk.
Decriminalizing abortion has had the effect of greatly improving the
conditions in which these acts take place. Charlatans and quackery have
disappeared. Once a woman has made her decision, she is entitled to
quality care.
I hope Motion M-123 will get the support of a majority of
parliamentarians.
If death is part of life, if it is its hidden side, then we have a duty
to ensure that conditions exist to preserve and promote people's
dignity. For us, and for all our loved ones, can we really choose
anything other than a gentle and humane death with dignity?
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 123
as proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. This motion
advocates that a special committee be appointed to review the
provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and
physician assisted suicide and that a bill be brought into the
House by this committee.
In the 1990s people are now able to live longer than ever
before. This is in part because of the fantastic advances
that have been made in medical treatment and more positive,
personal enhancing lifestyles.
Unfortunately the reality of this situation is that along with
prolonged longevity one can also experience a reduced quality of
life, especially those afflicted with incurable and degenerative
diseases. Diseases such as AIDS, Alzheimers and cancer can make
the latter stages of life unendurable.
1120
Persons with these afflictions can see their probable future
before they become incapacitated. Some of them will seek
assistance to die, desiring greater control over the decisions
related to life or death.
In June 1995 the special Senate committee on euthanasia and
assisted suicide produced a very comprehensive report. One of
the prominent recommendations made within the report was that the
Criminal Code be amended to clarify the practice of providing
treatment for the purpose of alleviating suffering that may
shorten life.
This is not an issue that has been introduced in these chambers
for the very first time. Since March 27, 1991 when private
member's Bill C-351 was introduced, numerous attempts have been
made through the use of motions and private members' bills to
bring about significant changes to the Criminal Code, changes
pertaining to euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.
Reading Hansard transcripts of those debates in the past
in this House revealed that certain presenters were extremely
knowledgeable about this issue, most notably the comprehensive,
well researched debates made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
Every effort in the past was destined to fail due to the fact
that the concepts presented were very foreign to the cultured and
conditioned minds of members present. Every attempt died on the
order paper.
There is much to be gleaned from the legislative judicial
accounts in Australia, Netherlands and numerous states south of
the border.
I think it is appropriate that the House of Commons now examine
this issue as it definitely merits further study. I can imagine
no better approach than a House of Commons special committee
composed of representatives of each official political party as a
means of investigating this complex matter.
Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are certainly
contentious, stirring deep emotions in most Canadians. These
practices abroad have raised many questions regarding the
importance of regulation.
There are several countries that have been utilizing some form
of euthanasia. It may be possible that the experience in these
countries may make us more sensitive to the benefits as well as
the drawbacks of this practice.
Some of the benefits include the empowerment of individuals to
decide the extent to which they can live with pain, thus allowing
individuals to become more autonomous in medical treatment
decision making.
The rationale here is that the extension of life, without an
accompanying improvement in the quality of life, is not
necessarily the desire of all patients suffering through painful,
irreversible medical conditions.
In some instances, preservation of life may imply nothing more
than prolonged pain and suffering. Many Canadians believe that
allowing individuals to die with dignity is a reasonable
proposition. There appears to be growing support among Canadian
for the concept of euthanasia.
Let us look at the down side. There are concerns that
legislative voluntary euthanasia can lead to involuntary
euthanasia or murder as we know it.
We have heard anecdotes of shocking cases in Netherlands, for
instance. In one published case, a Dutch general practitioner
was called to a patient's home and, meeting her for the first
time, immediately asked her to choose between hospitalization and
euthanasia.
When the stunned patient could not reply because of her
condition, he gave her one hour to think it over. This
highlights a concern held by critics of euthanasia who fear that
physicians may very well end up taking the initiative in the
cessation of life without the voluntary wish of an incoherent
individual.
1125
In Netherlands although euthanasia is a criminal offence it is
actually not prosecuted as long as specific guidelines are
followed. These guidelines were developed following a series of
court decisions. The patient must repeatedly and explicitly
express the desire to die time and time again. The patient's
decision must be well informed, free and enduring. The patient
must be suffering from severe physical or mental pain with no
prospect of relief. All other options for care must have been
exhausted so that euthanasia is a last resort or the patient must
have refused other available options. The euthanasia must be
carried out by a qualified physician. The physician must consult
at least one other physician or consult any other health care
professionals. The physician must inform the local coroner that
euthanasia has been carried out.
This is the present state of affairs in Netherlands after many
years of debating, arguing, court cases and so forth. They have
all led to the acquisition of more knowledge and understanding.
The spinoff is that the general population also becomes more
knowledgeable throughout this process.
During this decade Canadians have been exposed to the concepts
of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide more frequently than in
any other decade in our history. Sensational court cases have
made it obvious that Parliament must act. The courts should not
be making the laws of the land. Members of Parliament must
accept that responsibility. Our past minister of justice, the
member for Etobicoke Centre, clearly stipulated this position on
February 14, 1994. He also declared that it was time for an
informed discussion.
The former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard,
stated: “Like many Canadians, I was asking questions.
Obviously there are very deep personal questions involved and we
should, all of us, in a non-partisan way try to set up a new kind
of approach to it”.
As parliamentarians we must not enter the debate regarding these
contentious issues in an ignorant emotional manner. It is for
the purpose of increasing our knowledge and exploring this issue
that I stand here today and urge all members to support Motion
No. 123.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to the
next speaker, since our rotation is a little out of order, I will
give you a heads up on what is going to happen. We will go to
the member for Yukon next, then the member for Elk Island, then
the member for Scarborough East and the member for
Pictou—Antigonish. Many people would like to speak during this
debate, so if you do not need 10 minutes, do not take 10 minutes.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support the motion to have a committee prepare a bill that would
deal with physician assisted suicide. We should not force a
prolonged painful dreadful death on a rational but incapacitated
terminally ill human being.
People are already being assisted with their suicides, with
their choice to die with dignity, but it is happening without
open discussion and without any safeguards. We need to clarify
the practice of any treatment that lessens suffering and may
shorten life and withholding or withdrawal of treatment that
would prolong life. When are these actions legally acceptable?
More important, when are they ethically and morally acceptable.
My mother at 59 suffered a heart attack and became mentally
incapacitated, but physically she was very strong.
I remember asking the doctor why she was not getting the
treatments that would help her. His reply was that she was old
and was now mentally handicapped. I argued and pushed for her to
have the treatments. She remained very strong physically but her
life was certainly limited. My life was devoted to her care.
1130
As time went on, another doctor asked if we should revive her if
she had another heart attack. I was appalled. I never believed
that I would be asked that question. I did not believe it was
for me to answer that question. It was her life. I had never
talked to my mother about death and I had never prepared myself
to answer a question like that. I never knew what her beliefs
were except that she was Catholic and it was not something she
wanted.
More than anything, she loved being alive. Her way of life was
different. It was limited but it was full of joy. She wanted to
be with her grandchildren and she wanted to be with me. That was
all that mattered and she loved it. I resented having that
question asked because I felt it was wrong. It was an ethical
question and if my mother had not made that choice, I was not
there to make it for her.
We need to know when the interest of the individual overrides
our concern for the whole of society and the implications that
physician assisted suicide poses for all of us. These changes,
should we make them, would not pre-empt palliative care, pain
control or symptom relief. We need safeguards for the sanctity
of life and we need to consider those safeguards.
Those who do not want to suffer must give informed voluntary
consent that is enduring and free of coercion and they must be
able to revoke that consent at any moment. They must be sound in
mind, competent and unimpaired when making their decisions and
their decisions must be based on complete medical knowledge of
their illness. A physician cannot be compelled in any way to
participate in the process and no one should ever gain in any way
from a physician assisted suicide. The decision must be made by
the individual, not by the family, friends, clergy, sons or
daughters.
We must let a committee hear all the moral, medical, legal,
ethical, religious and societal arguments and attempt to balance
those with the pleas of those suffering from a terminal illness.
When I travelled throughout the Yukon in January I spoke to high
school students. They were intrigued and fascinated by this
question. It was immediately something important to them. A
young First Nations boy knew he would do what his elders wanted,
that he would not oppose them. He felt he would be wrong in
opposing their wishes or the wishes of anyone who asked him for
help in that way. He wanted to know more and to talk more.
I telephoned my bishop to hear what he had to say and his
concerns. Where should we be going? What historical perspective
do we need on this issue? Most of all we cannot leave a person
to go into a vehicle, turn on the ignition and die alone and
deserted without any ceremony. We cannot allow people to end
their lives with indignity.
I believe it is critical to take this time to put all these
questions before our countrymen and women and to come to a
decision that will assist us all. Then we will not be caught
out. We will be able to discuss death and we will not be afraid
of it. When it comes to suicide we will be able to discuss the
shame we all feel, the sense of loss or the feeling that we have
somehow failed someone who no longer wants to be among us.
I support this motion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I realize
this motion is of considerable importance and great consequence.
What is this motion really about? We need to recognize it is
part of a political process. Instead of a motion that asks
specifically to permit euthanasia, it is legislation by degrees.
It first proposes that the committee study this issue in the
hopes that everybody will say yes.
Slowly we will be dragged along to accept something we recognize
deep inside ourselves is wrong. I believe most Canadians deeply
inside themselves know that it is wrong. I am speaking against
this motion simply because I am opposed strongly to the outcome
of what this motion proposes.
1135
I want to make it very clear that the whole issue of euthanasia
and the lack of it in this country has nothing to do with forcing
people to undergo continued suffering and artificially prolonging
life using extraordinary means. Within the legal values in our
country it is already a permissible act to ask that treatment be
discontinued. Any patient has the right to deny further
treatment.
I also want to emphasize that in our present technological age
there have been great advances made in palliative care and in
pain control.
The greatest danger in walking down this road is that it is the
beginning of a long road which will inevitably have serious
ramifications. There is no doubt in my mind as has been
experienced in The Netherlands that once we start, the pressure
will increase. Elderly people will feel if not direct pressure
then subtle pressure to try to save their family members from
their grief.
They speak of dying with dignity. I cannot help but think of
the passing away of my wife's father several years ago. He had
terminal cancer. He suffered with it, yes. There was pain, yes.
When I think of the term dying with dignity I think strongly of
my father-in-law Mr. Dan Klassen who to the very end kept a
strong faith, a strong love for his family. He told me “It is
tough to say goodbye. I would like so much to be with mom and
the children but I am ready to go. That account with God was
settled long ago”. He died with real dignity. That is the
dignity of which I speak.
In the past 30 years we have undergone a dramatic change in our
thinking. We have shifted 180° from the concept of the sanctity
of all human life to the bizarre notion that somehow death is
benign. That is a contradictory statement. I wish we would look
again at our values and our true roots. Why do we think that
death is an option? Is it because we despair of any other
solution to our problems?
I was deeply moved by the speech this morning of the hon. member
for Lac-Saint-Louis. His situation is very similar to that of my
family. I have spoken in the House before of my sister Marian,
who next week will turn 53. She lives in an extended care
centre. She was born with cerebral palsy. She cannot speak. She
never has. She cannot look after herself. She cannot dress
herself. She needs help with eating. She can sometimes eat on
her own, but it gets rather messy. However, there are loving
people in the facility who will help her clean up.
Somehow many people have come to the conclusion that it would be
better for people like her to die. That is a false assumption.
The facility in which she lives is a residential cottage in
which disabled people like my sister are looked after. The
cottages are brightly coloured. They are named after birds. My
sister is in the Swallow cottage along with 20 or 30 others.
I am going to paint a picture of the future if we continue this
way of thinking. What would we say if next Tuesday on my
sister's birthday a bus were to roll up to the Swallow cottage
and take the 20 or 30 residents to the hospital in downtown Moose
Jaw and all of those severely handicapped people would undergo
one last assessment after which they would be given a lethal
injection?
1140
On Wednesday the bus would go to the Swan cottage. On Thursday
the Robins would go. On Friday the residents of Owl cottage
would go, and so on. There would be 20 to 30 people each day.
There are 430 residents living there so it would take a whole
month. How many days would pass before there would be a
sufficient public outcry to stop this? Is this acceptable? I
say no, no, no, a thousand times no. That is not acceptable and
it is not a correct way of thinking.
Most of us, I believe, recognize that what I have proposed would
be terribly wrong. The simple question I ask is, if it is wrong
for all of them, how can it be right for any one of them? How
badly we have slipped when we are ready to accede to the notion
that the elderly, the handicapped or the suffering are not worthy
of being protected.
Recent events in my home province of Saskatchewan show that
there is a surprising level of support for ending the life of one
who cannot speak for herself. Where are we going? In my view,
if we go forward with what is proposed under the term doctor
assisted suicide, we are dangerously close to the scene that I
have described.
It is not possible to logically argue against it once we have
accepted that basic premise. How can we persuade our young
people who are contemplating suicide that death is not the answer
to their problem?
I cannot say it strongly enough. This whole notion of death to
end suffering, to remove a person whose quality of life is judged
to be less than acceptable is based on a wrong notion of false
premise. I regret that in our society today so many of us are
ready and willing to set aside those strong pillars of our
society that have protected us and have kept us safe for all
these years. In my view, we are indeed on a very dangerous slope
and slide to oblivion if we continue with this way of thinking.
There will be some who will argue why not have a committee study
it. The Senate committee has engaged in a prolonged study on
this. I do not believe that having a committee studying it
serves any purpose at all because we are fundamentally opposed to
it.
I will close by re-emphasizing my question which I want to burn
into the hearts of all of the members here. If it is wrong for
all of them, how can it possibly be right for any one of them?
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for his efforts in bringing
this important issue to the floor of the House.
The Parliament of Canada is in fact the proper place for a
debate of this magnitude. I was pleased to see that the late Mr.
Justice Sopinka recognized that judge-made laws in areas such as
this are frequently flawed and do not necessarily represent the
consensus values of Canadians. The late justice recognized that
the proper role of Parliament and its members is one of debate
and deliberation.
In matters such as euthanasia it is very difficult for justices,
no matter how learned, to properly deal with such an issue as
they are frequently confined to a narrow set of facts and are
limited by the laws of evidence on materiality and relevance. As
a consequence, by definition they are not able to look at the big
picture and are frequently in danger of making charter law which
is not consistent with Canadian values.
It is a sad day when legislators yield the legislative floor to
jurists. The effect is that we give up our democratic rights in
order to replace them with a jurocracy.
The issue that we are dealing with today is more than merely a
set of facts on individuals or a subset of individuals as
compelling as those facts may be.
1145
Members, from their own personal experience, can relate to a set
of circumstances in which an individual appeared to live a
prolonged life in great pain and a life of no apparent merit,
meaning or purpose within our understanding. I can relate to
that as immediately before the death of my father he found
himself in such circumstances.
The legislation appears to be merciful. Who can be against
mercy? It is called mercy killing by some. In reality, being
merciful is far more difficult than merely terminating another's
life. Mercy can be just as easily an act to relieve pain which
may in some manner prolong life.
For the purposes of debate I will define euthanasia as a act
which intentionally hastens another's life for the purpose of
relieving suffering with or without the person's consent. While
this topic opens up large moral questions, I will limit myself to
four main points.
First, consent is almost always problematic. Second, systemic
flaws inevitably result in abuse. Third, the state can never
sanction the taking of life. Fourth, the relief of pain and
suffering is the only appropriate response for limited resources.
The issue of consent is a troublesome one. Consent in law is
very complex and vexes the medical community on a daily basis.
The giving of consent must be voluntary and free of coercion. It
can be revoked at any time. All circumstances are examined at
the time of the giving of the consent, including those present
and those not present.
In the area of health care on matters of much lesser magnitude
than life or death, consent continues to be a problem of great
vexation for the medical community. It is a matter of daily
litigation in our courts. In my view there is no system mature
enough to recognize the granting of final, irrevocable consent to
terminate life. Therefore I am of the view that it is beyond the
wisdom of human beings to impute consent and that the ability of
the patient is impaired in some manner.
Frequently those in pain will say almost anything to be relieved
of pain, including an apparent consent to terminate their lives.
At best consent is temporal; at worst it is meaningless. Any
person purporting to act on such a consent is imputing an
intention which may or may not exist. In my view there is no
form of consent that can be given or drafted on which any other
person can rely.
This brings me to my next point, the use and abuse to which
consent could be put. I have operated in the justice system in
Ontario for the past 22 years. It has its flaws and it certainly
is underfunded. I would argue that it is among the best justice
systems in the world.
In spite of their heroic efforts and equally heroic efforts of
legislators to draft procedurally sound laws, it has been shown
to have a number of obvious weaknesses. These weaknesses have
manifested themselves in a number of ways. Victims have felt it
necessary to organize themselves so that their story does not get
lost. Caveat, MADD and such organizations exemplify flaws in the
justice system. Evidence disappears with disturbing regularity.
Witnesses contradict themselves and each other. This is as good
as the system gets in the world. It is far from perfect in
matters of criminality, let alone matters of life and death.
A few years ago parliament saw fit to abolish capital
punishment. As a consequence Messrs. Marshall, Morin and
Millgard are with us today. The state chose not to participate
in the taking of life because it recognized its own limitations
and flaws. It is my submission that no system can ever be
devised that could possibly prevent the wrongful taking of life.
1150
A simple example is our health care system which continues to be
underfunded and under tremendous strain. We are under continuous
pressure to free up resources. It is quite clear that one can
talk oneself into a position that one is merciful by ending Mrs.
Jones' life. My submission is that that will make the
difficulties of 1997-98 look like child's play.
My final point is to address the root motivation that brings
forth the legislation. It is very difficult for decent human
beings to watch people suffer, especially the ones we love.
I am told by competent health care professionals that a great
deal of pain related suffering can be alleviated by proper pain
therapies. In my view it would be the proper direction of this
legislature to encourage the medical profession to explore areas
of pain alleviation.
In summary, Mr. Justice Sopinka was right. This is a matter for
the House, not a matter for supreme court justices. We should
not be driven by a particularly egregious set of facts because
bad facts make bad law.
Consent in matters of life and death is almost impossible to
give and notoriously unreliable. No system, no matter how
carefully devised, will be free of abuse and misuse. The state
should not be involved in the sanctioning of the taking of life.
Relief of pain and suffering needs to be better researched and
better practised.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of my
colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party on this very
decisive and emotional issue. It is one that is obviously of
great importance to all Canadians and certainly, listening to the
comments in the House, of great importance to all members.
I should note from the outset that the Progressive Conservative
caucus has decided that each individual member should reflect on
his or her own conscience. As well, each and every member should
reflect on the views put forward by their constituents. As such,
our party will be voting on this motion accordingly.
While in the parliamentary sense our caucus has opted for a free
vote approach among members, there is nothing free about the
consequences of the motion put forward. Although the motion
merely deals with the convening of a special committee to examine
the Criminal Code provisions dealing with euthanasia and
physician assisted suicide, the long term consequences are
something that all members of this place, regardless of political
affiliation, will consider when reviewing such a motion.
Canadians from coast to coast, particularly those in the medical
profession, are in need of direction. Indeed most Canadians
sadly face at some time or another the devastating tragedy of
death whether by terminal illness, accident, age or infirmity.
I commend the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his hard work and
dedication to the issue. Whether one agrees or disagrees with
the member's stand, one cannot help but respect the strength and
passion the member brings to the House in this debate.
I also welcome the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas back to the
House after his very serious accident over the holidays. One
thing I have come to learn in the short time I have been in the
Chamber is that this place is a more lively and open forum with
the participation of the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Indeed it
would have been a shame had this debate taken place without his
presence. In any event, I wish the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas good health and best wishes for a speedy
recovery.
As previously mentioned, recent court cases have highlighted the
fact that euthanasia is on the minds of many Canadians.
Unfortunately specific case references can be misleading because
they are fact specific. As the hon. member opposite noted bad
facts do make for bad law. Regardless of whether one supports or
opposes the motion, in my view the very heart of euthanasia beats
with the question of life itself.
1155
When we look to the issue of abortion the question frequently
posed is when does life begin. As we look at this issue the
question we pose is simply when does life truly end. The
questions may be simple; the answers certainly are not.
Canadian society among many societies in the world has not been
able to reach a clear consensus. The continued advances made in
medical technology pose new questions on issues of life and
death. We need only to look at the developing controversy
surrounding the issue of human cloning to know this to be true.
It is very difficult to predict what the coming years may bring
if technology continues to advance at this pace.
Creating life, as ending it, inevitably prompts an atmosphere of
controversy. Those two inevitabilities provoke a moral and legal
debate of mammoth proportions. As many in the House know and
acknowledge, a Senate committee recently examined the question of
euthanasia. While consensus was not reached on the core issue
itself, two conclusions were reached that we should keep in mind
during this debate.
First is an increased need for long term palliative care in
Canada going unmet by the current health care system. Second,
both medical practitioners and personal care givers need better
guidance and protection so that they do not contravene sections
of the Criminal Code.
While I read and consider what medical advice can achieve today
compared to a hundred years ago I cannot help but be truly amazed
that the advances made in technology have literally changed the
rules of life and death. For example, medical practitioners are
able to treat pneumonia for a person suffering from terminal
cancer. Kidney failure or heart attack is no longer fatal at
times when met with appropriate medical interventions. Should we
now allow those same medical advances to alleviate the suffering
of terminally ill through the acceleration of death?
Let us consider the arguments of euthanasia proponents. They
point to a dramatically improving ability of providing palliative
care to persons suffering from long term afflictions. With
respect to the advances of medical and medicine technology, these
advocates would say that we as a society must stop asking the
question of what can be done medically and start asking instead
with the query of what should be done.
Medical ethics make the distinction between active and passive
euthanasia. I cite the basis upon which the North American
Medical Association distinguishes the two. This statement is
taken from the medical association:
The intentional termination of the life of one human being by
another—is contrary to that for which the medical profession
stands—The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means
to prolong the life of a body when there is irrefutable evidence
that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient
andor his immediate family.
There are others who clearly reject the clear-cut distinction
between active and passive euthanasia. These individuals would
claim that whether treatment is withdrawn to cause death or
treatment is applied to cause death the result is inevitable and
the same.
Philosopher James Rachels wrote the following to support this
view:
Fixing the cause of death may be very important from a legal
point of view, for it may determine whether criminal charges are
brought against a doctor. But I do not think that this motion
can be used to show a moral difference between active and passive
euthanasia.
The application of society's standards on individual questions
of life and death will always be difficult ones, especially
without clear answers to the questions of life and death. We are
never left to forget the question of the rights of the
individuals versus the rights of society.
Euthanasia proponents contend that individuals have the right to
decide their destinies, including the right to end their lives in
the event of terminal illness. Furthermore, they would have the
Criminal Code make allowances for terminally ill patients who
request euthanasia.
It is indeed difficult to ignore the pleas of those afflicted
with debilitating diseases. Certainly persons in the House and
Canadians throughout the land do not in any way want to see
individuals suffer. That principle however is paramount.
For those who strongly oppose any form of euthanasia and the
sanctity of life the questions of viability and of ensuring that
consent is voluntary are extremely important. They believe that
allowing for active euthanasia will lead to abuses. This is
again a grave concern. To die with dignity, certainly the last
wish we all have, will protect society and is nevertheless the
cornerstone of the Criminal Code of Canada.
1200
I am pleased to speak on this issue. I should note again that
the Progressive Conservative caucus will be releasing its members
from party lines to vote their conscience.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Finance ) moved
that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income
Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the
Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property
Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the
Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax
Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments
Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to
speak on behalf of the government in support of Bill C-28. This
legislation has many parts, as you so clearly outlined a few
seconds ago, but its actions are bound by a single consistent
dynamic: a strong economy, a strong society.
The relationship between a strong society and a strong economy
was highlighted in last fall's federal economic and fiscal
update. It has been at the heart of our government's action
agenda from the beginning of its first mandate.
We committed ourselves to a historic turnaround in Canada's
federal finances because we understood that sustained deficit
reduction was the key to lower interest rates and higher economic
growth. We also understood, and made quite clear, that lower
rates and higher growth are not ends in themselves. Instead,
they were the best way to achieve the real bottom line benefits
which Canadians deserve, more jobs and the national resources to
make strategic social investments where and when needed.
As we near a new millennium Canadians are even closer to the
threshold of a major change in our economic history, the day the
federal government is deficit free. This progress, coming faster
than we originally dared hope, is indeed delivering benefits we
always expected. It has created the conditions for lower
interest rates and sustained economic growth and these have set
the stage for further milestones.
Last year 363,000 new jobs were created. That is the best
record since 1994. In December the unemployment rate was the
lowest in seven years. This is one important human aspect of the
rewards which come from faster than expected fiscal progress.
Another vital dimension is reflected in today's legislation. We
are now in a position where we can make key social investments,
investments which respond directly and concretely to the concerns
of Canadians. Just as important, we can make these investments
without jeopardizing our continued advance to a balanced budget.
The most significant part of this legislation clearly is the
measure to increase the cash floor of funding to the provinces
under the Canada health and social transfer. Bill C-28 increases
the guaranteed amount of federal cash funding—funding for health
care, post-secondary education and social assistance and
services—from $11 billion to $12.5 billion a year through to the
year 2002-03.
It starts applying this higher cash floor one year earlier than
originally slated.
1205
This means the provinces will receive close to an extra $7
billion in cash over six years. That is by far the largest new
spending commitment we have made since first coming to office.
The CHST measure represents by far the most financially
substantive measure in Bill C-28 and the one ultimately affecting
the lives of most Canadians.
Before I get into the specifics of that measure, let me address
the other parts of this wide ranging bill and, in particular, the
two tax measures that also reflect our commitment to
strengthening Canadian society.
First, Bill C-28 follows through on our 1997 budget pledge to
help and encourage Canadians to save for the post-secondary
education of children. Under this legislation we are increasing
the amount that Canadians can invest in a registered education
savings plan from $2,000 to $4,000 a year for each student
beneficiary.
As well, Bill C-28 will allow someone who has contributed to an
RESP but who then sees the intended student not go on to
post-secondary education to transfer the income from the plan to
an RRSP. This will reduce the risk and the disincentive that
parents may face that the benefits of the RESP investment could
be completely forfeited if their child chooses not to pursue
higher education.
Indeed education is the equalizer, the instrument by which a
level playing field can be created for all Canadians to help them
compete in a fast paced changing economy. This important change
will continue to support the task of improving access to
post-secondary education for our youth.
Bill C-28 also takes important steps to encourage and support
charitable giving by Canadians. It increases the amount of
donations for which the charitable credit can generally be
claimed to 75% of net income from the previous 50% mark. This
75% limit will apply equally to all charities, eliminating the
previous advantage enjoyed by donations to the crown and crown
foundations.
The legislation also reduces the income inclusion rate on
capital gains arising from certain donations such as stocks,
shares and bonds from 75% to 37.5%. This was an area where the
existing tax law in Canada was much less generous than in the
U.S. Now, with Bill C-28, Canadian charities will enjoy an equal
footing with those in the United States.
Each of these three measures which affect the CHST, registered
education savings plans and charitable giving provides concrete
bottom line support in areas that contribute to the individual
well-being of millions of Canadians and to our nation as a whole.
Using the resources of a strong economy to ensure a secure and
compassionate society is a key obligation of government. However,
we must not put aside our work to maintain and expand that
economic strength. One of the foundations of a well-functioning
economy is an effective, fair and transparent tax system, a
system that allows companies and individuals to focus on the work
of building and growing their companies or personal endeavours
through real value added, not through manipulation of tax rules.
That is why Bill C-28 includes a range of technical tax
measures, including rules relating to transfer pricing. These
rules are based on international standards established by the
OECD and will ensure that when goods are transferred cross border
between elements of a multinational corporation, the pricing
involved is based on the principle of arm's length dealings. In
other words, companies will not be able to avoid or manipulate
taxes by setting a transfer price that is artificial or
arbitrary.
Rules that restrict the transferability of losses between
affiliated persons will ensure that the federal tax base is not
eroded by, for example, one company selling its tax losses to
another unaffiliated company.
Also included are rules that apply when a corporation becomes or
ceases to be exempt from income tax.
This ensures that a tax exempt crown corporation is not able to
store up tax deduction and credits if it does not need them and
then use them to reduce its taxable income and tax payable after
it has been privatized and becomes taxable.
1210
Finally, it includes a measure that ensures that there will be
no tax penalty for Canadians receiving disability benefits should
the insurance company paying the benefits become insolvent and an
employer takes on the responsibility for paying those benefits.
I should point out that these technical provisions of Bill C-28
regarding taxation were made public long ago through draft
legislation and ways and means motions. As a result they have
been closely scrutinized by private sector experts. The
legislation before us truly reflects the revisions and
improvements brought to us by such consultation and expert
commentary.
I am confident that these sections of Bill C-28 carry the
support and acceptance of the sectors involved and deserve the
same support from this House.
Let me return to the subject of the CHST as it is undoubtedly
the part of this legislation which touches most broadly on the
public interest.
It has been claimed by some, and will likely be said again
during the debate in this House, that Canada's provinces have
contributed an unfair share to federal deficit reduction. The
opposition parties may get up today to belittle the enrichment to
the CHST floor that Bill C-28 provides, arguing that we are merely
restoring some of the funds that we have taken away. Let us be
clear. The fact is that as we launched our deficit reduction
strategy a contribution from virtually all areas of federal spending
was the only way to get Canada's financial house in order.
Reductions were made in transfers to provinces under the CHST
when it took effect for 1996-97. This action was not unfair. It
was very necessary. It is because we took the necessary action
when we did that we can now say that the era of cuts is over. If
we had not taken the tough action that we did, today's
legislation might be very different.
Rather than providing renewed funding for key social programs,
we might be coming before this House to ask for new cuts and
additional restrictions. We do not have to look very far. The
Ontario government is today looking for billions of dollars more
out of its education programs to finance its premature tax cuts
and increased spending. Because we did what had to be done, when
it had to be done, we have been able to achieve the federal
fiscal success that is beginning to pay real dividends, dividends
of solid benefits to each province and all Canadian citizens.
Remember it was the strong majority of Canadians who demanded
that the deficit problem be resolved. They have supported our
action plan. Without their support our success would not have
been possible.
No objective observer can question what had to be done. The
hard truth is provincial transfers represent about 20% of all our
federal program spending. That is one dollar in every five.
There was simply no way we could meet out deficit commitment to
Canadians without touching transfers. We worked hard to make
these cuts as fair as possible. This deficit cutting exercise
was transparent. It was done in consultation with Canadians and
their provincial governments. We gave provinces a full year's
notice of our plans so that they had time to adjust their
priorities and programs.
There is another aspect of the CHST that demonstrates our
commitment to fairness and to positive partnership with the
provinces. In response to the provinces' request for flexibility
we restructured the previous system with its separate targeted
components into a single Canada health and social transfer. This
addressed the longstanding provincial concern that the inflexible
conditions associated with the previous transfer systems did not
allow them to meet specific regional needs and opportunities. We
instituted the CHST to deliver greater flexibility while still
firmly upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act.
1215
Mr. Speaker, you do not bring down a $42 billion deficit by
nibbling at the margins. This government tried to be as fair as
possible and that meant hitting ourselves harder than we cut
anyone else. Let us look at the facts. And as I said earlier,
the opposition parties will soon get up to talk about how we have
not cut any spending.
In 1996-97 total provincial entitlements including the CHST and
equalization amounted to $35.7 billion. That was a drop of $1.7
billion or 4.5% since 1993-94. I had better repeat that just so
we are very clear. The facts are that in 1996-97 total
provincial entitlements including the CHST and equalization
amounted to $35.7 billion. That was a drop of $1.7 billion or
4.5% since 1993-94.
In contrast, our own program spending declined $6.9 billion over
the same period. That is 12.5%, more than double the transfer
ratio. Some provinces and some in this House may try to give a
different set of numbers. That is because they refuse to
recognize that tax points are an important component of the total
provincial entitlement.
These tax points have been provided to the provinces over the
years. They mean real money in their hands and a real loss of
money to the federal government. In fact this year alone the
value of tax points we have ceded to the provinces is nearly $13
billion. That is why the total support to the provinces under
CHST today exceeds $25 billion.
An interesting point which needs to be made over and over again
is that the value of these tax points will grow as the economy
strengthens. That is why the total value of the CHST to provinces
is slated to increase 2.5% annually on average. This means that
the CHST is projected to reach more than $28 billion by 2002-03.
There are two final points I want to offer concerning the
enrichment of the CHST under this legislation.
First, the cash floor it sets is $12.5 billion. This was not
devised by some bureaucrats in the back room. This was not a
figure that was pulled out of the air. It is the precise amount
recommended by the National Forum on Health.
Some hon. members may remember that in last fall's economic
update the Minister of Finance said that the increase in cash
floor would mean an extra $6 billion for the provinces. Today,
as I said earlier, this cumulative gain will be nearly $7
billion.
Some may be wondering where the extra money came from. The fact
is that transfer payment schedules are re-estimated twice a year
as economic data moves from the realm of preliminary estimates to
final results. What this does is it again highlights the
benefits of the tax point component of the CHST. It is because
economic growth has been stronger than originally projected that
the tax point portion of the CHST is worth more.
When the discussion surrounding CHST occurs in the House, I hope
that members will continue to articulate the importance of the
tax point portion of the transfer because the tax point portion
will continue to increase as the economy grows. We have just seen
that in a very tangible way by an additional $1 billion flowing
through the CHST because of the increase in economic activity.
1220
Under the previous circumstances, before Bill C-28, before the
cash floor was put in, the increase in tax points would have
triggered a reduction in the cash portion of the federal funding
that provinces would receive. Because this legislation sets the
$12.5 billion cash floor, it cannot drop. The provinces get to
keep the extra dividend. That is the source of the additional $1
billion.
This legislation guarantees that the future growth in the tax
point component of the CHST will not see the cash portion decline
below $12.5 billion over the next five years. In other words, at
least $12.5 billion in federal funds will be there each and every
year. It will be there to help provinces provide the national
health care system which is cherished by Canadians. It will be
there to support the post-secondary education that gives young
Canadians new opportunities for the future. And it will be there
to support social assistance so Canadians in need will not be
abandoned or betrayed.
Canada's fiscal progress has been won by the hard work and the
shared commitment of the vast majority of Canadians. Now that
this progress is making possible renewed investment in key social
areas, it is only proper that such a dividend go where it does
the most good, toward helping the most Canadians. Surely the
Canada health and social transfer honours that criteria. Just as
surely, Bill C-28 deserves the support of each and every hon.
member of this House.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-28. I
wish a Happy New Year to you, Mr. Speaker, to all those who are
watching and to my colleagues across the way.
Sadly I cannot support Bill C-28. I am disappointed that the
government would bring in a tepid housekeeping bill as its first
order of business when real action is demanded in the country
today. In case my friends across the way have forgotten, we have
a debt of $600 billion. We have taxes that are far higher, 56%
higher than the taxes of our trading partners around the world.
My friend alluded to another problem just a minute ago. The
government has cut so dramatically in areas like hospitals and
higher education that many people are suffering today. Instead
of cutting into the government operations, as my friend suggested
they did, they really took the broad axe to hospital beds and
education instead.
I am disappointed this is the first piece of legislation. The
government could have made a better effort.
My friends across the way will undoubtedly be just about
dislocating their own shoulders from patting themselves on the
back because we are now in a position where we have a balanced
budget in our country. Reformers are certainly supporters of a
balanced budget. That is one of the reasons the Reform Party
came into being in the first place 10 years ago. We have been
pushing the government hard on this issue, but we disagree
completely with how the government achieved it.
I mentioned how the government has cut deeply, how it has cut
transfers to the provinces for hospital beds and for higher
education by 35%. However when it came to trimming its own
spending, the cut was around 13% despite the fact that in 1995
the finance minister told the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City
that when he made his cuts they would fall disproportionately on
government operations. That is unfortunately not the case.
My friends across the way feel that we can break out the
champagne since we have a balanced budget now. However, I want
to bring us back to reality by quoting from a couple of articles
printed recently in the Ottawa Citizen. An article written
by Nicholas Patterson on December 6 states:
Our standard of living and prosperity, compared to other
countries, has dropped like a stone from third highest in the
world to twelfth in less than a decade.
So says the World Bank, the leading global economic monitoring
agency, using the yardstick of national per capita income, the
universally accepted measure of economic success. And, Canada is
the only one of 13 major industrial countries to experience an
absolute decline in its real standard of living, an event
unprecedented for our country since the depression.
1225
He goes on to say:
Worse still, our “true” level of unemployment, at an
eye-popping 18%, is almost two and a half times worse than the
U.S., when discouraged unemployed workers and involuntary part
time workers are included. This is because in a healthy economy
like the U.S. with virtually full employment and emerging labour
shortages there are relatively few such workers since anyone who
wants a job can generally find one. Thus the failure of the
Canadian economy is a good deal worse than it first appears.
There is a more recent article and this comes from the
government itself, from an internal study done by the industry
department. This is from the Ottawa Citizen of Friday,
January 30:
But an internal study compiled by the industry department raises
serious doubts about whether Canada has much to brag about.
Here are some of the findings:
There is a worsening national income gap between Canada and the
U.S., with Americans now 25% richer than Canadians.
As the U.S. economy gets richer, it pays workers better. On
average, American manufacturing workers get paid $1 per hour more
than their Canadian counterparts. The salary gap is particularly
pronounced in occupations requiring high skills, with U.S.
engineers, computer scientists and architects earning on average
nearly $11,000 more than their Canadian counterparts in 1993.
I can speak from personal experience having sat on a plane not
too long ago with a bureaucrat from Revenue Canada who was at a
job fair in Toronto. He said that they were losing somewhere in
the range of 20 to 30 people a month from Revenue Canada in the
high tech industry to go not only to the private sector but
outside the country for precisely the reasons that are outlined
in this article.
Again, taxes and debt are absolutely killing prospects for many
bright young Canadians in this country. Unfortunately, my friend
across the way did not draw attention to this. The same article
goes on to say:
Not so long ago, Canadians were among the world's biggest
savers, but now they salt away a smaller share of their incomes
and hold more personal debt than do Americans. As of the end of
March 1997, Canadians were saving about 2% of their incomes, down
from close to 12% in 1989.
What a huge drop. The U.S. savings rate has held steady at
around 6%. The article goes on to say that the U.S. economy has
grown 5% faster than Canada's during the 1990s. It goes on to
say that in the vast services portion of the economy, and even in
natural resources and agriculture, American companies are growing
faster while Canadian companies are losing ground.
We have a dollar that is now worth what, 68 cents, if we are
lucky. And we cannot keep with the Americans when it comes to
natural resources. Here is a country that is blessed with
unbelievable natural resources, but our industries cannot keep up
even with the 68 cent dollar.
My friends opposite want to paint a rosy picture. I do not buy
it for a moment. The government's own study goes on to say that
in total the Canadian manufacturing industries have been
calculated to be only 70% as productive as their U.S.
counterparts. It goes on to say that Canadian workers are now one
quarter less productive than American workers.
I do not think that is any reason to break out the champagne. I
think it is ridiculous that the government somehow thinks it
defeated all the economic monsters out there. We have a balanced
budget. That is all. We still have a debt of $600 billion.
To help balance the budget, the government raised taxes 37
times, including the massive tax increase that came in on January
1, the CPP tax hike. I am not as excited as my friends across
the way about their progress with respect to the economy in this
country.
1230
Just a day or two ago I saw an article in the Globe and
Mail concerning how the country's economy had gone soft in
November. We saw a drop in GDP. People are concerned that
perhaps the government has put on its rose coloured glasses.
In light of all these problems, I call on my colleagues in the
House to join me in making a couple of new year resolutions. We
are at the beginning of the parliamentary new year so we can make
a couple of new year resolutions. The first one is that we
should resolve to give Canadians back control over their own
lives. We do that by controlling the size and reach of
governments. Let us resolve to give Canadians back some control.
The second resolution I would make, which relates pretty closely
to the first one, is to support the family budget by ensuring
that we control the size and appetite of the federal budget.
In addressing the first resolution, giving Canadians back
control over their lives, I simply point out that Canadians today
work six months out of the year simply to pay their taxes; 48
cents of every dollar they earn now goes to pay taxes. Right
away Canadians have lost a substantial amount of control over
their own lives. Half their income is gone which leaves them
with fewer options. They have to do all the things that families
want to do with 52 cent dollars. If they want to put their kids
through university they have to do it with a 52 cent dollar. If
they want to go on vacation it is with a 52 cent dollar unless
they go to the United States in which case it is probably a 25
cent dollar.
An hon. member: After tax.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, after tax. If they want to put
the kids in ballet or in hockey they have to do it with 52 cent
dollars. This makes it extraordinarily difficult. Sometimes
people have to sacrifice these things and often they do. Since
1990 disposable incomes in Canada have fallen by $3,000 for the
average family of four. This makes it extraordinarily hard for
people to live their lives as they want to do.
I point to another example of where I feel the government has
taken over too much control of the lives of Canadians. The most
timely one is the Canada pension plan. For the last 30 years the
government decided it would look after pensions for Canadians.
Over the last 30 years governments knew the Canada pension plan
was going off the rails. In fact when it was set up it was
doomed to fail. For 30 years the Conservative and Liberal
governments did nothing. In the meantime a liability of almost
$600 billion was run up.
All this is coming to light and the government's only solution
is to keep control of a plan which it has absolutely botched. It
is now asking all working Canadians to pay another $700 a year as
a reward for the job they have done for the government to provide
them with the same pensions they were getting before, $8,800 a
year. Actually it is a little less than they were getting
before.
It is time for the government to begin giving up some control.
Let us let workers control the money they now have to give to
government. Some young entrepreneur who is just entering the
workforce today will have to pay $3,200 a year for the next 45 or
47 years, until they are 65 years old, to get a pension of
$8,800. That is so ridiculous it hardly deserves comment.
Unfortunately that is what is happening. The government refuses
to consider any of the options.
Around the world countries such as Australia, the U.K. and the
United States are moving toward the idea of a personalized RRSP
type system. They are giving workers control over their own
lives. People are building up huge retirement accounts for
themselves and for their families. However our power hungry
government steadfastly refuses to do so.
I do not know what else to attribute it to. The government
refuses to allow Canadians to retain control over their own
income. I do not understand why. I do not understand why the
government never considered looking at some of the other options
when it was investigating all this a couple of years ago.
1235
Government members went across the country to talk with
Canadians about what government should do about the $600 billion
liability. They only met with 270 Canadians who were told “Your
only option is to fix the plan as it now is”. That was the only
option offered. That is ridiculous.
If there is to be a consultative process in a modern democracy,
government should be willing to consider all options. Sadly that
was not done and Canadians are now saddled with an unbelievably
unfair tax hike that will hurt young Canadians more than anybody.
It will drive a wedge between generations in years to come.
What is the solution to the problem of government grabbing more
and more control and getting bigger and bigger? The solution is
obvious. We should simply return to the tradition of limited
government which we had for close to the first 100 years of
Confederation. Until 1965 the level of Canada's taxes compared
to the economy was only 27.7%. The G-7 average was 27.6%. We
were almost exactly on par. The 1996 statistics indicate that
Canada's taxes as a percentage of the size of the economy
represent 43%. The G-7 average is 36%.
Not only have we grown tremendously relative to how much we
taxed people in 1965. We have also grown tremendously compared
to our trading partners in the G-7. We are about 25% higher than
them in terms of the total economy. Our income taxes are 56%
higher than those of our G-7 trading partners.
We should return to the tradition we had of limited government,
a government that lives within its means, does a few things well
that only the federal government can do and should do, and a
government that allows the provinces, municipalities,
individuals, families and charities to do all the rest. Does it
not make sense for the federal government to focus on the things
only it can do?
It would have benefits well beyond saving a few dollars. Maybe
we would have a government that was actually effective at
delivering some of the essential services which only the federal
government can deliver.
Imagine if the federal government took all the bureaucrats who
occupy the buildings in downtown Ottawa and focused them on
fixing the criminal justice system. We might even have a
criminal justice system in which Canadians have confidence.
Imagine if we focused some of the savings on equipping our
Canadian military? The Reform Party raised the issue, before the
House rose for the Christmas recess, of a soldier in Bosnia who
suffered head injuries when a vehicle rolled over because we
could not supply him with a helmet. I cannot believe it.
The federal government should focus on fixing the Canadian
military and providing the equipment that is needed. Our
soldiers did an outstanding job in helping Quebeckers and
Ontarians during the recent ice storm. Let us give them the
equipment to do the job when they go overseas to Bosnia or Haiti
or wherever they are sent. That is the sort of thing the federal
government should focus on. If it did those things instead of
getting into all these other things it would have the money to do
so.
My friend across the way is saying we need the money. Of course
we need money. However, instead of spending $24 million on a
flag program at the same time that hospital beds were being cut,
maybe the government should have taken a look at the priorities
of Canadians.
One solution in giving Canadians more control over their lives
is simply to return to our tradition of limited government, a
government which lives within its means, a government which does
not spent more than it takes in.
1240
Our party would invoke balanced budget legislation to ensure
that legislators keep their promises and live within their means
so that we do not saddle future generations with huge amounts of
debt either through CPP or through the debt the federal
government has already built up.
My second point is that it is time to support the family budget
by controlling the appetite of the federal budget. There are
three steps in doing so. The first step is that we have to
freeze spending at its current levels and reallocate spending
within those levels, within the hundred billion dollar budget.
If we did that, what would happen very quickly is that money
that goes toward flag programs would get put into health care.
Money that goes to building golf courses, which is something the
government actually does, believe it or not, would go into things
like research and development. If spending were reallocated into
things Canadians really care about, people would be forever
thankful to the federal government for finally doing the things
they care about.
If the government focused on fixing the criminal justice system
and doing those sorts of things instead of getting into fuzzy,
ill defined projects, Canadians would be quite grateful.
The second step is to secure our future by paying down debt. My
friends across the way proposed in the election campaign last
year, in the throne speech and recently in the prebudget report
of the finance committee that they would like to see 50% of any
surpluses spent on new spending. That shocked me. I could not
believe it when I heard it.
We are just emerging from a deficit we have had for 27 years. We
have a debt of $600 billion. The average family pays $6,000 a
year in tax just to pay their share of interest on the debt. It
is unbelievable. My friends across the way want to start
spending again. I cannot believe how imprudent, how foolhardy
that approach is. It is absolutely ridiculous.
We need a plan to pay down the debt. The government does not
have a plan. The Reform Party has come up with a plan. If we
took half the surpluses we will soon be running and devoted them
toward paying down debt, we would very quickly be in a situation
where we would have reduced our debt to GDP ratio from over 70%
down now to about 20% by 2016.
In the process of doing so, when we get down to about 45% of GDP
mark we would probably start to recapture our triple a
credit rating and interest costs would start going down. When we
get down to about 20% of GDP, or a real cut of around $240
billion in overall debt, there would be a savings every year of
about $20 billion in interest payments Canadians are currently
making. That $20 billion could go back into hospitals, research
and development, or possibly be used to deal with the huge
unfunded liability in the Canada pension plan. A lot could be
done with that $20 billion.
I must point out to my friends across the way how imprudent they
are. We have a debt of $600 billion. We have a global
marketplace and a global environment. We have things like an
Asian crisis that help spike interest rates or cause all kinds of
volatility. Unfortunately the government in its wisdom does not
think it is a problem. It would rather take any surpluses and
devote them to new spending.
My final point is that we must create an environment for
prosperity and opportunity. We should not be driving up taxes
evermore. Our income tax is 56% higher than the G-7 average,
according to a report from the government's industry department.
We are 25% less wealthy than our American colleagues across the
boarder.
The Reform Party would take the other half of the surplus and
devote it to lowering taxes. That would do more for the average
Canadian then all the fuzzy headed social programs the government
is embarking on, the 31 new programs it announced in the throne
speech.
1245
My other point is that my friends across the way have made a
history in this country with the claim that they are more
compassionate. I will address that head on. I wonder how
compassionate it is to allow a family of four with an income of
$32,000 to pay $3,000 in federal income tax. How compassionate
is it to allow a single mother with one child, a waitress who
makes $15,000, to pay over $1,300 in income tax?
Canada is the stingiest of all G-7 trading partners in how we
treat low income Canadians with respect to basic exemptions. We
are the stingiest. That is unbelievable to me. We always hear
about Canada's tolerance and compassion. Where is the tolerance
and compassion in that? Let us elevate all those people. Let us
lift them off the tax rolls by bringing in tax relief that will
allow those people to not pay any federal income tax.
I have raised the following issue in the House before and it
deserves mention again. We have talked about people like Alice
Strelaf, an older lady who lives in Abbotsford. She wrote to us
because she was concerned about her personal situation. She had
an income of about $18,000. She had to mortgage her home in
order to pay income tax. She had to turn down the heat in her
house so she could somehow get by. She is paying thousands of
dollars in taxes every year. That is ridiculous.
There is a lot the government can do to help people. It can
break that ridiculous promise it made in the election campaign
and devote more of that money to paying down the debt on one hand
and to lowering taxes on the other.
Bill C-28 is insubstantial stuff. It does not address the real
issues that Canadians are concerned about. From an unemployment
rate of 8.6% to staggering taxes to record high debt, those
things need to be addressed. We need to address what would
happen to the strength of the dollar if we suddenly started to
pay down debt. It would go up dramatically. We need to deal
with those issues and not the insubstantial housekeeping stuff
the government seems to think is so important.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker,
before I begin to speak to Bill C-28, I would ask your permission
to pay special tribute to the people of my riding of
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who, with courage and determination and
always a smile, endured—and some of them are still enduring—
the hardships of the ice storm in the past month.
I would say to them that I and my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois—I see the member for Drummond is here—will support
them to the end. We will support them in their difficulties, as we
have since the start of this disaster, and we will continue to
ensure that they are treated properly.
I refer, among other things, to the promise made by the Minister of
Human Resources Development to eliminate the qualifying period and
to not collect overpayments from the victims of the storm. I am
talking as well about the various programs for small and medium
size businesses, the very small businesses and the self-employed.
I can assure you that my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and
I will work tirelessly to ensure that these people and companies
obtain satisfaction when they need the full support and all the
efforts of the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
A famous Quebec legislator has always said that, when an
omnibus bill is presented in Parliament—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would ask my Liberal colleague for a
little more respect, because we have important things to say to his
government and especially to the Minister of Finance.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, could you ask my Liberal
colleague to show a little respect, please?
1250
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I ask the hon. member
to please listen to the debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you for your comment, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying, a great Quebec legislator always said that,
when a government introduced an omnibus bill in the House, you had
better watch out. You had better read between the lines, and watch
out for the tiniest, apparently minor provisions, because they
might be what we call “fast ones”.
So it is with Bill C-28 before us. Setting aside the fact that
it provides for cumulative cuts of $42 billion up until 2003 in
provincial transfer payments for social assistance,
post-secondary education and health—my colleagues, the hon.
members for Drummond and Lotbinière will be speaking about this a
bit later on—setting aside these outrageous provisions
introduced by the Minister of Finance a few years back, which
were made somewhat more palatable by the $6 billion reduction in
cuts already announced, a careful look at this 464 page omnibus
bill reveals a little surprise.
What is this provision we find troublesome? It can be found
in paragraphs 241(1) and (2).
Clause 241 proposes amendments to the tax treatment of profits
generated by offshore subsidiaries involved in international
shipping, and these tax changes, retroactive to 1995, could mean
that a certain number of individuals among the richest taxpayers in
Canada could benefit from tax deductions that would be possible
only if Bill C-28 were passed.
We suspect that clause 241 very clearly represents an apparent
conflict of interest, and we will show why over the next few
minutes. It is an apparent conflict of interest that could be
very, very serious.
To go right back to the beginning of the story, prior to 1972,
the federal government had become aware that the richest taxpayers
in Canada were taking advantage of their position to hire
specialists, including taxation specialists who were earning a
pretty penny providing this type of advice, and dummy corporations
were being set up outside the country, dormant corporations as they
are called, holding corporate shares, particularly in the area of
international shipping.
Prior to 1972, the government looked into the situation
thoroughly, and found that these offshore companies were being set
up in what are considered tax havens, countries such as Liberia,
Bermuda and Barbados. Tax havens are places where corporate taxes
are very low, or in the case of Liberia, non-existent.
So they became aware that some rich Canadian taxpayers were
setting up these dummy companies in countries considered tax
havens, investing in them shares of foreign companies directly
involved in maritime shipping. In 1972, therefore, the federal
government decided to reform the corporate taxation system to some
extent. This was in response to the Carter report and part of the
overall movement to make the Canadian taxation system more
equitable. In 1972, the federal government reformed the provisions
concerning investment or stock administration companies handling
shares of foreign corporations located abroad.
It stated that, in future, Canadian owners of foreign
corporations, with no production activity and merely administering
the shares of other foreign corporations involved in maritime
shipping, ought to pay annual taxes, the present level of which is
around 38%.
This tax was to be paid annually to Revenue Canada. So all
dividends on shares held by foreign investment companies and owned
by Canadians, were to be taxed by Revenue Canada, in other words
any interest or dividends paid, and so on.
1255
This sort of income has been called foreign accrual property
income, or FAPI, as the tax people know it.
So, as of today, any interest income drawn from this sort of
bogus company must be included in the income of the Canadian
resident and taxed at the current rate of approximately 38%. This
applied from 1972 to date. Right up to today these businesses have
been paying tax annually. They are obliged to do so.
Let us take a 1998 example. A Canadian business opens a
subsidiary abroad in a country considered a tax haven, such as
Liberia or Barbados.
In Liberia, the business is set up to manage the stock portfolio of
a foreign resident and the stocks are those of a marine
transportation business located in another foreign country, also a
tax haven.
When the shipping company pays dividends to the second
company, which simply manages the shares it owns in the first
company, the dividends are taxed by Revenue Canada.
Bill C-28 changes the rules for international marine
transportation. Now, even though the business is nothing more than
a bogus company abroad which holds the stocks of businesses
involved in international marine transportation in foreign
countries, the dividends paid to it will no longer be taxed
annually by Revenue Canada so long as they are not returned to
Canada by the mother company in Canada, and I am quoting the
explanatory notes in C-28 for clause 241.
Paragraph 250(6)—of the current legislation—is amended to ensure that
holding shares in marine shipping subsidiary is considered as equivalent
to operating a shipping business. The corporation itself must meet the
principal business criteria or hold throughout the year shares of one or
more subsidiary wholly-owned corporations.
In other words, at present and until Bill C-28 is passed, any
bogus corporation owned by a Canadian citizen abroad, in a country
considered to be a tax haven, is required to pay taxes to the Government
of Canada on an annual basis. With the new provision in Bill C-28
amending section 250 of the Income Tax Act, this corporation would not
be required to pay taxes to Revenue Canada as long as the Canadian
corporation's dividends have not been repatriated to Canada.
This is a way for shipping corporations involved in international
traffic to save tens of millions of dollars in taxes owed to the
Canadian government.
I must point out that the bill provides for this provision to be
retroactive to 1995. Taxpayers seldom benefit from retroactive measures.
The government usually proposes retroactive measures when it stands to
gain, but this measure, retroactive to 1995, where international
shipping corporations will not be required to pay taxes on an annual
basis, benefits about 10 or 11 corporations right now.
Let us take one of these 10 or 11 Canadian corporations that most
Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are familiar with for having seen its
ships, which are registered in Liberia, on the St. Lawrence River and
near the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Let us take Canada Steamship Lines Inc. as an example.
Canada Steamship Lines Inc. deals in international shipping. It is
a Canadian corporation owned by the CSL group. This Canadian corporation
owns abroad, namely in Bermuda, another corporation which manages equity
holdings known as CSL Self Unloader Investment Limited.
What this corporation does is hold shares in approximately eight
corporations in Liberia, Bermuda and Barbados, which operate ships and
are involved in shipping.
1300
The first company, CSL Self Unloader Investment, which is based in
Bermuda, collects the dividends paid by these eight companies through
transportation activities. The dividends collected by Bermuda's CSL Self
Unloader Investment are currently taxed on an annual basis by the
Canadian government, because the business is deemed to be Canadian and
must thus pay taxes to the Canadian government.
What would happen under Bill C-28? Under clause 241 of Bill C-28,
Canada Steamship Lines, in Bermuda, which manages the investments,
including the portfolios of companies that are truly in the
transportation business, would no longer have to pay taxes to the
Canadian government. The change would be retroactive to 1995, which
means that if CSL Self Unloader Investment, in Bermuda, has already paid
taxes to the Canadian government, it would get a tax refund. The company
is currently taxed at about 38% on the dividends and other securities in
its portfolio, which it manages for the Canada Steamship Lines group
based in Canada.
Clause 241 of Bill C-28 proposes a major change to a tax system
that has been in place since 1972.
It is a change that applies specifically to Canadian shipping companies.
As you know, this means only about ten Canadian companies, which are all
members of the Canadian Ship Owners Association. Out of these ten
companies, there may be two or three that can benefit from the new
provisions and save millions in taxes, retroactively to 1995. One of
them is Canada Steamship Lines.
Need I tell you who owns Canada Steamship Lines? It is the finance
minister, the man behind Bill C-28 and its sponsor. Given what I have
just said, one has to wonder.
First, and this is a question to the government: who asked for such
a specific change, a change that would affect at the most ten Canadian
shipping companies?
The possibilities are tremendous for two or three of them, Canada
Steamship Lines in particular. Who called for these amendments?
Not the Canadian Lake Carriers Association, because we were
speaking with its vice-president, Mr. Lanteigne, only this morning,
and he told us it was the first he had heard of it. They were not
the ones calling for these amendments.
So who asked for a specific amendment, which is so
advantageous for international shipping and potentially very
advantageous for the Minister of Finance?
The second question is how much of a tax saving would this new
provision in clause 241 of Bill C-28 represent for the few shipping
corporations involved in international shipping? Of these
corporations, how much would Canada Steamship Lines, owned 100% by
the present Minister of Finance, pocket in tax savings if Bill C-28
were passed?
We know that the Minister of Finance has been the sole owner of the
Canadian arm of Canada Steamship Lines since 1988. How much would
this corporation pocket with Bill C-28 and the provisions in clause
241?
Then there is the next question, which we are entitled to ask
as taxpayers, as citizens of this country, as the government, as
lawmakers. If the Minister of Finance is the man behind a bill in
which he also has a stake and stands to benefit from substantial
tax savings through a corporation in which he holds shares, is that
not a conflict of interest, or an apparent conflict of interest,
which is questionable from a public and ethical point of view?
1305
Those are the five questions that really concern the
opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, and that appear on half a page of
the 464 pages introduced by the Minister of Finance at the very end
in what is called “certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act”.
Buried in this 464-page bill is a two-paragraph provision that
makes us suspect an actual or apparent conflict of interest
involving the legislator—the Minister of Finance—and the
principal shareholder of Canada Steamship Lines—who is also the
Minister of Finance.
Until we get answers to these five questions, clear and
unambiguous answers from the government and the Minister of
Finance, we in the Bloc Quebecois will fight with our last drop of
energy what appears to be a conflict of interest, what appears to
be an unfair advantage to a very small portion of Canada's
population, the richest Canadians, with the Minister of Finance as
one of their prime representatives.
Rest assured that, because of this provision—and many
others as well, but we will await the answers to the five questions—we
will vigorously oppose the passage of Bill C-28 and strive to
obtain answers to our questions, which are fundamental and related
to a short provision that benefits certain people who are in
conflict of interest.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I join my
colleagues in wishing you a Happy New Year. It is great to be
back after the recess, and we are back right into it with this
tax bill, Bill C-28. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that over the
holidays you read this bill carefully just as the rest of us did.
It is a very complicated bill but a very important one which
sends an interesting signal.
I listened with interest to my friend the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance when he made his
presentation today on Bill C-28. He began with an interesting
comment. He said that Bill C-28 is being introduced today under
the umbrella of a prosperous, dynamic and strong economy. I
wonder where he has been in the last six or seven weeks. He
obviously has not been in Canada but in some other country.
Just today the financial pages talk about how the increasing
interest rates will cut off any hint of economic recovery. The
papers talk about the widening gap between the rich and the poor
in Canada. They point out that 42% of young families today are
living in poverty. Think of that. As Parliament resumes its
work today, 42% of young families in Canada are starting out
their lives in poverty. Two out of five young families start
their lives out in poverty. The papers say that 400,000 young
people in Canada do not even have jobs period. Many more have
two or three crummy part time jobs as they try to make a go of it
but there are 400,000 young people without jobs at all.
Today's papers talk about the student debt load. They say that
for those students who are in debt, which is now about half of
all students, the average debt load at the end of this year will
be about $25,000. What a wonderful way to start off in life. You
graduate, you seek out a job to begin your career and the folks
in the program who are here with us today will know what I am
talking about. A $25,000 debt load is a huge albatross. It is
like walking around with a big rock on your shoulders the minute
you step out into the workforce.
The papers go on to tell us that the unemployment rate is about
9%. This is the 88th consecutive month that the rate has been 9%
or worse. The papers talk about the dollar which is at historic
lows, a reflection of what other people think of Canada in real
terms. They want to get their money out of here and buy American
dollars. They look around and say that this does not look too
good. Our dollar is at historic lows.
Bankruptcies are now running at just under 10,000 a month. These
are bankruptcies, when all else fails and you have to declare
bankruptcy. There are 10,000 a month, year after year, month
after month.
1310
Then there is this whole merger mania. I noticed that not too
many people talked about the merger mania that has taken over.
Our two great big banks want to become one monster mega bank.
This is going to be helpful to Canadian consumers and the small
business entrepreneurs?
When my friendly parliamentary secretary says the economy is
strong, I wonder where the hell he has been. He sure has not
been in this country. He is obviously talking of some foreign
country and I am not sure which one. He is on the finance
committee as have been the other speakers.
When the finance committee toured Canada prior to Christmas, we
did not hear glory reports from people about the strong economy.
We heard stories of misery and of pain. There were people before
those very formal hearings with tears running down their faces
because they had to describe the kind of torment they were living
in trying to raise their families with no jobs and no hope of a
job.
We in this place should be embarrassed. All of us should be
standing up and saying we are embarrassed that we have allowed
the economy of the strongest most dynamic country in the world to
end up in this bloody mess. For the minister to say it is great
news, that everything is fine reminds me of the worst drunk, the
person who suffers from mega alcoholism and tells people time and
time again “I do not have drinking problem”. We have some
serious problems.
As my leader said the other day, it is sort of like a
Titanic economy. Remember when the old Titanic went
down, two-thirds of all those folks in first class passage got
off in lifeboats. They got preferential treatment and they did
okay. But two-thirds of the people who were in the steerage
compartments were actually locked down below so they could not
get to the deck. They drowned. They were not rescued.
It is a Titanic economy. Some people are doing very well
naturally. I can imagine how Mr. Matthew Barrett of the Bank of
Montreal is feeling these days. He has pulled off the con of a
lifetime. He has told the Minister of Finance “I do not care, I
know you will cave in”. He knows full well that in spite of all
the talk the Minister of Finance is doing about being concerned
about this and that and we should feel challenged by this, the
government will cave in and will give those banks the old nod.
After all, it just signed the WTO financial agreement that
facilitates this process. It facilitates the merger takeover
business.
I want to start off my comments today on Bill C-28 by saying we
are not enthusiastic about this legislation. I am not going to
stand here and say there is nothing good in this legislation.
Some provisions are very helpful to a lot of Canadian families.
For example there are the changes to the RESP to assist families
to provide for their children's education. It does reflect the
fact that the present government has abandoned much of its
traditional support for education. We have been encouraged by
some recent comments, but by and large it reflects the fact that
the government has backed out of funding universities and
colleges and the research facilities across this country, as has
been done in the past. We now have simply transferred our debt
issue into the hands of those families trying to afford their
children's education.
It is easy to solve the debt load, to stand up and say we are
almost deficit free, that we have won this war against the
deficit when it is simply handed off to students so they have
$25,000 in debt. It is handed off to our families, to the
jobless, to the provinces so they have to shut down provincial
health care systems and so on. It is easy, but have we really
solved the thing? That is the question. RESP is a good step but
it reflects the government's abandonment of education to a
certain extent.
Increasing the encouragement for charitable giving is a good
step. But let us also acknowledge the fact that again the
government has essentially abandoned huge sectors of the economy
that traditionally have looked to the federal government for
leadership and for support. I am thinking particularly of the
cultural industry or the granting agencies like the Medical
Research Council. They have traditionally expected that Canada
would provide global leadership on things like supporting pure
research in those areas. This has not only a job benefit but it
encourages those people who are in those fields to stay in Canada
and work for future generations.
The rules relating to transfer of pricing are long overdue and
are a positive step. The tax loss transfers from crown
corporations will be helpful in building more fairness into the
system. The minor support for the folks who are disabled is a
good step.
1315
The real irritant in the legislation is the CHST mentioned by
the parliamentary secretary, the transfer payments for health
care and education. Somehow in his convoluted mumbo-jumbo he
tried to give the impression that the government was actually
increasing spending and support in the areas of education and
health care.
That is a bit like going down the street and being mugged. The
robber sticks you up and says “Hand over your money”. You hand
over $100 which is all you have in your wallet. Then he asks
where you are from and you say “Alberta”. He says “Shucks,
you have to get back there. Here is 10 bucks back for your bus
fare”. You are supposed to be delighted that the robber gave
you 10 bucks after stealing 100 from you.
That is what these folks have done. They have taken billions
and billions and billions of dollars out of the transfers to
provinces for health care and education and now say they will
establish a floor of $12.5 billion. Somehow we are supposed to
be joyful at the news. It is a bit of a con job, a smokescreen,
a magic act that I do not think anyone will believe. I could not
believe my hon. friend actually had the courage to say it but he
did.
Let us be clear that after years of cutting, cutting and
cutting, almost to the point of destroying our a universal health
care system, the government is putting on a ceiling. Every cloud
has a silver lining. If there is a good side to the issue I
suppose it is the fact that the government has at least put a
bottom line on cash transfers. We remember the way it was going,
that in a few years there would be no cash transfers and the
federal government would not have any leverage at all in terms of
national standards for health care.
There is an element of encouragement here. At least there will
be a bottom line below which we will not go in terms of transfers
to the provinces for health care. This would be helpful in the
future to allow us to ensure once again that we do not have a
patchwork health care system across the country and that health
care is the same from coast to coast. Under the present system
that would not take place.
The parliamentary secretary said we had to remember that with
tax points revenues will grow as the economy grows. The economy
will grow stronger in some parts of Canada than it will in
others. That means our patchwork quilt health care system will
be emphasized. It will be better in some provinces where there
will be better access to health care compared to other provinces.
That is not what Canada is all about. That is not what a
country is all about. We do not want a different health care
system between the provinces and the territories. We have to
guard against that.
I quote from someone with whom we are all extremely familiar,
Mr. Tom Kent, a senior policy aid to Lester Pearson when he was
in opposition and later when he became prime minister. He was
really the inspiration and brains behind the federal Liberal
Party's shift toward a more active role in social policies in the
1960s. He was one of the major proponents of the health care
system that distinguishes our country from the United States and
from most countries in the world by having the kind of health
care system we have developed over the years.
What did he have to say? Tom Kent made a blistering critique of
the Liberal government's betrayal of medicare. It went on and on
and on. He accused the federal government of putting medicare at
a crucial crossroads by neglecting to properly fund it. The
slashing of transfer payments for provincial social programs like
medicare from $19.3 billion annually down to now $12.5 billion
has placed medicare at a crucial crossroads.
Never before has it been attacked by such a senior and well
respected person from Liberal history. He went on at some
length. I could quote at some length all the comments he made
the other day.
Tom Kent, a person we all respect for his sophistication,
knowledge, views and dedication to the country, the health care
system and the Liberal Party, publicly criticized the Liberal
government of today by saying that what it was doing was
absolutely wrong. He said that hopefully this would stimulate a
debate which would move the Liberal Party back toward a more
social reformist stance. Then he would be very delighted.
1320
Let us get the facts on the table. When the government says
that it is restoring funding for health care, we are a long way
from what it needs to be. We have to take strong steps in that
direction.
I want to comment on the speeches made by the Reform Party
members who have spoken on the legislation. It should change its
name to the party of surgeons because it loves cuts. It wants to
cut even more. I cannot imagine that anyone who has talked to a
citizen in the last week would say that we need more cuts to
social programs or that we need to cut back even more.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friends across the way say shame, and
so they should.
On the weekend I was walking up a street in Kamloops when a
fellow ran out of a little Chinese restaurant and said “Mr.
Riis, come and have a tea with my friend and I” I said I would
be glad to. We went in and poured out some Chinese tea; it was
just after Chinese new year.
He said “I want you to explain why the government has done what
it has to me”. I said “What is that?” He told me his name
was Russell and his friend's name was Gary. They were probably
in their mid-forties. They had both lost their families through
divorce and their kids were living with their mothers. They were
living on their own and were both on disability pensions of some
kind. They were former drivers of Greyhound buses before it was
changed. They had lost their jobs, were on disability pensions
and were both living on just under $800 a month.
They asked “How can a family live on $800 a month?” How could
they as individuals live on $800 a month? They said “When you
get back to Ottawa ask the Minister of Finance that question”.
Rhetorically I am asking the Minister of Finance to explain to
Canadians who are left with $800 a month to live on how he would
recommend they do that.
It is impossible to live a life of dignity with an income of
$800 a month. It is impossible to provide adequately for oneself
or one's family on $800 month. Yet that is what these two
individuals, as an example of tens of thousands of others, are
forced to do these days.
When Reform Party members say that transfer payments should be
cut back even more I wonder what planet these folks are living
on. Do they actually mean we should be cutting more transfers to
provincial governments for health care, education and social
programs? Perhaps my friends will answer that later today.
Do they actually think we should cut more to the Medical
Research Council? Basically 85% of the requests for funding for
pure research are now simply rejected. Of the few funded, the
funding accounts for less than 75% of the funds required to do
the job.
What is happening is that we have a brain drain. Some of our
best scientists in the medical field feel they have to go
elsewhere if they want to continue their careers as scientists
and researchers. This is pure science that will lead inevitably
not only to better health and health opportunities for Canadians
but to jobs in Canada. Pure science inevitably leads then to
further research and development that results in jobs being
created, businesses being struck and so on.
The government has drastically cut that area back and members of
the Reform Party are saying that it should be cut even more. This
scalpel knife approach to trying to do something for the people
of Canada has to come to an end.
Then Reformers talk about needing more tax cuts. I listened
carefully to what my friends in the Reform Party suggested. They
said that people who made money by capital gains should get a
better deal and should not be taxed as much on their capital
gains. I guess they are really saying that we should tax working
people but if someone makes money in the stock market or
speculates on real estate they should get a tax break. It is an
interesting view but I certainly do not share it.
If we are to give a tax break to Canadians, which I feel is
overdue, let us give a tax break that will benefit everybody and
not just the people who receive incomes from capital gains. For
example, let us cut back on the GST. It was introduced because
we had a deficit problem. Now that we do not have a deficit
problem, presumably, we should start cutting back on the GST,
which would put money into the pockets of Canadians the next day.
If Canadians had extra money in their pockets they would go out
and spend that money, which at the same time would assist the
local neighbourhood economy, increase economic development and
create jobs.
1325
If we are to have a tax cut, let us have a tax cut that will
actually result in some action as opposed to assisting people who
speculate on the stock market or in land.
Today when we go into a bookstore the most popular books we see
are those advising us on how to avoid paying taxes. Canadians
know that our tax system is corrupt. It is blatantly unfair. It
is unjust. It is biased. Some people do not pay any tax and
other people pay more than they should. Big corporations are not
paying what they should and small businesses are paying more than
they should.
Let us get back to building integrity into our tax system rather
than having 464 pages of legislation dealing with tax tinkering.
Will that restore confidence in our tax system? No, it will not.
It will make it more convoluted, more complex and more biased.
We have to reform our tax system. We have to sit down and look
at every tax exemption on the books and ask one fundamental
question: Is it in the best interests of Canada? Most tax
exemptions and loopholes will not be viewed as beneficial to
Canadians generally and therefore should be scrapped. Those
which make sense should be kept.
Let us get away from simply tinkering year after year with a
word, deleting a word or adding a phrase to an already
complicated system. It is so complex it is beyond comprehension.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
issue we are now facing as a country is the fiscal dividend, the
potential of a surplus. The PC Party takes great pride in this
moment that our country has reached. The structural changes
which were made in the Canadian economy by the Conservative
government in the early 1990s have allowed Canada to seize the
opportunity as we are poised to move into the 21st century of a
fiscal surplus.
These structural changes included the deregulation of the
financial services industry, deregulation of the transportation
industry, free trade and the GST. Members opposite fought
vociferously against free trade and the GST. They have now become
free traders. The prime minister now claims to have invented the
GST, which has enabled the government to reduce the deficit.
The Liberal Party now wants free trade with everybody. It will
sign a deal one day with Chile and the next with Israel. However
it is still reluctant to remove interprovincial trade barriers
which continue to burden the Canadian economy. It denies the
domestic economy the comparative advantage of free trade.
If we are to seize this opportunity Canadians need tax cuts now.
They do not need tinkering. An hon. member referred to Bill C-28
as tinkering. That is a reasonable description of the bill.
If we are talking about a vehicle to get an individual from
place to place, for instance a car, to a certain extent
legislation offers that type of potential to a country. We have
a very old car. The Canadian economy needs too much tinkering.
Perhaps we need a new vehicle. I propose that vehicle would be
the policies being brought forward by the PC Party.
Instead of fixing the Canadian tax code on an ad hoc basis,
looking at individual issues and dealing with individual sectors,
we should be looking at it from a holistic perspective. We need
proposals to bring forward new and innovative tax policy and tax
reduction for all Canadians. That will enable them to
participate in the same economic growth enjoyed south of the
border for some time. Canadians have had to deal with a 6%
reduction in their standard of living over the past several
years.
1330
High taxes kill jobs. Our high debt to GDP ratio continues to
hinder the Canadian economy and the ability of Canadians to
participate in the global environment. We need to pay our debt
and we need to reduce taxes now if we are to move forward into
the 21st century.
In our background work we found the pervasive philosophy of
Liberal government was obvious in Bill C-28. It is a philosophy
of government by knee-jerk reaction, crisis management and
economic tinkering. This is a government that does not plan to
fail but it is clearly a government that fails to plan.
Look at the CHST issue. The same Liberals who cut
indiscriminately after 1993 now propose to spend
indiscriminately. I heard the analogy of the Reform Party as a
party of surgeons with scalpels. I would use the same analogy
potentially to describe the Liberal Party. The Liberals cut and
the cuts they made after 1993 did not merely remove tumours. They
cut bone and sinew. It was not fat that they cut. They cut bone
and sinew in the health care and education systems at a time when
we are in a global environment as we enter the 21st century, when
our young people need all the advantages to compete
internationally.
In a knowledge based economy our government has cut and has
reduced its commitment to higher education to the extent that
post-secondary students are now faced with an average debt of
$25,000 after a four year program. Twenty years ago a student
who graduated from high school would have about the same
opportunities in the workforce as a student who now graduates
from a four year university program. Twenty years ago that
student did not have a $25,000 debt upon entering the workforce.
There is Liberal non-strategy in implementing some of the
changes that were introduced first in budgets of 1994 and 1997.
The country waits in anticipation to see what is going to happen
in the 1998 budget. We are starting to get around to making the
1997 and the 1994 budgets law through this bill. One of the
Liberal promises of 1993 from its brochure “Restoring
Parliamentary Democracy” was to reduce the implementation time
of tax policy changes promised in budgets.
This is another example of what has become a Liberal tradition,
promise the voters one thing during an election and then
flip-flop once elected. This tradition has been evident since
1974 when the Liberals flip-flopped on wage and price control.
More recent examples would be their flip-flop in 1981 on the gas
tax, and nobody has forgotten their promises to scrap the GST, to
renegotiate the NAFTA treaty, to scrap the Pearson airport
redevelopment, and of course they wrote a cheque for zero
helicopters.
It is unfortunate that I was not surprised to find another
example of a Liberal broken promise in this bill. As Tories we
bear the heavy yoke of honest policy. Liberals are indeed
fortunate to be able to glide through this parliamentary world
and to operate without such political impedimenta.
With the notable exception of bank tax exemption, most of the
tax measures introduced in this bill are either revenue neutral
or simply give targeted tax relief to specific groups. Keep in
mind that targeted tax relief simply serves to complicate the
Canadian tax code.
I served as an associate member of the finance committee that
listened to Canadians who came forward to express their views on
the economy and what we should do now that we have a fiscal
surplus. I did not hear one Canadian say that our tax code needs
to be made more complex. Many Canadians came forth, especially
small business people, the area I come from. They said that our
tax code is much too complex. Yet this government's answer to
economic policy is to come forward with measures like Bill C-28
that will complicate the tax code.
We should not be surprised that our finance minister/leadership
candidate has targeted the banks as the only tax increase in the
bill. Canadians should expect more boldfaced opportunism in the
months to come as Merger Martin becomes Populist Paul.
1335
For all intents and purposes, the capital's tax surplus on banks
which is extended in this bill has become a permanent tax. Now,
in Bill C-28, the minister continues to tinker with the economy
and punish one sector over another.
If we look at the four targeted education tax measures, the
first one talks about the education tax credit. Students will
now be able to claim a tax credit of $150 per month in 1997, $200
per month this year up from $100 per month in 1996.
Again this is a stop-gap, band-aid approach to a huge problem.
We are talking $100 here in a situation where students are
graduating with $25,000 worth of debt. I would be curious to
know what type of student debt the friends of the pages in this
House are going to have to endure when they graduate or if indeed
they are going to be faced with this egregious level of burden as
they enter the workforce.
It is not fair to young Canadians and it is not fair to all
Canadians who need a competitive group of young Canadians going
forward and capitalizing on the global economy.
Again, when this government talks about education reform, it is
talking about these types of stop-gap adjustments to the RESP,
the changes in the allowable deductions for students. It is a
cobbled-up approach and it is not acceptable.
National leadership is required at all levels to ensure that
young Canadians receive the best education in the world, such
that they are able to compete and get the best jobs in the world
right here in Canada.
The Minister of Finance has now begun talking about education.
We all wait with bated breath for budget night to see what will
actually be done relative to education. We expect more rhetoric.
We do not really expect a lot of action.
The fact is we cannot deal with this situation effectively. We
cannot deal with education as an individual issue unless we are
willing to deal with tax relief. What good is it to provide an
excellent education to our young people who, upon graduation, are
forced by better paying jobs and a lower tax burden to go to the
U.S.?
The student demonstrations last week typify the drastic
situation that exists among students in this country. Once these
students graduate and once our brightest and best have left
Canada and have gone elsewhere where they will be paying less in
taxes and essentially making more money, that is when we see that
the financial inaction of this government to address the pressing
issues of the Canadian economy are sapping the lifeblood out of
the future of this country.
I went through Bill C-28. I felt that some of the changes
deserve far less hoopla than I heard from the member opposite
today. We are dealing with a situation where we have youth
unemployment rates of over 17% in Canada, realistically
significantly higher.
Highly educated and motivated Canadians are being forced to
leave this country. The recent report from Industry Canada,
keeping up with the Jones, describes this trend and the issue
that is before Canadians now.
When a highly skilled American labourer earns $10,000 a year
more than his or her Canadian counterpart, clearly Canadian wage
earners deserve to make as much as their counterparts south of
the border. The answer is not in terms of how much they make but
what they take home. The fact is that the government is taking
far too much from them and providing far too little in services
going back to them.
We need bold action from the Minister of Finance to reverse this
exodus. The Liberal policy of maintaining high payroll taxes
well in excess of what they need to be continues to punish
Canadian workers and deny Canadian entrepreneurs the ability to
hire more workers. The fact is international payroll taxes have
been demonstrated unequivocally as being deterrents to job
creation.
Further to this bill, I look at all these selected groups that
are targeted with specific tax reductions and the further
complexity of the Canadian tax code. I think of the state of the
union address last week in the U.S. under President Clinton and
Trent Lott's response.
The U.S. tax code is actually far simpler than our tax code.
There is a ground swell of support in the U.S. for changes to the
tax code such that people do not have to hire a lawyer or an
accountant to deal with their own governments. In Canada the
situation is more dire. Here we cannot basically deal with our
own government without professional representation. This is
clearly wrong.
1340
We are in an environment where disposable income has dropped by
almost 6% since 1990. The minister speaks of lower interest
rates and other positive economic indicators. However, this
minister has about as much to do with the low interest rate
situation we find ourselves in in Canada as he does with the fact
that the sun rose this morning. To take credit for structural
changes that occurred in the early 1990s under this government is
indicative of the lack of depth these individuals have about
economic issues.
Canada's GDP slipped by .3% in November. This was its third
slip this year. Meanwhile the U.S. GDP has risen by 4% in the
last quarter.
Some people may be asking what is the U.S. doing that we are not
doing in Canada. That is not the right question. The question
that should be asked is what is it not doing. Americans are not
taxing their people to death in the U.S. They are not creating
barriers to employment with a tax policy that is archaic. The
cumulative effect of all this negative tax policy is an
increasing gap in the standard of living between Canadians and
Americans.
The film industry is dealt with in this bill. Coming from Nova
Scotia where we have a fledgling and growing film industry, I am
pleased to see that there are some positive incentives for
investment in the film industry. I do however maintain that the
best tax policy to benefit all sectors is one that puts more
money in the pockets of Canadians and allows them to make their
own decisions as to where they invest and where they invest in
the future of Canada. It may be in the film industry or in
another area but the fact is this government, by taking from
Canadians through general taxes and income taxes and then
providing these loopholes is further complicating the issue.
This government has cut the CHST by 35% since 1993. At the same
time, it reduced program spending by only around 13%. Now it is
making great hay about establishing a cash floor of $12.5
billion. In fact, it introduced it in Nova Scotia during the
election. Nova Scotians are a fairly shrewd bunch of people.
When they looked at this they recognized that it was another
shell game or magic show of smoke and mirrors from the Liberal
Party and did not buy into it. On election day they flushed the
Liberal MPs out like the tide running out of the Minas Basin.
That exodus was certainly not a brain drain.
Bill C-28 proposes that the cash floor be raised to $12.5
billion. This simply means that the cuts are going to stop. The
Liberals are going to stop offloading the fiscal responsibility
from Canada off to the provinces. This formula continues to move
toward a per capita calculation. Nobody has touched on this yet
but there are seven provinces that will receive less money year
after year due to these changes. These seven provinces,
including Nova Scotia, will lose a further $384 million by the
year 2002 due to these changes.
Our platform called for a provincial cash floor level which
would truly establish long term stability for social investment
in Canada instead of the Liberal plan which pits the interest of
some provinces against those of another. We need a plan that
ensures equity for all Canadians. This plan for the CHST is
clearly not that plan.
The initial round of cuts has already had a dramatic effect on
my own riding of Kings—Hants. Three major hospitals have either
closed or have drastically reduced services, including closures
at the East Kings memorial hospital, the West Kings memorial
hospital and the reduction to 32 beds in my home community
hospital, the Hants community hospital.
When one considers the impact on health care in provinces like
Nova Scotia, we do not have the tax base at the local level to
pick up the slack when these types of draconian cuts are made by
a federal government.
1345
The impact on the future of young Nova Scotians and on the
elderly population of Nova Scotia who need a quality health care
system is it has created irrevocable damage. The Minister of
Finance would like Canadians to believe as he said in a press
release recently that the government is about choices, priorities
and values. Our choice is clear.
Health care should be a priority for this government. We do not
need to hear more rhetoric about this. We need to stop the
rhetoric and start stabilizing health care funding and not with a
CHST with a national floor. We need provincially based floors to
ensure that all Canadians are treated equitably through the CHST
funding.
We need to invest in medical sciences, research and development.
We need to explore new health care alternatives and vehicles such
as palliative care for Canadians.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the federal
government must play a leadership role in redefining the role of
government and not simply the size of government that is
discussed by the Reform Party. We need to redefine the role of
government. We need to evaluate what investments and roles are
appropriate for government. What is government doing now that it
should not be doing? What is it not doing that perhaps it should
be? How can we best unburden Canadians to allow them to make the
decisions that can propel them successfully into the 21st
century.
We need the government and the Liberal Party to become more
visionary, to innovatively lead Canadians toward a brighter and
more productive future. What we do not need is more legislation
like Bill C-28 which creates a stop-gap, one-off approach to
fiscal policy which clearly does not serve the long interests of
Canadians.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have some questions that perhaps the hon. member might address.
We experienced in the province of Ontario the results of a Tory
promised tax cut in 1995 when Mr. Harris was elected based on a
30% cut in provincial income tax. Mr. Harris and some of his
colleagues would say that they have had to reduce spending in
health care, education and a few other areas due to reductions in
the federal transfers.
Our question would be, and it is quite obvious, would it not be
more appropriate to say that the decisions made by the Harris
government in Ontario clearly are a result of its need to live up
to its promise to give a 30% tax cut? Would the member not agree
that giving an across the board percentage tax cut simply
benefits those people earning higher incomes dramatically more
than the people who actually need help? Now that the tax cut is
at about 22.5% in the province of Ontario and some folks, notably
those wealthier Ontarians, are looking forward to the last 7.5%
coming down in the next cut, people are wondering if they made
the right decision in Ontario.
Teachers would certainly question whether or not that
government's commitment to funding education is appropriate given
the tax cut. Doctors, nurses, municipal leaders, municipal
taxpayers who are seeing downloading, clearly many people in
Ontario are saying “I think we made a mistake by buying into
this simple so-called percentage tax cut”.
That is the hon. member's party, the Conservative Party's
position, that a 10% cut across the board will somehow magically
restore an ability to fund the research grants the member talks
about, to put more money back into health care, to somehow
mysteriously put more money back into education. We on this side
of the House know that the Conservative Party's strategy is to
dangle some kind of a percentage tax cut so people might think in
the end it will put more money in their pockets when in fact it
will take money out of their pockets and take services away from
the people who need them.
I wonder if the member might have a response to those comments.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for what I assume must have been his maiden speech
because he certainly went on for a long time and said very
little.
We talk about debt to GDP ratio, but if we were to talk about
substance to rhetoric ratios, he would certainly have a very low
ratio in that case.
1350
He speaks about the provincial situation in Ontario, about tax
cuts in Ontario, about what he feels are clearly the fault of the
provincial government and about the impact of Ontario policy on
people in Ontario. What about the impact of federal government
cuts across the board? What about the 35% decrease in CHST since
1993 and its impact on provinces like Nova Scotia? This is the
same government.
He talks about cuts to health care. Three hospitals were
virtually closed in my riding because of this federal government,
a government of which he was a member. It is absolutely
unconscionable for him to speak about what a provincial
government is doing when they have not addressed the issue, when
he was part of the party that made draconian cuts in transfers to
the provinces, when they allowed the type of health care
destruction that occurred in provinces across Canada.
The hon. member should realize that leadership is one thing that
cannot be off loaded to the provinces. That is exactly what has
been done. He cannot pass the buck in this House to what has
been done in the provincial house in Queen's Park. The burden
lies with the hon. member and with the members of his caucus who
have allowed this to occur, who have allowed these cuts to occur
and who have allowed ordinary Canadians to be hurt by these cuts.
The fact is that with tax relief ordinary Canadians can make
decisions for themselves that will be far better than the
decisions made by the members opposite.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points of
clarification for the hon. member.
The member said that this government had no impact on interest
rates. When the member's party was in office and we had a $42
billion deficit, a climbing debt and all the rest of it, interest
rates were way up. The fact that we have our fiscal house in
order is the reason interest rates are on a downward track and
not on an upward track. But I know it takes some convincing
since they do not quite understand the concept.
They talk about the tinkering in this bill. If I recall
correctly that was the party that talked about eliminating the
cash component of the CHST and going with tax points. They
talked about eliminating the role of the federal government with
respect to transfers. They said that the federal government has
no role in transfers to the provinces.
We put the cash floor in place to ensure there is a federal
presence in the transfers to the provinces, to ensure that we can
enforce the Canada Health Act. Those are Canadian priorities
which is something that party is completely out of sync with.
He talked about a by province floor. I point to the fact that
when we talk about transfers to provinces we have to talk about
total entitlements. Total entitlements are made up of a cash
component and a tax point component. Total entitlements to the
provinces are increasing because of the changes that are going on
that this government has made. It will continue to increase so
that provinces can continue to provide for their own
constituents.
I am at odds to understand where this member is coming from.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary
secretary in his duties should take some time to read a little of
what the international economists are saying about the Canadian
economy. It is not simply what The Economist said a few
months ago. They quote selectively from what some publications
say. If they read the 1998 preview of The Economist, it
said that the current fiscal situation in Canada is largely due
to the structural changes made by a Conservative government in
the early 1990s.
That was free trade, the GST and deregulation of the financial
services and transportation industries. I and other Canadians
know where his party stood on those issues.
They were opposed to free trade. They were opposed to the GST.
Now they say they invented it.
1355
It takes years for sound economic policy to have an impact. It
takes a visionary government to implement this type of policy.
Unfortunately sometimes the next government can take advantage of
that sound policy. That is exactly what has happened. The
Conservatives made the tough decisions. They made the visionary
changes and the Liberals have taken advantage of it.
We will continue on this side of the House to bring forward
innovative policy, much to the chagrin of members opposite. In
four years we will have the opportunity implement it.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to my hon. friend's response to the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Finance. The question I would put to my hon.
friend is, was it the Conservative government which actually
introduced cuts to the transfer payments which had they continued
as planned would have meant that eventually there would be no
cash transfers to the provinces for health care?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the issue of transfers to
the provinces and the transition to tax points was addressed in
our recent platform. The fact that decisions should be made at
the provincial level and that the provinces should have the
ability to chart their own course on some of these issues as long
as national standards are met is very clear. There have to be
national standards but the provinces should have control over the
funding.
What we tried to establish in the platform is that the CHST
level needs to be established at a provincial and not a national
floor level because many provinces will continue to be bludgeoned
by the changes in Bill C-28.
In fact, they are talking about establishing a cash floor in my
province of Nova Scotia. We are well below the floor. We are
down in the basement. We are subterranean because of the cuts.
Nova Scotia and other have not provinces have been bludgeoned by
this type of change. It should be reversed now and this bill does
not reverse it.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is 2 o'clock and we are
ready for Statements by Members. I am well aware that the hon.
member for Mississauga West is going to be the next speaker. He
will be recognized after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ICE STORM
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a time like this when I am especially proud of being a Canadian
from Hamilton, Ontario. In the aftermath of the worst ice storm
in history, Hamiltonians did not hesitate to offer speedy
assistance to those in need.
Today I recognize the important contribution of Hamilton radio
station CHML and manager Don Luzzi, hometown radio at its best. I
salute CHML Talkline host Roy Green for leading the offensive in
sensitizing Hamiltonians to the severity of the disaster and for
requesting and co-ordinating donations toward the relief effort.
With the help and generosity of Fluke Transport president Ron
Foxcroft, these necessities were loaded into five tractor
trailers and dispatched to the hard hit areas of eastern Ontario.
The people of eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes will not
soon forget the caring and generosity of the federal government,
the Canadian Armed Forces and in particular the young men and
women from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders from Hamilton,
Hamilton hydro workers and Hamiltonians who helped their fellow
Canadians get their lives back together after the ice storm of
1998.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the householders which I send to my constituents in Surrey
Central include a survey of the political issues of the day. My
constituents take this opportunity to share their views with me.
Quite often I receive detailed opinions on the Liberal
government's mismanagement and lack of accountability.
One of my constituents said that all Members of Parliament
should be spending more time and energy on issues that are of
importance to their constituencies, such as crime, safety,
health, education, tax relief and the deplorable justice system.
In fact the most unified response shows that we should be getting
tougher with criminals. They tell me that violent criminals aged
14 to 15 should be tried in adult court. Reform the parole
system so that violent offenders serve their full sentence.
1400
The Liberals are not listening to grassroots Canadians and
the government's agenda does not respond to what Canadians want.
Why will the Liberals not focus on the issues that concern our
constituents?
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were many heroes during the ice storm of 1998.
Our Canadian military and the hydro crews were simply
unbelievable in their dedication and professionalism. But perhaps
the real heroes were ordinary Canadians like Nancy Webb and Lucy
Lecuyer of Petawawa. These women took charge and initiated a
relief effort that benefited not only Renfrew County but also
municipalities throughout eastern Ontario and western Quebec.
This valiant pair worked non stop for over six days co-ordinating
the relief effort. They were ably assisted by Colonel Kevin
McLeod of CFB Petawawa.
As the Member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I
say to Nancy Webb, Lucy Lecuyer and all volunteers thank you for
caring and thank you for being there when you were needed.
Example is an eloquent orator. These acts of kindness speak
volumes about our Canadian spirit.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the people of
Quebec will long remember the start of 1998 when they poured all
their energies into battling this terrible freezing rain storm.
Everyone gave everything they could to help the disaster victims.
I would like to congratulate and to thank all the people of
Quebec warmly for their solidarity and community spirit in such
difficult circumstances.
However, there can only be criticism for the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who kept people in a state of total
confusion over their entitlement to employment insurance.
Many were outraged to discover that they were not entitled to any
compensation from the plan to which they had so long contributed.
I strongly urge this government to keep its promise to not
further penalize those workers victimized by this terrible storm,
who have already suffered enough as a result of it.
* * *
ICE STORM
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to thank all of the residents of my
riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for their courage,
generosity, patience, good humour and, in particular, their true
commitment to our community during the 1998 ice storm.
[English]
I am truly proud to represent NDG—Lachine. I would also like to
personally thank the mayors of Lachine, St-Pierre, Montreal West
and City Councillor Michael Applebaum, the Salvation Army, the
Red Cross, hydro workers, our magnificent Canadian Armed Forces,
the NDG Community Council, Ville St-Pierre's Club Optimist and
the many wonderful municipal and volunteer workers who tirelessly
worked throughout the storm to ensure that each and every
resident of NDG—Lachine was kept warm, fed and safe.
Finally, let me publicly thank the Chinese community of
Vancouver and Mr. Hansom Lau for raising $18,000 and GE Canada
for its $50,000 donation to the Red Cross relief fund.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity
to recognize those who responded to the January ice storm, people
who assured the safety of the storm's victims with compassionate
and caring hearts.
As member of Parliament for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington and as chair of the eastern Ontario caucus, I want to
recognize the community volunteers, firefighters, snowmobile club
members and others who responded quickly and efficiently. They
ensured that roads were cleared, isolated residents were visited
and those who wished to go to shelters were assisted. Others such
as municipal employees worked well beyond the call of duty to
implement emergency response actions.
The women and men of the military have earned special
recognition for their efforts right across the storm area. I
also want to acknowledge the hydro and phone workers who risked
their lives to restore service.
Many Canadians in eastern Ontario and Quebec have moved past the
crisis. Unfortunately others remain without hydro today.
Please join me in saying thank you to the volunteers and workers
who have given so much and especially to those who continue to
meet the challenges in the wake of the storm.
* * *
OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr Speaker, on
behalf of all Members of Parliament and each of my constituents I
would like to be the first to extend my best wishes to all
Canadian athletes arriving in Nagano, Japan this week.
Each of these athletes embodies all that is good about Canada.
It is with great pride that we will watch the largest contingent
of Canadian winter Olympians compete in this, the last winter
games of this century.
I take particular pride in the athletes from Wild Rose and wish
them the best of luck in their individual sports.
1405
The winter Olympics epitomize the Canadian ideal that glory is
found not solely in winning but in the journey of sacrifice and
hard work that characterizes the athlete's life. Although the
majority of Canadians will experience the Olympics only from
their living rooms, we want our athletes to know that the nation
is behind them every step of the way.
We know you will not fail us as Canadian ambassadors abroad and
as role models to our youth. Good luck to one and all. You have
already made us proud.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
a representative of one of the areas hit hard by the recent ice
storm, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the
outstanding efforts of emergency services personnel, the
firefighters who in Leeds—Grenville are largely volunteer,
police, hospital staff, the Brockville Rifles, the local coast
guard, municipal personnel and politicians, service clubs, local
church congregations, CFJR radio station, local businesses,
industries and government agencies, as well as countless
volunteers and their families throughout Leeds—Grenville.
Although it is true we went without electricity, we were not
however without power, the power of generosity, kindness,
compassion, honesty, courage and community spirit. In
Leeds—Grenville people pulled together to minimize the tragedies
associated with this disaster.
If I seem to be holding my head a little higher it is because I
have the tremendous honour of representing these people and their
values in the 36th Parliament of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FLEUR DE LYS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
January 21 marked the anniversary of the adoption by the Quebec
Legislative Assembly of the Fleur de Lys as the official flag of
Quebec.
In 1946, independent member René Chaloult tabled a motion in
the Legislative Assembly calling for a flag “symbolizing the
aspirations of the people of this province”. Finally, on January
20, 1948, at 3 p.m., as the Legislative Assembly met, Premier
Maurice Duplessis announced that the Fleur de Lys now flew over the
National Assembly.
Twenty years ago, René Lévesque made a statement on this
matter which is as timely today as it was then: “As the settlers of
New France, we had to become a specific and homogeneous people. As
citizens of Quebec, all that remains for us to do, in order to
imbue history with its full weight of reality and hope, is to
become the true nation our flag already proclaims us to be”.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
several thousand people remain without power in the aftermath of
the recent ice storm. It may be too soon yet to have a full
assessment of the emergency measures, but it is not too soon for us
to draw attention to the extraordinary assistance that has come
from virtually everywhere in Canada, and from elsewhere.
In Brome—Missisquoi, Paul-René Gilbert and his group from
Magog distributed firewood to the people of Sainte-Sabine, Farnham
and surrounding areas. Our colleague from the Ontario riding of
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant sent two generators from Stelco Steel to
the municipality of Frelighsburg for their emergency shelter and
their waterworks. This was only one of a multitude of examples all
over Canada, but we will have an opportunity to say more about this
later on.
I will conclude with a glowing commendation to all of the
mayors and municipal authorities of Brome—Missisquoi and elsewhere
in Quebec for their devotion and professionalism in implementing
emergency measures.
* * *
[English]
ICE STORM
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to publicly thank our military on behalf of the official
opposition.
During the recent ice storm which devastated eastern Ontario and
Quebec Canadian troops played a crucial role in repairing the
damage and ensuring the health and safety of Canadians. Our
soldiers enthusiastically assisted with whatever needed to be
done, whether it was helping hydro crews to restore power,
protecting powerless neighbourhoods from looting or transporting
the sick to medical facilities.
The vital role played by our military yet again during another
natural disaster brought the attention of Canadians to the
importance of our armed forces. It is unfortunate however that
we do not often enough acknowledge the hard work and vital
contribution our regular forces and reserves make each day to our
national security.
While it is good for us to recognize the important work that our
troops did to help deal with this natural disaster, I thank the
men and women of our forces every day for working so hard and
risking so much to make me, my family and my country safe and
secure.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
people of my riding of Brossard—La Prairie have also been especially
hard hit by the ice storm.
I want to pay a heartfelt tribute to the mayors of our
municipalities and their staff: Paul Leduc in Brossard, Guy Dupré
in La Prairie, André Côté in Candiac and Lise Martin in
Saint-Philippe. Their relentless efforts and dedication have been
absolutely outstanding. The constant, comforting smiles of
volunteers, young and old, was an inspiration to me.
Many of my colleagues and their staff have spontaneously and
selflessly offered their support.
This show of solidarity was greatly appreciated.
That is to say nothing of the great job done by the military, the
RCMP, the provincial and municipal police, Hydro-Québec workers, scouts,
the Red Cross, firefighters, and the list goes on. On behalf of the
people of our region, I thank them all.
I sure am glad not to have to select the volunteer of the year in
Canada.
* * *
[English]
BANK MERGER
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the proposed bank merger points to a revealing similarity between
the Liberals and the Reform Party.
The Reform Party says that the merger would be okay as long as
the American banks are given a larger role in the Canadian
economy. This is precisely what the Liberals have already
provided for by signing, days before merger talks began, the
financial services agreement at the World Trade Organization.
Indeed the Minister of Finance's outrage about the merger is
just so much play acting. Does the minister really expect us to
believe that his departmental advice was so bad that he did not
anticipate that mergers might be part of the banks' response to
the agreement that he signed?
Canadians do not have to choose between the fraudulent outrage
of the Liberals and the spectacle of the Reform Party's arms
opened wide to the embrace of American banks.
The NDP stands for a world in which banks are answerable to the
well-being of all rather than being further freed up to serve
their own selfish interests. Let us make Canadian banks behave
as good corporate citizens and let American banks stay at tome.
One is reminded of the drug patent issue: much Liberal outrage
and then its members hide behind an agreement that they
themselves signed.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
ice storm '98 will not soon be forgotten in my riding of
Nepean—Carleton. Many in rural areas such as Osgoode, Rideau
and Goulbourn townships were without power for between a week and
two and a half weeks. Amidst the devastation of our hydro
infrastructure, there was physical hardship, emotional stress and
significant economic loss.
How did people respond? During the ice storm I saw strength,
resilience, resourcefulness, generosity and even humour.
People rose to the challenge and performed magnificently.
I offer my heartfelt thanks to the volunteers who staffed the
shelters, the hydro crews, police, municipal and regional leaders
and staff as well as the soldiers of the Canadian forces. Thank
God for the army was a phrase I heard in every part of my riding.
Our troops were greeted like an army of liberation.
With life back to normal, it is my sincere hope that the spirit
of co-operation and neighbourliness that marked our experience
during the ice storm continues. The communities in
Nepean—Carleton were strong before the power went off. We are
even stronger now.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, like part of
Quebec and eastern Ontario, the riding of Shefford has just experienced
the effects of the worst ice storm in our history. The extent of the
damage is such that we still cannot estimate how long it will take us to
recover from this natural disaster.
It has given rise to an incredible community spirit we can all be
proud of.
I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the federal,
provincial and municipal governments, and particularly the help provided
by the Canadian army, the Red Cross, Hydro-Québec and the many
volunteers who spared neither time nor effort to provide assistance to
the disaster victims.
I also want to thank all those who rallied to support and comfort
us in spite of bad weather and distance, particularly the members for
Madawaska—Restigouche and Tobique—Mactaquac and their constituents.
The effects of this storm will continue to be felt for months to
come, and it is our duty to take a serious look at positive and
efficient ways to alleviate the burden of those affected by the ice
storm.
Solidarity in the face of adversity, combined with innovative
solutions, gives us hope that life will soon be back to normal and that
our economy will recover quickly.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, as a general rule we ask members
to stand in their places when they are speaking. I am going to
make an exception today as I call on one of our own members of
Parliament to address us in statements. The hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas will remain seated while he gives his statement.
* * *
1415
MEMBER FOR BURNABY—DOUGLAS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on December 30, I was involved in a very serious hiking
accident on Galiano Island in my home province of British
Columbia. During the two weeks I was in Vancouver General
hospital and in the days since then I have been deeply moved by
the messages of support I have received from my constituents in
Burnaby—Douglas and from people across the country.
[Translation]
The support I have received gave me a great deal of strength and
hope for the future.
[English]
I want to take this opportunity to express my profound personal
gratitude to my partner Max, to my dedicated staff and a special
word of thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, and our staff on the Hill for
your tremendous personal support.
I will be in a wheelchair for the next few months and my jaw is
wired shut for some time to come. I understand that an all-party
delegation led by the prime minister and my leader, the member
for Halifax, has urged my gifted surgeon, Dr. Patti Clugston, to
wire the jaw permanently shut.
I take this opportunity to briefly send a message of strength
and hope to our colleague, the member for Labrador, who is
fighting cancer in a St. John's hospital today.
I say to my colleagues on all sides of the House and in the
other place, du Québec et partout au Canada, your words of
solidarity and support have meant more to me than you will ever
know.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know today is the first day of Parliament but it is
also Groundhog Day. Wiarton Willie, the official groundhog,
apparently saw his shadow which means that we are faced with many
more days of winter this year.
Many Canadians are wondering whether the prime minister saw his
shadow. Will it be an early springtime of debt reduction and tax
relief or must Canadians endure many more wintery days of Liberal
overspending and misspending?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, spring has arrived for the Canadian economy because we
have managed to control the deficit. We said that we would
reduce the deficit to 3% of GDP in five years and we managed to
reduce it to virtually zero in four years. There will be more
sunshine coming into the Canadian economy when the Minister of
Finance introduces his budget later this month.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister came out of the same hole he went
into last December. Things have changed. Interest rates are
rising which is bad news for Canadians paying mortgages. It is
bad news for Canadian businesses paying bank loans and it is bad
news for the worst debt organization in the country, the
Government of Canada, with interest rate charges on the debt
threatening to eat up the surplus in the minister's budget.
My question is for the prime minister. He has bragged in this
House about having deficit reduction targets. Does he have debt
reduction targets? If he does, what are they?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last year, after a long time, probably more than 20
years, the government started to pay off some of the market debt.
We will have a budget in which the Minister of Finance will say
exactly where we are at this moment.
We made a commitment to the Canadian people during the election
with regard to the surplus. We are all happy that will be the
situation in Canada very soon. The Minister of Finance confirms
what we said, that half of the surplus will go toward debt
reduction and tax reduction and the other half will go toward
solving some of the economic and social problems of the nation.
1420
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not only that the debt is too high. The taxes are
too high. A single mother with one child earning $15,000 a year
is paying $1,300 in taxes to that finance minister. A family of
four with an income of $32,000 a year is paying $3,000 a year in
taxes to that finance minister. The government has saddled us
with the highest personal income tax in the industrial world.
Will the prime minister listen to the groans, curses and
protests of overtaxed Canadians and offer tax relief targets for
1998?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 33 days ago there was a reduction in taxes to the
Canadian people by $1.4 billion when we reduced unemployment
insurance premiums.
We have also announced that in the fiscal year 1998-99 there
will be $850 million in tax credits allocated to poor people in
our society.
* * *
HELICOPTERS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have here a copy of the original EH-101 helicopter contract. It
is clear from this document that the government has just spent
$200 million more on the present contract than the deal was worth
back in 1992.
My question is for the prime minister. Will he explain to
Canadians how he managed to buy a Chevy helicopter and pay a
Cadillac price?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. I noticed
in one of the newspapers today a report about an unsigned,
unattributable document that has a lot of nonsensical
information. That is probably what the hon. member is having a
look at.
The fact is we could not afford the helicopter deal at that time
with a $42 billion deficit. We could not afford the extra
equipment on that helicopter. Today we have one that is 40%
cheaper.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that sounds like another chopper whopper from the Liberals. Only
a Liberal can pay more and call it a bargain. I think Canadians
deserve better.
The Liberal helicopter deal is costing taxpayers $200 million
more than the 1992 deal. Look at the contract.
Will the prime minister explain to Canadians just how he managed
to buy a Chevy helicopter and give it a new name for a Cadillac
price?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should look at the
contract. The contract has yet to be signed. It is in the final
negotiation.
When he sees the contract and the price he will see that in fact
we have bought the best operational helicopter to meet our needs.
We have bought it at a price that is far less than what the
Conservative government would have paid for it previously.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin by paying tribute to victims of the ice storm
for the courage they showed throughout the crisis, and indeed
continue to show, as well as to all those in Quebec, Canada and the
United States who demonstrated such marvellous solidarity with
them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The crisis experienced by all ice storm
victims is without precedent.
Given the exceptional nature of the situation, swift and concrete
action has to be taken to meet the needs of storm victims, who are
being hit hard by unemployment.
Given the exceptional circumstances, would the Minister of
Human Resources Development not agree that a good way of
alleviating people's suffering would be to end the confusion
surrounding the directives regarding the application of special EI
measures by suspending the two-week waiting period, otherwise known
as the qualifying period?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois for his question.
Naturally, I share his sentiments about storm victims and I
would like to tell him that the Government of Canada, including the
Minister of National Defence and all my other colleagues, did
everything it could to help resolve the problems.
1425
I would like to be very clear, and I thank him for giving me
an opportunity to do so today. There is confusion between
qualifying period and waiting period. What we did as a government,
and I used the powers accorded me by the legislation in these
exceptional circumstances, was to eliminate the two-week waiting
period so that people could receive EI payments much more quickly,
but I maintained the qualifying period. The qualifying period
remains, and I think it important that it remain.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
many storm victims called their MPs to tell them that, when they
went to EI offices, they were often told that they first had to be
unemployed for two weeks, to be without work for two weeks, before
being entitled to EI benefits.
If I understand correctly, the minister has just told me that
this is not the case, that these are not the directives issued by
his department. The answer being given out by departmental
officials is the opposite of what the minister has just told us in
the House.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we eliminated was the two-
week waiting period. In other words, I asked our officials to
allow people who had been without work for five days to apply for
EI and to receive within three, four or five days their first EI
cheque, that they could therefore receive within the first two
weeks, but for the following week.
That is why there may have been some confusion, but I think it
important that this be known, because workers obtained assistance
much more rapidly than they normally would have.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the ice storm the Minister of Human Resources Development publicly
encouraged the unemployed to apply in advance for employment insurance
benefits, adding that he would show a great deal of compassion toward
them.
Everyone understood that, given the plight of thousands of
families, the government would show flexibility and, more specifically,
would waive the two-week penalty that applies.
Can the minister tell us whether or not the unemployed affected by
the ice storm will have to pay back the extra money paid to them, given
the two-week penalty?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is always creating confusion, and
I hope it is not doing so deliberately.
I will be very clear. The first two weeks are not covered, because
I do not want to unload all of Montreal's downtown onto the system.
Given that four or five days were not worked, it is important for
businesses and workers to take measures to make up for the lost time,
through overtime or by working on Saturdays. I believe this is the best
solution.
As for the waiting period, the workers got cheques in advance, as
in the case of the Saguenay and Manitoba disasters, regarding which the
waiting period was never waived. We will act humanely in each and every
case.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 15, the minister said “when people are forced to live without
heat and power, the one thing we want to make sure is that they do not
have to worry about their income”. As things stand, these people are not
paid for the first two weeks, while they are getting 55% for the other
weeks, because the minister set up a new employment insurance program
which is devoid of compassion toward the unemployed.
Where is the difference? Why such a contrast between the minister's
words about being compassionate and flexible, and the drastic and
heartless measures he is now imposing?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we allowed people to receive a cheque within 14 or
15 days after the problem began, that is as soon as we realized that
some people needed that help.
People received money two weeks sooner than they normally would
have under the employment insurance program. It was very important for
these people to get that cheque and this is why we were quick to act. It
was important for people without heat and power to get their cheque two
weeks earlier than normal. We managed to do that and we are very proud
of our initiative.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the big
banks are trying to pull a fast one.
They are trying to sell us a monster merger as if it is good for
us.
1430
The banks tell us there are not sufficient funds to keep their
people working, not sufficient funds to maintain services and
keep branches open, and not sufficient funds to reduce services
charges which should not leave the finance minister with much to
think about.
Will the minister kill the monster merger today? Will he send
it back to the banks stamped NSF?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we received information that there is a desire for these
two banks to merge.
The Minister of Finance rightly said that a committee is
reviewing the situation. The committee will report in September.
We are not in a rush to make any decision until we have received
the report of the committee.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
prime minister and the minister of finance promised to protect
the public interest. Those promises are as credible as the
promise to scrap the GST and the promise to scrap excessive drug
patent protection.
Let me give the minister another chance, the chance to stand up
for bank consumers, for bank employees and for folks needing fair
credit. Will the finance minister show some guts and bounce this
monster merger today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some time ago in the middle of the last mandate the
government put in place a process to deal with this kind of
issue. That task force will report in September. Following that
report there will be ample time for parliamentary committee and
full public discussion.
We are going to insist that timetable be lived up to. I assure
the House of one thing. Unless this deal or any other deal works
Canadians it will not work at all.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
I spoke with the Prime Minister on the phone yesterday. I sent
him a letter concerning the situation in the Gulf and the
possibility of an armed conflict with Iraq, among other things. It
is quite possible that Canada will find itself in a war situation
before very long.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister intends to
make a statement in the House of Commons informing the Canadian
people of his government's position on this conflict.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the leader of the Conservative Party for calling to inform
me of his intention to ask this question.
As I told the press last Friday, I received a phone call from
the President of the United States. We spoke about a number of
things. We discussed the situation in Iraq, and I told him that
the government's position, as the leader of the Conservative Party
has said himself, is that we wish to see a diplomatic solution.
The Russians and the French are actively involved in this at
the moment. The President of the United States did not in any way
ask us to go to war. Should there be any such request, I can
assure the hon. leader of the Conservative Party that there will
certainly be a debate.
[English]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
all respect it is not the position of the Russians, the French or
the British that we are interested in. We are interested in what
is the position of the Canadian government.
Contrary to the practice of this government, this is not another
Kyoto and it should not be. If Canada may end up at war soon,
the Canadian people deserve to know what the position of the
Government of Canada is.
Will the prime minister make a full statement to the House of
Commons? Will he strike a joint House of Commons-Senate
committee and call before the committee the minister of foreign
affairs, the minister of defence and the chief of defence staff?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party said that he is in
favour of a diplomatic solution. That is the position of the
government.
If ever there was to be a war, we would be facing this question
and there would be a debate in the House of Commons at that time.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Before.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: There is no war and there is no
demand by anybody for us to be in a war. I have said that we
want Saddam Hussein to respect the resolution of the United
Nations Security Council because the situation cannot remain like
it is. It is a very clear statement, but there is no request at
this time by anybody to start a war in which Canada will be
involved.
* * *
1435
HELICOPTERS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of a war of words, in 1993 during the campaign the prime
minister said “Zero helicopters, period. Zero helicopters”.
Now in 1998 he says “Okay, 15 helicopters. Actually they will
be the same kind of helicopters and actually they will cost $200
million more than we thought they would”. What a steal of a
deal; a Liberal would think that is good bargaining.
I dare the prime minister to stand in his place to defend the
decision to get helicopters now after originally cancelling them
based purely on politics and politics alone.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have no problem saying that when we were facing a
deficit of $42 billion we could not afford one helicopter and we
did not buy one.
After that there was a white paper, endorsed by everyone, which
said that some day we would have to buy helicopters. We have
bought 15 helicopters for search and rescue at 40% less. We are
spending less than $800 million at this time, and the Tories
wanted to pay at that time $5.8 billion for helicopters.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what happened in fact was that when the prime minister said they
would not buy any the deficit was higher. Look at the debt right
now. It is $600 billion and increasing every second. What kind
of a deal is that? They are not 40% less and the prime minister
knows it. They cost more.
The government and the prime minister are single-handedly
responsible for the mishandling of the helicopter hysteria.
I will ask the prime minister one more time how he can defend a
decision that is so shamefully based on politics and politics
alone.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, talking about hysteria, I do not know on which side of
the aisle you would find it.
I am very happy to know that the Reform Party does not want to
buy helicopters for search and rescue when we know that we have
to replace the ones we have by the year 2001.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the
ice storm the Minister of Human Resources Development announced,
with much pomp but little in the way of results, $45 million in
assistance, $25 million of it in Quebec, in the form of normal
federal programs of the targeted wage subsidy and job creation
partnership type.
In order to really help storm victims, will the minister
undertake to relax the criteria for the targeted wage subsidies
program so that wages are 100 per cent reimbursed by the federal
government, since community organizations, businesses and
municipalities do not have the financial means to assume their
current share?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague in the Bloc
Quebecois for asking me this question, which gives me a chance to
point out that it is not completely true to say that there was
little in the way of results.
We have already invested $3.5 million in job creation programs
in the areas affected by the storm in order to help people rebuild,
to improve the situation; $3.5 million is something.
Many of the programs available to employers, communities and
municipalities are already 100 per cent in job creation
partnerships, as provided for under the legislation.
I think that, right now, the measures are meeting the needs of
communities.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
minister is mistaken about job creation partnership programs, which
are 100 per cent funded, it is true, but the targeted wage subsidy
program is not.
My second question has to do specifically with the job
creation program. Will the minister undertake immediately to relax
the criteria for the job creation partnership program, so that
employers can request funds to buy necessary equipment, which is
not possible under the program's current criteria?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it important to relax some
of the criteria. In certain cases, I believe it will be possible
to buy certain kinds of equipment.
It is obvious that these measures are directed primarily at
job creation. We are in the process of looking at certain
adjustments that could be made in this regard.
I am also counting on the Bloc Quebecois to help us relax
certain attitudes so that municipalities can come and work with us
to set up programs that will be very useful to all municipalities
with significant needs.
* * *
1440
[English]
BANKING
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are very concerned about high service fees at the
banks, about the lack of credit for small business and about the
virtual monopoly hold the big six banks have on our banking
system. This is why it is particularly alarming to see the Royal
Bank and the Bank of Montreal on television making banking policy
while the finance minister is at home brushing his teeth.
Who is really setting policy here? Is it the Royal Bank and the
Bank of Montreal or is it the government? Who is setting policy
on banking?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): First of
all, Mr. Speaker, it is a habit that the hon. member might want
to get into.
The hon. member can be very much assured that this government is
going to set policy. That is why the task force on financial
institutions was set up. It is why we made it very clear that
when it reports in September it will be submitted to a
parliamentary committee for full parliamentary debate. It is why
in fact within the government caucus itself a study group has
been set up to look at it.
We would hope in fact that opposition members themselves would
take this matter very seriously.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are certainly glad to hear that. We were just a little concerned
that we would have one of the bank presidents up here introducing
the budget in three weeks.
The fact is other banks are not going to sit around and wait
while the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal eat their lunch for
them. This is just the beginning and consumers do not seem to
have a voice in this whole process.
What plans does the minister have to deal with any more bank
mergers, or should we be directing that question to the
presidents of the other banks?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member might simply want to do is take a
look at what in fact the government has said.
The reason that we said that the government as far as the Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions would not begin
to look at this merger was precisely that we were not going to
allow anybody to jump the queue.
The fact is that government policy will be set following a full
public debate which itself will follow the task force report.
Only at that point will we begin to consider this or any other
similar merger.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In the regions affected by the ice storm, the plight of maple syrup
producers is tragic. Their production is seriously threatened and
extraordinary measures must quickly be taken to help these people.
Does the minister intend to make changes to the partnership program
designed to promote employment, in terms of the budgets allocated to the
cleanup of sugarbushes affected by the ice storm, so as to truly meet
the needs of maple syrup producers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the interest shown by hon.
members in the initiatives taken by us during the crisis, with all the
means available to the Department of Human Resources Development.
Let me say that maple syrup producers were among those we
particularly had in mind when we were looking for ways to quickly
provide assistance and budgets, precisely so they would not lose very
important investments. These producers are among those who have already
started signing partnership agreements with us.
Some are already receiving money out of the $45 million fund
allocated for those affected by the ice storm.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more
specifically, and since the skilled labour required to do this type of
work does not always meet the program's criteria, which means there
could be a shortage of skilled workers, is the minister prepared to make
his criteria more flexible so as to quickly allow for the hiring of
competent workers who can help our maple syrup producers recover from
such a disaster?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize and to recognize that the
moneys from the employment insurance fund are there primarily to help
the unemployed join the labour market. However, this $45 million
includes another $5 million to be spent through the Youth Employment
Strategy, under which one does not have to be an employment insurance
claimant to be eligible.
The hon. member referred to the possibility of a shortage. We will
cross that bridge when we get to it. Meanwhile, I can assure you that
the $45 million fund is a very important tool of assistance regarding
which we should be congratulated, instead of being asked such questions.
* * *
1445
[English]
IRAQ
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as Saddam
Hussein continues to defy international law, the Liberals sit on
the fence. They do not send a message to our allies.
After immediately sending ships, air support and hospital units
in 1991, what will this government do in 1998 if in fact we need
to send military forces? What resources will we use?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to begin with let me correct the record. As members
just heard, the prime minister had a direct conversation with the
president of the United States on Friday. We have been in active
consultation with a number of allies over the past two or three
weeks. I met with British foreign secretary Robin Cook 10 days
ago. We are looking at the situation.
We fully agree that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government must
live up to their obligations. We are very concerned about all
the reports that they are continuing to develop weapons of mass
destruction. We insist that they live up to the obligations of
the United Nations, which is exactly what every other country
that supports the United Nations has said.
We do not intend however to start making judgments until we have
had the full process worked out.
The Speaker: I would encourage all hon. members to make
their questions so that they are not hypothetical.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
proud tradition and I believe that is being put in jeopardy
because of the way this government is sitting on the fence. What
specific resources will we commit if in fact we are asked for
them?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition of this country is to evaluate
and assess the facts, not to engage in hypothetical speculation.
Canadians expect us to be realistic.
What we are doing is taking a realistic approach to the
situation. We have indicated our support for the necessary
action to get Saddam Hussein to live up to his obligations. We
are supporting the United Nations in that respect.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
During the recent unprecedented storm, a number of businesses
and industries suffered losses of all sorts—stock, production
and marketing losses. They have also had to absorb very high costs
such as the cost of renting and using generators, which are much
more costly than the regular systems.
How does the government intend, in its negotiations with
Quebec, to give special attention to businesses in central Quebec
and in the Montérégie region hard hit by the crisis?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
the crisis in the Saguenay we faced the same problem and we set up
a program, where the costs were shared with the province of Quebec,
to enable business to get back on its feet.
In my negotiations with Mr. Brassard to date, during which I
gave him an initial cheque for $50 million, I wanted to address the
question of assistance to business. He has indicated to me that we
could discuss this matter later on. Groups have already been
established for negotiations on the subject.
* * *
[English]
PRIVACY
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Health cards, credit cards, smart cards, all types of electronic
commerce and the trade and sale of the information that they hold
directly affects our privacy. Our study here in the House showed
that once privacy is lost, it can never be regained.
What is the government doing in this new high tech world to
protect the privacy of our personal information particularly in
the private sector?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Mount Royal for her question and her concern in this
matter.
The Government of Canada has just released documentation and
discussion papers and will be seeking input from across the
country. We must ensure consumer information is confidential.
There are a number of basic principles that we must maintain.
Some of those basic principles include confidentiality,
accountability, consent, accuracy and openness. We are starting
on a consultation process in order to make this legislation
happen.
* * *
[Translation]
JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1996, a 17-year-old Quebecker was brutally raped by two men. Last week,
she was raped again, by our judicial system this time, as both men who
committed this harrowing crime were allowed to go free.
1450
This unacceptable sentence is the result of the Liberal legal
loophole known as conditional sentencing.
Will the Minister of Justice put an immediate end to this legal
loophole?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the hon. member raises
a very disturbing situation, a very disturbing and tragic case in
Montreal last week. First let me point out that my colleague, the
attorney general of Quebec, Mr. Ménard, is appealing that case.
Obviously it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further
in relation to the facts of the case.
The hon. member more generally speaks of conditional sentencing.
I made it very plain in this House that conditional sentencing
is a relatively new provision in our Criminal Code. Courts of
appeal across this country are developing guidelines for lower
courts and we must await the outcome of those cases before
considering further action.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
the excuses in the world will not heal the scars this young woman will
bear for the rest of her life. She was injured twice: first by her two
assailants and then by our judicial system.
Will the minister draw a lesson from this painful incident and
immediately amend the law?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact as I have already
indicated, it was a very tragic circumstance. My colleague the
attorney general of Quebec is appealing the case.
Perhaps in relation to the more general question of conditional
sentencing, I can do no better than to quote my provincial
colleague, John Havelock of the province of Alberta in referring
to conditional sentencing: “I like the flexibility in
conditional sentencing. As opposed to having the federal
government developing some very specific guidelines, we can have
the courts reacting to the needs of their respective communities
across the country”.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance. I am sure he will agree with me
when I say that many young Canadians concerned about their future
were driven to occupy one of the chartered banks last weeks,
banks that show little concern for the well-being of our young
people. In consideration of their future, will the Minister of
Finance stamp the monster merger as NSF and tell the banks that
the deal has no serious future in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already replied on a couple of occasions in this
House in terms of the bank mergers.
I would certainly like to express the government's great concern
with the whole question of student debt. Indeed it is why the
prime minister before Christmas stood up in this House and
announced the scholarship millennium fund to deal directly with
that issue. It is why in the 1997 budget the government brought
in a series of measures to deal with the whole question of
student debt. It is why this government is very much concerned
to make sure that young Canadians have equal access to higher
education.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, not
sufficient funds is how the banks describe their inability to
compete globally. They say that size matters and that is how
they justify this monster merger proposal. Many financial
analysts say today that the fixation with size is absurd. Will
the minister reject this monster merger and stamp it NSF, no such
fixation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of interesting points. I
would hope in the great public debate that will follow the report
of the task force and in the debates that will take place in this
House of Commons that he will make those points to the Canadian
public.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Sherbrooke directed his question to the Prime Minister. My
question is also for the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister stand in this House and explain the
government's official position regarding Iraq? We will recall that, in
1991, when his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister stated
“We
will let the embargo and sanctions do their work”. In the meantime, with
the ongoing sanctions and embargo, thousands of innocent men, women and
children are dying in Iraq.
Does the Prime Minister agree that a debate should be held in this
House before rather than after war has been declared?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not much of a historian. He
would know for example that in 1996 we fully supported the
actions to ensure that Saddam Hussein would live up to the
obligations. The same stands today.
We want him to live up to the obligations and we are prepared to
support those measures to make sure it happens.
1455
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, let us continue with this minister. In 1991 this
minister refused to support any Canadian intervention under our
traditional allied flag. He then said Canadian participation
should only be done under the UN flag.
In light of these recent events has the minister changed his
position? Will he let Canada support an armed intervention in
Iraq that will not be under the UN flag?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member keeps compounding his
ignorance. The fact is that I and my colleagues voted for the
resolution in 1991 and the record will show that. Before they
start asking the questions, they should go back and do their
research and their homework much better than they clearly are
doing.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation.
The government has announced that it is extending funding for
the residential rehabilitation assistance program, the emergency
repair program and the home adaptations for seniors independence
program. Why is the federal government extending these programs
at this time and where is the money coming from?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I
announced that this government intended to extend RRAP, the
residential rehabilitation assistance program, for the next five
years, investing a total of $250 million.
Where does the money come from? It is due to the good
management of this government so that we can reallocate funds and
respond to the needs of the provincial and municipal governments
and private sector stakeholders. They all want the government to
remain in this program so we can commit to safer communities.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the new RRSP bonds will pay 4%, guaranteed. The new CPP
will pay young Canadians 1.8%, well maybe, according to the
fund's chief actuary. Why should our children be forced to
invest in the CPP when they could earn more than twice as much
with the safest of government bonds?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, throughout a good portion of the September to December
debate in this House, Reform Party members, including the hon.
member, kept pointing out that the provinces would not support
the Canada pension plan. They kept pointing out that the
Canadian people would not support the Canada pension plan. The
fact is that the provinces overwhelmingly support the Canada
pension plan. Canadians overwhelmingly support the Canada
pension plan. In fact the only Canadians who do not are the
members of the Reform Party and they are out of it again.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE IN ALGERIA
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
More than 1,500 people were reported killed in Algeria during
Ramadan, and there seems to be no end in sight for the massacre of
Algerian civilians, including women and children, while there is
still no clear picture of who is responsible for these massacres,
and the reasons behind them.
Can the minister tell us what he knows about the situation in
Algeria at the present time, as well as when he plans to release
the report by his special envoy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to state first of all that the Canadian
government strongly condemns the violence in Algeria. As the
hon. member knows, the government sent a special envoy to discuss
Canadian assistance in putting an end to this violence. At the
present time, we received an indication that Algeria is prepared
to receive a delegation of parliamentarians and I hope my
colleague the House leader will be able to head up a group of
parliamentarians in the coming months. I have invited a group
of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
has the floor.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
A recent CFIB survey confirms what many small businesses and
farmers have been saying for years, that bank loans are too
expensive and harder to get. What proof can the minister give
this House that this monster merger will be better for small
businesses and farmers? Or at the very least can he promise it
will not make things worse?
1500
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the industry committee has taken this matter up for
quite some time. In fact the member from Spadina has made this a
particular cause of his.
Over the course of the last two to three years, there has been a
substantial improvement as a result of the monitoring that has
been brought forth by members of this House. I can assure the
House that will continue. In fact this is one of the issues
which the task force will be looking at. We suggested that the
task force look at it. It will certainly form part of the great
public debate in this House and across the country.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the chief of defence staff said that Canada could send some help
to the gulf region within nine hours of the order being given. I
understand that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are not as
confident.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell the House what is the
state of readiness of our forces and what will Canada be capable
of sending within nine hours when requested by our closest
allies?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all there has been no request.
If such a request was received, it would have to be given serious
consideration. What would be sent if that became a reality would
depend on the nature of the mission, the nature of the military
action.
The Canadian forces do have rapidly deployable units which are
capable of moving on very short notice. However as has been said
by my colleague and by the prime minister, the hope is that
Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and abide by the UN
Security Council resolution and that a diplomatic resolution will
be found.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL S-3
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my point of order today concerns Bill S-3, an act to amend the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act.
To begin, I would point out that the official opposition
supports the principle of this bill but it is not the principle
of the bill which concerns us. What concerns us is the
introduction of public bills in the Senate and in particular the
breach of the constitutional principle that money bills must be
introduced in the House of Commons.
Ethically there are many reasons why the Senate should not be
introducing the legislation. Constitutionally there is only one.
Section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867 provides that bills for
appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any
tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons.
While this seems to be a clear and well understood principle,
the application—
The Speaker: Order. I am sure that all hon. members will
want to hear the point of order of the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for them
to understand when we talk about the Senate but we will get
through this.
1505
While this seems to be a clear and well understood principle,
the application of it over the years is not always clear or well
understood.
I would like to refer to an article from the Ottawa Law
Review entitled “Money Bills and the Senate” by Elmer A.
Driedger. Mr. Driedger argues:
Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of the Commons can be
found on the theory that under our Constitution, representation
and consent form the basis of the power of the Commons to grant
money and impose taxes. Through the centuries the principle was
maintained that taxation required representation and consent. The
only body in Canada that meets this test is the House of Commons.
The elected representatives of the people sit in the Commons, and
not in the Senate and consistently with history and tradition,
they may well insist that the Commons alone have the right to
decide to the last cent what money is to be granted and what
taxes are to be imposed.
If we are to insist that the Commons alone has the right to
decide to the last cent what money is to be granted, then I would
propose that legislation should never be introduced in the
Senate. It is unethical, unnecessary and undemocratic.
Having said that, Bill S-3 has been introduced in the Senate and
is now on our Order Paper here in the House of Commons. This
bill deals with aspects of private pension funds which are of
such financial importance to taxpayers that it must be considered
a money bill. Its impact on Canadian pension funds is
significant enough to warrant the accountability of an elected
House, as Mr. Driedger and other experts have pointed out.
Another consideration can be found in F.A. Kunz's “The Modern
Senate of Canada”. There is a reference to the war risk
insurance bill of 1942. The government had to accept a number of
amendments made by the Senate, except one which enabled the
minister to enter into an agreement with provincially registered
insurance companies. After debate Mr. Iisley told the House on
July 29, 1942 that the Senate in fact “contravenes
constitutional usage and practice because the alteration of that
scheme in any important particular is the alteration of what is
essentially and soundly considered a financial bill”.
The Senate through Bill S-3 is attempting to do essentially the
same thing as the Senate tried to do with its amendment to the
war risk insurance bill of 1942. Bill S-3 is attempting among
other things to enable the minister to enter into agreements with
designated provincial authorities respecting the application of
provincial law to any pension plan that is subject to federal
jurisdiction.
If the Senate amendment to the war risk insurance bill of 1942
contravened constitutional usage, then surely a bill attempting
to do a similar thing originating in the Senate is a breach of
the financial privileges of this House.
The Pension Benefits Standards Act and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act are sound financial
acts. If the Senate is to amend those acts, it is amending
financial acts. The government in its own terms of reference is
referring Bill S-3 to the Standing Committee on Finance. Bill
S-3 is a financial bill.
Furthermore Bill S-3 was introduced as Bill C-45 in the last
Parliament. They are essentially the same bill. The government
felt it necessary in the last Parliament to attach a royal
recommendation to Bill C-45, an act to amend the Pension Benefits
Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions Act. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, royal
recommendations are attached to money bills. The government by
its own actions therefore considers Bill S-3 to be a money bill.
In conclusion, the members are concerned over the slow erosion
of their power. Just recently we lost an important battle
regarding the supply process which has rendered the influence of
members in this House to that of a rubber stamp to the
government.
Members of this House cannot be further humiliated by becoming a
rubber stamp for an unelected Senate. We have yet to get over
the degradation of the treatment given our private members'
bills.
1510
It is high time that the benefit of doubt be given to the
members of this House instead of the government and the unelected
and unaccountable senators.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to respectfully disagree
with the submission made by the hon. House leader for the
opposition.
In his submission the hon. member claims that this bill is a
money bill and therefore it is constitutionally incorrect for the
bill to have been presented to the Senate before the House of
Commons. That is the essence of his statement today.
Mr. Speaker, you will know of course that the hon. member
further stated that in his view no bill shall be presented to the
Senate before the House. Of course the Constitution of our
country is such that bills generally, with the exception of money
bills—and I will get to that in a minute—can be presented to
either House of Parliament.
Last fall hon. members across the way made the argument that
government bills should not be presented to the Senate at all.
Your honour adjudicated on that matter and stated that that
submission by members across the way was wrong, that in fact both
Houses did have the constitutional authority for bills generally.
On that point I would submit that the hon. member lost the battle
previously.
On the second issue as to whether or not this bill is a money
bill, the bill is not a money bill. The hon. member himself
admitted in his submission that the bill did not have a royal
recommendation. He says that a similar bill in a previous
Parliament did. It may be that a bill somewhat similar or even
identical did have a royal recommendation. That is not the
issue. The issue is whether a royal recommendation was required.
A royal recommendation not having been required, there was no
royal recommendation in the Senate nor is there one with the bill
now in this House.
If there is no royal recommendation necessary for the bill, it
is quite constitutional for the bill to be presented first before
either house of Parliament and to the other house subsequently.
This is exactly the process that has occurred with regard to this
bill.
Finally, going back to the other point raised by the hon. member
across the way, he submitted as he also did last year at one
point, that bills should not originate in the Senate at all.
I want to remind the Speaker and the House that I put on the
record last fall with Mr. Speaker that a bill in the last
Parliament first introduced by the Senate and then subsequently
dealt with by the House required a stand up division vote on
which he and other members of his party voted favourably.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to register the fact that the NDP caucus shares the
concern of the Reform Party on this. In the past we have
expressed our concern about bills being introduced in the Senate.
The government House leader says that no royal recommendation
has been required in this case. One asks oneself whether no
royal recommendation was attached in order to avoid having the
bill properly characterized as a money bill. It is certainly
arguable that it is in fact a money bill given its similarity to
other bills that have been so understood.
I would like to make a further point which I have made before.
In the current political context it is more and more
inappropriate for bills to be introduced in the Senate no matter
what they are. The NDP members have always felt this way. There
have never been New Democrats in the Senate. Now with the
addition of the Reform Party and the Bloc, we have three parties
out of five that are not sitting in the Senate.
1515
The undemocratic nature of the Senate and the unrepresentative
nature of the Senate therefore becomes much more an issue than it
was in some previous era where there were Liberals and
Conservatives in this House and Liberals and Conservatives in the
other house. I say that from the point of view of New Democrats
who have always felt that and we have more company in our
discomfort now than we may have had in the past.
This point needs to be made over and over again. There are two
things. The government, if not for technical procedural reasons,
should for good political process and democratic reasons desist
from introducing bills in the Senate and make sure that they go
through the elected House first where all parties are represented
and where the broad spectrum of Canadian public opinion is
represented. Second, the government should give heed to the
various calls for Senate reform and take some action on reforming
the other place or getting rid of it altogether depending on what
we come up with.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
listening to the House leader for the NDP I am not sure if misery
loves company or what the phrase is that follows, but I have to
concur with much of what he said. I would also add to that
besides the fact that we need the Senate reform and besides the
fact that the Senate is unrepresentative and undemocratic and all
those other good things that we have a consensus on, I urge you,
Mr. Speaker, when you rule on this to consider the trends that
are happening in Parliament.
On a previous point of order on another unrelated issue you
ruled against a point of order that I had brought forth on the
way the government had acted. You ruled against me but you
chastised the government and the finance department in that case
for all too often taking this House of Commons for granted. You
did not rule in my favour but you basically said “I'm warning
you not to keep this up, don't persist in this action or else”.
We are now up to five or six bills introduced into the Senate. I
know previously you said that a bill introduced in the Senate was
not that big a thing. It was not unconstitutional. But look at
what is happening if you would. This bill which the government
House leader says is not a money bill is by his admission not a
money bill because he just did not bother stapling a royal
recommendation to the bill. Yet a few months ago he did staple
the royal recommendation.
In other words, just tearing off that one piece of paper
suddenly in his mind makes it unnecessary to bother with the
royal recommendation. That does not make it so.
Second, Mr. Speaker, when you see now five or six bills
introduced in the Senate, think of where we are going with this.
I urge Mr. Speaker to consider that this House, as the House of
the common people, the House where democracy should be heard and
heard first, is where the bill should be introduced.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to take that into consideration when you
make your ruling later on.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member opposite has said, a money bill by definition must
either appropriate part of the federal revenue or it must raise a
tax.
That a bill can be described as being important does not make it
technically a money bill. If it does not spend money or raise
taxes, even if it deals with financial issues, it is not a money
bill. The member opposite, I would suggest, failed to
demonstrate that any clause of the bill either spends money or
raises a tax.
I hope you will take those points into consideration, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe what we often deal with in this House is not black, it is
not white, it is grey and this is one of those grey areas that
you will have to deal with.
Arguably this is a money bill. This will be your decision.
But I believe what we are dealing with here is the inch
worm. It is the wedge.
If you rule against the Reform Party on this point of order, how
far down the road do we have to go? Do we have to go to the
state of the Australian Parliament where the Senate which could
deal with money bills formed a gridlock?
The Australian Parliament ceased to function. Is that where this
Parliament is going? Is that how far we want to go down
that road? Do we have to get there? I do not think we do.
1520
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to look at this in the context of how far
down the road we are going to stop it. I believe the time is now.
The Speaker: Colleagues will remember that early in the
session I ruled that bills could emanate from the Senate.
However, a new point has been brought up and this is what is
arguable here. I have had arguments from both sides. I would
remind the House that the Speaker rules in favour of the House.
He does not rule for or against one side or the other. There is a
matter brought before your Speaker and I will have a look at all
sides of the argument. I would like some time to deliberate on
some specific points which are causing me to think out loud and I
will come back to the House if necessary.
I have another point of order, the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
ICE STORM
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr Speaker,
I understand all parties in this House have been consulted and
agree on the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the
House, on Wednesday, February 4, 1998, no proceedings pursuant to
Standing Order 38 shall take place, and, commencing at the
ordinary time of daily adjournment on that day, a motion to
adjourn shall be deemed to have been proposed and shall be
debated under the following conditions:
1. Members may speak for no more than 20 minutes on the ice
storm of January 1998, provided that two members may be permitted
to divide one twenty minute time period;
2. During the debate no dilatory motions or quorum calls may be
received;
3. When no members wish to speak, the motion shall be deemed to
have been adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
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 responses to 11
petitions.
* * *
CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill S-5, an act to amend the
Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons
with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in
respect of persons with disabilities, and other matters, and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the first
time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
1525
PETITIONS
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
has been a busy month since the House last sat. It is my
pleasure to present a petition with respect to the Canadian Wheat
Board bill, Bill C-4, which will come back to the House either
today or tomorrow for further debate. I would like to read the
petition submitted by a number of signatories.
It states that
Bill C-4 does not make the necessary changes to the Canadian
Wheat Board that the majority of western Canadian farmers want to
ensure that the CWB operates in the best interests of the
producer, that Bill C-4 opens the possibility of including more
crops under the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction which will
adversely affect the marketing and processing of non-board crops.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to withdraw parts
of Bill C-4 that would allow for additional crops to be marketed
by the CWB and that no more crops be brought under the Canadian
Wheat Board's monopoly.
I wish to table this as a petition of my constituents of western
Canada.
CRTC
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by 150 constituents from Wetaskiwin. They say
that the CRTC on July 22, 1997 refused to license four religious
television broadcasters including one Roman Catholic service and
three multidenominational services. On that same day the CRTC
did license the pornographic Playboy channel television service.
These people believe that they have a constitutional right to
freedom of religion, conscience and expression. Therefore the
petitioners pray that Parliament review the mandate of the CRTC
and direct it to administer a new policy which will encourage the
licensing of religious broadcasts.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The
petitioners point out that other countries use their taxes in a
very creative way. Ireland requires no income tax from artists
in an effort to promote the artistic community in that country.
In Taiwan teachers pay no income tax. Again this indicates the
importance placed on teachers and young children.
They suggest that Canada should undertake changes to its tax
system in order to encourage certain sectors. They point out the
small business sector and those people who have launched
self-conducting businesses, people running businesses on their
own, home based businesses and that sort of thing.
I support the point they are making here, that tax reform is
highly overdue.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
my honour to present two petitions today. The first petition
gives the opportunity for this House to give meaning to the
government's words of working in partnership with aboriginal
people. This is a petition for a public inquiry of Ipperwash.
Whereas many questions concerning the events preceding, during
and after the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on
September 6, 1995 at Ipperwash provincial park, where over 200
armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women,
have not been answered, and whereas the Constitution of Canada
requires that Canada protect Indians and Indian lands, the
undersigned petition the House of Commons that a full public
inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of
Dudley George on September 6, 1995 to eliminate all
misconceptions held by and about governments, the OPP and the
Stony Point people.
I take pleasure in submitting this on behalf of the signatories
whose names cover eight pages.
PENSIONS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition concerns fair pensions for Canadians. This
petition has over 100 signatures. It calls for the rescinding of
Bill C-2. It further petitions the House of Commons for a
national review of the retirement income system in Canada to
ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and
tomorrow. I take pleasure in presenting this petition.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions.
The first petition is similar to the one presented by my
colleague from Halifax West. It is signed by many petitioners
from British Columbia and is on the subject of the pension
system.
1530
The petitioners note that the CPP, the OAS and the GIS are the
cornerstones of Canada's social safety net. The petitioners
support a publicly administered universal pension plan. They
call upon parliament to rescind Bill C-2, which makes major
changes to the Canada pension plan.
Further, they petition the House for a national review of the
retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of
Canada's retirement system for today and tomorrow.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition I wish to present. It is signed
by hundreds of residents of my constituency as well as elsewhere
in British Columbia.
The petition notes that there continue to exist over 30,000
nuclear weapons on earth and that the continuing existence of
nuclear weapons poses a threat to the health and survival of
human civilization and the global environment.
Therefore the petitioners urge that parliament support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
TAXATION
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals from
Athabasca, Lac La Biche and Edmonton, Alberta, as well as other
locations.
The petitioners are concerned about the tax structure. They
feel that corporate contributions to public revenue are too low
and among the lowest of all the G-7 countries. They are very
concerned about the individuals' share of federal revenue in
terms of the taxes being paid. They are also in opposition to
the harmonization of the GST which the Liberal government has put
forward.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and the
Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform dealing with
all these issues including the high taxes on gasoline.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, as the
member for Shefford, a riding hard hit by the ice storm, I support
the motion on the crisis we have just come through. I had already
sent you a letter requesting an emergency debate on this crisis,
which hit part of Quebec and eastern Ontario.
I am happy to learn that such a debate will be held and I
would ask that the letter I sent you earlier be withdrawn.
[English]
The Speaker: I confirm that I received a letter for an
emergency debate earlier today, but it would be moot now that the
House in its wisdom has decided to take it upon itself.
* * *
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 questions will be answered today: Nos. 20, 25, 35, 36,
44 and 50.
.[Text]
Ms. Val Meredith:
Could the Minister responsible for Status of Women Canada list
all expenses incurred by the coordinator for Status of Women
Canada for the period January 1, 1995 to August 25, 1997?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of
Women), Lib.):
Expenses Incurred from January 1, 1995 to August 25, 1997
Expenditure
Category>1994-95>1995-96*>1996-97>1997-98*>Total
Travel>1,640>28,853>18,602>10,191>59,286
Training/
Conference Fees>52>6,516>625>1,195>8,388
Hospitality>983>388>508>141>2,020
Total>2,675>35,757>19,735>11,527>69,694
* Travel expenses of $13,278 (Beijing 1995) paid by Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, of which $7,970 is based on
information provided by and paid directly by FAIT
** Travel expenses of $10,191 (Sri Lanka 1997) paid by Canadian
International Development Agency, of which $1,080 is based on
information provided by and paid directly by CIDA.
NOTE: Minimal amounts paid via petty cash are not included.
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
What is the exact amount of the debt incurred by the Ontario
Wheat Board during the 1996-97 crop year that the federal
government will be responsible for?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): The department provided a price guarantee for the 1996
crop year to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board under
the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act. The 1996
Ontario wheat crop was severely affected by fusarium head blight
which significantly reduced both the quality and quantity of the
crop. As a result, despite the board's extraordinary and costly
efforts to market the difficult crop, the Ontario Wheat
Producers' Marketing Board incurred a deficit in its operation of
the marketing pools. The average wholesale price of the wheat
fell below the price guaranteed by the federal government under
the former Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, now
the Price Pooling Program under the Agricultural Marketing
Programs Act, resulting in a claim under the agreement. An amount
of $17.3M has been determined by an independent auditing firm to
be payable to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Borad under
the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act agreement.
Ms. Libby Davies:
What is the maximum number of cases allotted to Immigration
officials operating in foreign posts, specifically in the
Ministry's Asia-Pacific offices (in Beijing), as regulated by
administrative and departmental guidelines?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): The Department of Citizenship and
Immigration does not allot a “maximum number of cases” or
quotas to its foreign posts.
Ms. Libby Davies:
Can the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration indicate what is the average length
of time taken to process an individual citizenship request
emanating from departmental offices within the Asia-Pacific rim,
from initial contact with the department to final approval or
refusal of application?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Processing times for applications for
permanent residence in Canada vary according to the immigration
category of the application. For example, in 1997 the average
time for applications by immediate family members—spouses,
fiancés and children—was 8 months, for skilled workers it was 11
months, and for business cases it was 13 months. The average
processing time for all immigrant classes was 11 months.
These times are based on the date that the prospective immigrant
provides a completed application form to the overseas mission and
do not include the additional time that
is required to process a sponsorship request when required
(family class and privately sponsored refugees).
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Who were the project recipients for Scientific Research Tax
Credit during the years 1980-1985 and how much did each project
receive through tax credits?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): The provisions of section 241 of the Income Tax Act on
confidentiality of information prevent the department from disclosing personal
client information.
Mr. Guy St-Julien:
With respect to the estimates for the
renovations and/or repairs that were planned for the office of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Val d'Or, Quebec, for each
of the years covering the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years:
a) what is the date of each estimate;
b) what date was the office closed; and
c) what is the cost of each estimate?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): a) The only cost estimate concerning any
renovation/repairs to
the Val d'Or detachment in the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal
years was done in September 1992. The goal of this cost estimate,
done by the RCMP, was to be used as a budgetary planning for the
following years. No work was done based on this estimate.
b) The final decision in respect to the office closure was taken
on August 18, 1994, following a restructuring of the RCMP
division. All closure activities began on this date and official
closure for the Val d'Or office was in summer 1996.
c) The September 1992 cost estimate was approximately $300,000.
Work covered by this estimate consisted mainly of an interior
remodeling of the existing space in order to meet all health and
safety codes and special security requirements by the RCMP.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would be grateful if you would call Starred Question No. 43.
.[Text]
<*Question No. 43—Mr. Jim Hart:
With regard to Section 6 of the Agricultural Marketing Program
Act: (a) when will the Minister act to solve the problem that
exists between the banks and the Advance Payments Program; and
(b) what will the Minister do to ensure that funds are
available to producers when they most need them?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): The cash advance legislation which is the Agricultural
Marketing Programs Act, Bill C-34, 35th Parliament, second
session, royal assent April 25, 1997, provides a repayment
guarantee that is conditional on the producer organizations
respecting the terms of the act and the guarantee agreement, as
laid out in section 6 of the Act. However, lenders have told the
department that they are unwilling to issue loans at low interest
rates for the program without an unconditional guarantee. We are
currently working with the Department of Finance to explore
options to address the concerns of the banks.
Following some initial delays, producer organizations have been
able to negotiate loans with their banks under the program for
this year in order to provide their producers with advance
payments for their crops.
We expect that this matter will be resolved prior to the start
of the next crop year and that in the future farmers will have
their cash advances when they need them.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill 28, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension
Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act,
the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax
Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the
Western Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to
the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: Notwithstanding the statement I made prior
to question period, I am now going to recognize the hon. member
for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-28 and, more
specifically, to support the government's decision to increase cash
transfers to the provinces under the terms of the Canada health and
social transfer.
A measure of true leadership is the setting of government
priorities. The priorities of this government are clear and
definite.
1535
Health and education are issues affecting every Canadian in
every region. They are truly national concerns. It is therefore
natural when federal finances improve for the government to give
priority to investment in health and education by increasing
transfers to the provinces in these vital areas. This is the
type of investment that all Canadians recognize, the sort of
federal-provincial partnership that all Canadians should support.
Under this legislation, cash transfers to the provinces under
the Canada health and social transfer are guaranteed to reach an
annual $12.5 billion over the next five years.
This represents an increase of $1.5 billion over the ceiling for
cash transfers established previously by legislation.
However, I think it important we remember that the cash
portion of the Canada health and social transfer is only part of
the total amount of federal support to the provinces in the areas
of health, education and social assistance. Including tax points,
the total amount turned over to the provinces under the Canada
health and social transfer will exceed $25 billion and rise to over
$28 billion in the coming years.
Tax points, you say? I know that appears abstract, obscure
and even bureaucratic.
Canadians must, however, take the trouble to understand, within our
debates on national policy, what this is all about, especially if
they want to understand the legislation of concern to us at this
time.
Over the years, federal-provincial social programs have been
developed, with the federal contribution taking two forms. First
of all, there were direct cash contributions, but from 1977 on we
also agreed to give tax points to the provinces.
And what is a tax point? It simply means that the provinces
can get part of the taxes that would otherwise go to the federal
government. In other words, provincial receipts go up while
federal receipts go down, but the Canadian taxpayer pays the same
amount of tax.
The provinces have a good reason to accept these tax points,
because increased points go hand in hand with economic growth and
each point, even with ups and downs in the economy, is worth far
more today than when the funded programs were launched.
Think for a moment of the tax points transferred to the
provinces in 1977 to support health and social programs. In 1977
these tax points represented some $3 billion dollars in receipts.
Today, the figure is about $13 billion. In other words, if the
federal government had not transferred these tax points to the
provinces, we would have $13 billion more in our coffers.
Part of this amount could have been used to bring the deficit down
faster. But I think, and I am sure that my government colleagues will
agree with me, that this money belongs to those who now have it and that
it is being put to good use. It helps finance a national health care
system that is the envy of our American neighbours. It also helps
support postsecondary education so that Canadians can acquire the skills
needed to ensure their own success and their country's development in a
knowledge-based global economy.
It seems to me that the results are obvious. Federal support for
health and education, which are two major concerns of our society, is
definite and reliable. As our economy grows and our financial situation
improves, it will be possible to increase this support.
I am not trying to hide the fact that, in order to reduce the
Canadian deficit, transfers had to be reduced.
As you know, the cash component of federal transfers to the provinces
accounts for approximately one in every five dollars in federal
spending. It would have been impossible to reduce the deficit without
including transfers to the provinces in our first mandate's budget
restrictions.
There are, however, a number of factors I think we should consider
in assessing the federal government's performance in terms of reduced
transfers. First of all, initial cuts to cash transfers amounted to
about 3% of total provincial revenues, or three cents on every dollar of
provincial spending.
I do not really think many Canadians would call that an excessive
and exorbitant contribution to helping resolve the problem of the
national debt, which affects us all.
1540
Second, we, like other Canadians, have always been concerned
by the future of our social programs, particularly our health care
programs. Because of financial progress that was more rapid than
expected, we can now reduce the size of anticipated transfer cuts,
and Bill C-28 puts up to $1.5 billion in federal revenue dollars
into provincial coffers annually.
Third, and most important, it must be recognized that these
transfer cuts represented clear and real benefits for the
provinces, not just losses.
This may seem contradictory, but it is the plain truth.
Let us not forget that our federal deficit reduction program
played an essential role in lowering Canadian interest rates, which
have reached their lowest levels in 40 years. And although
international tensions have raised these rates somewhat, they are
still much lower than the rates we saw during the 1980s.
Businesses and the public were not the only ones in Canada to
benefit from these lower rates. The provinces did too. First of
all, the drop in interest rates made possible by our financial
restraint translated into a reduction in the cost of servicing the
provincial debt.
In fact, we have estimated that the lowered rates have
resulted in a dividend to the provinces of $1.8 billion between
January 1995 and December 1996.
As for my province of Quebec, it saved about $645 million that year,
more than any other province. In the last 14 months, these savings have
kept increasing in every province.
The gains made by the provinces go beyond a decline in interest
rates. Canada's low interest rates are the reason for the major increase
in growth and job creation, in recent months. Our growth rate is one of
the best in the world, while our unemployment rate for December was the
lowest one in seven years.
Provinces are also benefiting, since they collect more taxes as
more Canadians are working, businesses are in a better position, not to
mention lower social assistance costs.
In other words, our successful fight against the deficit helped improve
the provinces' ability to invest in health care and education.
This is why I get annoyed at those who claim that our government
acted unfairly and dumped its deficit onto the provinces. I see things
differently.
While we did impose cuts, we did it carefully and we have always
been as fair as possible. The provinces, and in fact all Canadians,
benefit from the very real rewards that these federal cuts have
generated.
I raised these issues because they are useful in the context of the
legislation before us. However, before concluding, I want to mention
other aspects relating to our government's commitment to health and
education.
The increase in the CHST under Bill C-28 is the best example
of our commitment, but it is not the only proof of our ongoing and
progressive support for these essential social activities.
For instance, with Bill C-28, we are taking an important step
towards helping Canadian parents set money aside for their
children's education. This bill will increase the maximum amount
that can be invested annually in a registered education savings
plan for a child to $4,000 from the current $2,000. This raises
the ceiling on these savings, the income from which is tax-free
until used for educational expenses, to a level more in line with
the growth in tuition fees and related expenses.
Our health care measures extend well beyond transfers under
the CHST.
1545
For example, in last year's budget, our government announced
that it would invest $150 million over three years in order to help
the provinces set up pilot projects, such as the new approaches to
home care and drug coverage, so that they can find ways of
improving our health care system.
In addition, the 1997 budget earmarked $50 million over the next
three years for the introduction of a national health data
co-ordination program.
This will enable suppliers, planners and recipients of health care
throughout the country to obtain accurate information on health at
all times, including the most up to date information on the best
treatments available.
I know that my remarks have gone beyond the framework of the
legislation we are looking at today. However, no government
legislation can be examined without a look at the general policy
and undertakings of this government.
That is why I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak
today in support of Bill C-28. This bill shows our government's
commitment to the vital issues of education and health care. It
proves that the course we have chosen is one of ongoing partnership
with and support of the provinces. It therefore deserves the
support of all members of this House.
I hope that that support will be unanimous.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was very
curious and listened closely because I wanted to see if the hon.
member would mention Yukon or the territories.
The transfer payments to Yukon will be cut by $20 million. Our
only weather station in the whole north has been taken away.
There will be no flood warnings this year.
We have just had a huge event in Yukon. The only operating iron
ore mine has closed, throwing over 700 people out of work.
Changes to UI have meant that they will not be eligible for UI.
The changes to the transfer payments mean that we no longer have
the Canada Assistance Plan that would match that level of
devastation by 50%.
We have cuts in transfer payments, which means that the Yukon
government has less money to absorb on social assistance for
those who are no longer eligible for UI because of the changes.
The compounding of the situation is not good for Canadians, and
I am distressed that a member of Parliament did not even mention
the territories.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the
social transfer it includes the provinces and the territories. I
may not in my speech have mentioned particularly the word
territories. For that I apologize, but I believe if the member
checks the law she will see that it includes transfers to all
provinces and the territories.
Notwithstanding, we had to cut back in the transfers to the
provinces when we had to make our difficult decisions almost four
years ago. On the first occasion the government has had after
having addressed the serious problem of deficit we have taken
$1.5 billion and put it into our first priority as a government,
that is helping the provinces cope with education and health.
In this case not only will the provinces benefit through five
years of stable funding but the territories will also. I hope
the member realizes that. I understand the high unemployment
rate in her native region but right now the bill that we are
addressing is for social transfers. It give them stable funding
for five years, as I mentioned. This is very important for
provinces and territories that in the past were reliant upon the
mercy of the federal government, not knowing that the funding
would come some time within a year or so and having to establish
their priorities.
The stable funding for five years reassures the provinces and
the territories that they have recourse to this funding for five
years to come.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has spoken about the need for stable funding and
federal transfers to the provinces to maintain the now new Canada
health and social transfer, formerly known as the EPF funding
programs.
1550
Could the hon. member comment on the kind of stable funding the
government has provided to the provinces over the past four
years, stable funding which has resulted in a 35% cut in absolute
cash transfers to the provinces, to the two highest priority
programs delivered by government, namely health care and
education?
I would like him to respond to that record of instability in
those transfers in light of the fact the federal government has
only cut its own program spending by 9.3% in the same period of
time.
Perhaps the hon. member could illuminate the House and Canadians
as to why his government felt that program spending by the
federal government like the handout programs of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to special interest groups and free flag
giveaways and the Minister of Industry's billions of dollars in
handouts to corporations, businesses and regional development
programs were a higher priority than health transfers to the
provinces which rank consistently among Canadians top priorities?
Why are we to believe the government's commitment today to
maintain stable funding for these programs when it made a similar
promise, in fact the same promise, for stable funding in the 1993
election and broke that promise?
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, hindsight is 20:20. It
would have been great four years ago to have had a crystal ball
to project what could have happened.
We had to make those decisions in 1994-95 with serious
repercussions for all Canadians. When it came to transfers to
the provinces there is no way they could have escaped any
cutbacks. It represents roughly 20% of our budget. We cut back
only 3%, and I say that with respect. It was 3% of total
revenues for the provinces.
If somebody said that they were going to cut back my own
personal budget by 3%, I could handle that quite easily. If
somebody said they were going to cut me back 20% some serious
decisions would have to made.
We made difficult decisions. We went to the provinces upon
their request and gave them stable funding. Today in this bill
we are almost reinstating the $1.5 billion in that promise that
we made three years ago.
The hon. member may say that we are only giving them back $1.5
billion in less cuts but still the provinces have $12 billion.
When it comes to stable funding I do not know what law the member
referred to. I presume he might be talking about stable funding
for CBC, but in this legislation there is the five year
commitment.
He referred to the fact that the federal government cut and cut
on the backs of provinces. In my speech I indicated how some of
the provinces and indeed all Canadians benefited from the
difficult decisions that we had to make. I gave a concrete
example in my home province. Because of its heavy debt financing
it was able to save $645 million in its debt service alone.
The member's home province is Alberta. When members from
Alberta come to me and say that the feds cut back in education
and social transfers and that it is their fault hospitals had to
be closed I do not buy that argument. Alberta finds itself today
with a balanced budget, a billion dollar surplus, and is well on
its way to eliminating its debt.
Was it a federal decision to close the hospitals or schools, or
was it a provincial decision by Mr. Klein and company that may
have gone a little too quickly?
Those were individual decisions the provinces had to make. Our
commitment is to give them the money and to give it on a five
year basis so that they can plan their fiscal needs and
priorities. When it comes to cutbacks the priorities of
individual provinces are established. Those provinces acted
prudently, so much so that almost seven provinces have balanced
budgets. They have benefited. To come back four years later and
say maybe we should not have cut back, hindsight is 20:20.
1555
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for my colleague. There is talk of cuts and transfers to
the provinces. Personally, I wonder where these transfers are.
Since the cuts to employment insurance, hundreds of people no
longer qualify for benefits. In New Brunswick, Minister Marcelle
Mersereau said she had been forced to allow welfare recipients to
participate in special programs so they could accumulate enough
hours to become eligible for employment insurance. So there were
a number of transfers that did not really help.
If we look at what is happening in hospitals, at the health
care situation, we have trouble keeping doctors.
In the hospitals, we find our parents parked in corridors. That
kind of thing would never have happened in the past, but it is now
a common occurrence.
I can even give you an example. In the Bathurst area, in my
riding, hospitals are forced to charge for parking, which used to
be free, so they can afford to buy new equipment. That proves the
transfers are not there. In 1979, the federal government paid 50%
of hospital or health care expenditures; this figure is now down to
about 15%. You have a long way to go before you can make transfer
payments that could help support people in the health care field.
The question I would like to ask my colleague concerns the
banks. Why is the government not making a decision today,
particularly since the Minister of Finance clearly expressed his
surprise at the announcement that the Royal Bank and the Bank of
Montreal would merge?
When he unexpectedly found out about it, he said, as I understand
it, that he would give his approval only if the banks looked after
the interests of Canadians and if no one lost their job. The banks
said that they could not give such a guarantee, that some employees
would lose their jobs.
How can a government like this one, which has some
responsibility, allow such a merger and not take a stand right away
instead of waiting until September? Is the country run by the
Minister of Finance alone or by all 158 democratically elected
Liberal members? Have they nothing to say on the matter, because
I am sure there are people in their regions who are concerned about
all these big mergers that will hurt Canadians?
It is not up to the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal to run
this country.
It is up to the government to do the job and to assume its
responsibilities.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, since I have very little
time, I will respond very briefly to the two questions concerning
the bill.
On the subject of the banks, I think the Minister of Finance
gave a good answer during Question Period, when the member was
present.
As regards employment insurance, I think we took appropriate
measures when the country's finances allowed us to. Last December,
the Minister of Finance announced a $1.4 million reduction in
employment insurance premiums. This benefits all workers.
Likewise, as regards transfers to his own province, I would
like to point something out to the hon. member.
He comes from New Brunswick, and for his province, if we include
equalization payments, this represents $2,017 per capita. New
Brunswick is the fourth biggest beneficiary of these programs.
I have to conclude from his comments that he supports Bill C-28,
because we are going to put in an additional $1.5 billion. His
province will also draw extra benefits as a result.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-28 and to listen
to the different approaches taken by the parties in the House.
I am very pleased to be a member of a party that has
talked about cutting taxes and reducing deficit over the last
number of years. Certainly because of the pressure of the Reform
Party the Minister of Finance has his deficit where he
wants it today. I am sure he is pleased that we are here giving
him that support because there are many members in his own
party who do not give him that support. They just want to spend,
spend, spend. Now there is real pressure on the minister to
spend.
1600
This bill is a band-aid approach when radical surgery is needed.
The Minister of Finance is going to tell the country what he is
going to do about taxation in the budget in the next few weeks.
We have to really keep the pressure on him to give what the
Canadian people want.
It is interesting to listen to my colleague, the member for
Kamloops, in the NDP. He said we have to reform our tax system.
It is nice to hear him use the word reform. I guess he is
surrounded by so many of them in Kamloops now that he is starting
to think the Reform way, although I know his party policy is to
nationalize the banks. Of course that has been a policy of
theirs for a very long time. I cannot wait until they get on to
the next issue which will probably be corporate welfare bums
which is another old issue that the NDP stands for. There is no
real encouragement to industry or to the banks to progress and
improve, the old standard socialism.
I found it quite interesting when the member for Charlotte in
the Conservative Party was discussing this issue. He talked
about the structural changes made in the economy during the PC
government. If it had made the structural changes that Canadians
wanted which would be reducing taxes instead of increasing the
debt the Conservative Party would not be where it is today, the
fifth party in this House of Commons. He said that Canadians
need tax cuts now. We all agree with that. Why was he not
saying that when his party was in power instead of increasing
taxes and increasing the debt of this country?
In 1965 Canadians paid 27.7% of their income in taxes. Would
Canadians not love to see that amount of tax coming off their pay
cheques? In 1996, 43% of every Canadian's taxes are going toward
the government.
We have all had a break in this House since December. We have
all been in our constituencies. some have been in other people's
constituencies. I am sure everyone has heard our constituents
talking about what is wrong in Canada today. It is that our
taxes are too high. It is incumbent on us as members of this
House of Commons to make sure the Minister of Finance lowers
taxes in Canada.
He does not have to look that far. It is not very many miles
from Ottawa to Alberta or Ottawa to British Columbia. We always
say when we come here that it is 3,000 miles from British
Columbia to Ottawa, but old Premier W.A.C. Bennett used to say it
is 35,000 miles on the return trip.
If the Minister of Finance were to look to the west, he would
see Alberta which has the lowest taxes in Canada by far. It is
not even close. In fact, residents of British Columbia have been
moving to Alberta so they can pay their taxes there and save
money on their tax bill in Canada. Is that not a sad situation,
that in a country as great as this people will move from one
province to another because they can reduce their taxes by that
much?
Is it surprising to anyone, and maybe it is to some people, that in
Alberta we have the best economy in all of Canada? The province
with the lowest taxes in all of Canada has by far the best
economy. Should that shock anyone? It seems to shock whoever
the minister of finance is in the government, whether it is this
government or the Tory government before. We would have thought
the Tories would have known better. I think they had every
seat in Alberta at one time. The Tories in Alberta did
not listen to their people and that is why they are not here.
We can look to British Columbia, my home province, which had in
1992 one of the best economies in all of Canada. It has taken
the NDP just six years to ruin that economy. What is the NDP
government doing in British Columbia now to give us a better
economy? It is lowering taxes. There are big headlines saying
that Premier Clark is going to reduce corporate taxes, personal
taxes to improve the economy. He is a little late. We are
losing jobs by the hundreds every day in our province of British
Columbia because the government there has increased taxes and
chased people away. Entrepreneurs are moving to Alberta because
it is a better place to live. The premier has not reduced taxes
quick enough.
The Minister of Finance should look to that far away place in
western Canada, Alberta and British Columbia, where the reduction
of taxes helps the economy. If this Minister of Finance were to
reduce taxes we could be on a roll in Canada like we have never
seen before.
The average family pays $6,000 a year as its share of the
interest on our debt. It is great for us to stand in this House
and cheer because the deficit is down and we are going to have a
surplus. That is wonderful. Every Canadian would agree with
that. But every Canadian also knows that we have a major debt in
this country and $6,000 per family to pay for it.
Every person earning $32,000 in this country knows that they are
paying $3,000 in tax and they are not living in a very affluent
way.
1605
Even worse, a person earning $15,000 in this country is paying
$1,300 in federal tax. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we
are collecting tax from anybody in this country earning that
small amount of money. They earn a little over $1,000 a month
and we are making them pay tax on it.
There are people coming in here as refugees and signing up at
the welfare office who are doing better than Canadians who have
lived here all their lives and are paying taxes on $15,000 a
year. We should be concerned about that.
I have a lot of seniors in my riding I visited in the last
little while. They are very worried about what is happening
because they are still paying this tax on such a small amount of
money. That is not fair to these people in our country.
A single parent of two children of whom there are many in this
country who earns $25,000 pays under this Liberal government
$3,015 in tax. A single parent with two children at the level of
$20,000 pays an income tax of $2,189.
Everybody in this House knows what they make. A lot of members
of this House have two children. They know how difficult it is
to live on their salaries if they have two children in school and
two houses to maintain. How would they like to be a single
parent in this country earning $20,000 and having to pay $2,189
of that to their government?
A single parent with an income of $15,000 pays $3,164. A single
parent with an income of $10,000 pays $538 in taxes to the
government, as they did to the Tory government before it. That
is not right.
Anybody who wants to look at fairness in this country asks that
we revamp our tax system. My party has a plan to revamp the tax
system. We talked a lot about it.
Under our fresh start program, a single parent earning $25,000
would pay $1,300 which is over $2,000 less. The people at
$15,000 and $10,000 would not pay any taxes at all. That is a
fair system which allows people at that lower level to have that
income, helps them to participate in society. They will spend
that money in their communities and create jobs for other people
and that will help our country.
What is our tax rate doing to Canadians? We argue in this House
about whether it should be higher or lower. We hear the Minister
of Finance in question period. He has been at it for a lot of
years. He can give some good answers. They look very good on
the 30 second clip during the news hour.
In reality, where are we with our tax system in Canada? Where
have we gone? In 1975 in the world ranking of income per person
Canada was number three. In 1990 we were still number three.
Then the high taxation systems of the Tories, the increasing of
debt. By 1991 we were in fifth place in the world. We had
dropped two places on income per person.
The Liberals got in and in 1993 we went to seventh place. In
1994 we went to tenth place in the world in income and in 1995 we
went to twelfth place in the world. When are our governments in
this country going to learn that we cannot have a thriving
country if there are high taxes, high debt and high deficits?
It is time that we lowered taxes for all Canadians and got back
to the number three place in this world where we rightfully
belong.
Look at unemployment rates versus the United States. In 1980
Canada had 7.5% while the United States had 7.1%. In 1991 Canada
was at 10.4%, the United States at 6.7%. In 1995 Canada was at
9.6%, the United States at 5.6%. In 1996 Canada was at 9.3%, the
United States at 4.9%.
What is the difference between Canada and the United States? It
has lower taxes. When there are lower taxes there are more jobs
and that is the difference.
1610
NDP members are commenting from the other end but they are
so far away I cannot hear them. That is where they will be for a
lot of years.
The NDP member asked me if I switched parties. I did not switch
any party at all. My party left me. I am in a free enterprise
party in this House, a party that represents what the people out
there are thinking. That is why it is the fastest growing
political party in all of Canada. Next time we will take a few
of your seats away and a few of theirs and be the Government of
Canada.
These old line parties just do not understand. They do not
understand the comparison of low taxes, jobs and enthusiasm. One
only has to look at a lot of the members here who went across the
line, even with that 68 cent to 69 cent dollar. I know this by
the tans everybody has when I look around here. They can see the
thriving economies in the cities across the border from us. Why
is that?
As we just heard the leader in the Congress say the other day,
they are putting a bill before the Congress to reduce income
taxes to 19%. That is what the government spends and it should
not tax the people any more than it spends. That was a very
refreshing thing to hear especially for someone in this country
where 19% is just pocket change for the government on that side
and the excess is taxes from Canadians. It is time we all got
very serious in this House and made sure that this government
reduces taxes.
When the Liberal member who spoke before I was asked a question
by my colleague from Calgary, he said hindsight is 20:20. One
does not need hindsight to look around the world and see that we
have dropped from third place to twelfth place. We have to look
at why this government is in trouble. It is not hindsight when
we look at the money it has spent in the last number of years.
Regional development programs that do not work, $1.1 billion.
That is what this government has done. It does not take
hindsight to know that what it did in those areas was bad. There
was the flag giveaway program, $24 million. There are a lot of
seniors in this country who would have liked a share of that $24
million. There are a lot of young people going to college and
university who would have liked that $24 million.
Golf courses and ski resorts, $2.8 million. Is that a high
priority for a government that is not lowering taxes? Helicopter
cancellation penalties, $478 million. Today we hear about the
new helicopters this government has bought. It cancelled an
order to try to make the Tories look bad and then buys the same
airplanes and spends more money for them. Only a Liberal
government could do that type of spending. That is what concerns
the members on this side of the House.
Yes, we have the deficit down, but where are we going from here?
Are we going to really attack that debt? Are we going to lower
taxes for Canadians or are we going to keep on wasting taxpayer
dollars?
The other question that should be asked is how many jobs is
that helicopter deal going to bring to Canadians or is it going
to bring jobs to people outside of Canada.
The bungled Pearson airport deal, $216 million. Why did the
government not leave that airport alone? The British Columbia
airport is operating separately and is making money. I
understand last year it sent over $40 million to this government
from the new program it instituted to run the Vancouver
international airport. We are sending the government $40 million
and it is giving out $260 million in Toronto for a bungled
airport deal.
On the Mulroney Airbus payout, the government could have solved
that problem a lot quicker if it had just apologized for
attacking a former prime minister. If it had left the politics
out of it it would have saved the Canadian taxpayers a lot of
money.
People on the other side might ask what would we do on this
side. There are a lot of things the Reform Party would do. We
will give members some examples of where savings could be
achieved. We would eliminate the regional development savings,
$1.1 billion. We would end funding of wasteful and patronage
regional development programs. We would cut the Department of
Canadian Heritage by 33% or $800 million. The Deputy Prime
Minister would not like that very much but it is about time she
stopped giving away flags and the other things she is giving away
to buy votes for the Liberal Party.
We would end subsidies to CBC television while preserving
Newsworld and CBC radio. The rest would be saved by ending other
wasteful programs and no cuts to national parks or amateur
sports.
We would cut Indian affairs by 21% or $920 million.
We would give the funds directly to natives, not to band
councils, bureaucrats and lawyers. I come from a province with a
lot of ongoing negotiations. The people who are making the money
are the bureaucrats and the lawyers. It is not doing a darned
bit of good for the native people of British Columbia or any
other British Columbian. It is time we ended this nonsense and
solved the problem.
1615
We would cut employment insurance by 21%, which would amount to
$2.8 billion. Currently there is a surplus of $8 billion per
annum. EI should be returned to its original function of
insuring against temporary job loss. Every employer and employee
in a small business knows that EI has to be cut. It is costing
jobs in the country and it is time we made major changes.
We would cut equalization payments by 12%, which would amount to
$1 billion. Something is wrong when three provinces support
seven in a country as wealthy as Canada. I come from one of
those wealthy provinces, or at least it has been. The way it is
going right now there may be two provinces supporting eight.
We could save this money while ensuring more equalization funds
for the poorest provinces in Canada that really need the money.
We would cut the Canadian International Development Agency,
better known as CIDA, by 31% or $520 million. Let us get our own
fiscal house in order first. We would reduce foreign aid and end
government to government grants.
We would cut general government services by $600 million.
Government efficiency still has a long way to go in every
department.
We would make cuts to other government programs by up to $1.2
billion.
We have the highest income taxes in the world. We are number
one in the G-7. It is time that we lowered taxes in Canada to
get Canada moving again in a positive way and to get jobs for all
our young people.
Most members of the House have children. I have seven. I now
have six grandchildren. I worry about their future in Canada.
During the election campaign I heard the leader of the
Conservative Party say that he wanted a Canada for his children
like he had when he was growing up. I want a Canada for my
children better than what I have. I want a Canada with lower
taxes. I want a Canada in which my children want to stay because
it is the best place in the world to live. I want a Canada where
they can find a job. I want a Canada where my children do not
have to go to the United States or other countries to get a job.
They should be working right here in this wonderful country which
has a very large land mass.
I understand the frustration of the hon. member for Yukon when
she asked my Liberal colleague why Yukon was not mentioned. Why
were the Northwest Territories not mentioned? What about British
Columbia and Alberta? We in the west feel alienated from Canada.
We are creating some of the best pockets of jobs in the country.
Some of the best taxation is in the province of Alberta. Yet
eastern Canada is not paying attention. Central Canada is not
paying attention.
Western voters are frustrated. I get the feeling from
travelling around Ontario that Ontarians are also becoming
frustrated. Their taxes are too high. They read in the papers
that their friends across the border are paying much lower taxes.
Americans earning $80,000 a year have an extra couple of thousand
dollars more in their pockets than Canadians earning the same
amount. It is not fair.
Mr. Joe McGuire: You had better not get sick.
Mr. John Reynolds: An hon. member opposite says “You had
better not get sick”. I can tell him about that.
I had the privilege of living in the United States for four
years. I was doing a project. I had good medical care while I
was there. Because of Liberal government programs, $5 billion
went out of this country last year into the United States.
Canadians are going to the U.S. for medical care. At least they
can get in the door. They do not find themselves in long
line-ups when they have major heart problems or cancer. Do not
tell me how good it is in Canada. We have one of the best
systems in the world, but it is underfunded and a lot of that is
because of the cutbacks by this federal government.
We have to look into our medical programs in a major way. Do
not talk about not getting sick somewhere where the taxes are
lower. The standard of living in Canada has gone from number 3
in the world to number 12. Members opposite must understand
that.
1620
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr Speaker, I was intrigued by the comments
of the member who just spoke. He indicated the difference
between the United States and Canada. In the United States there
is no universal medicare. We have an excellent old age security
system, the Canada pension plan, at which all the Reform Party is
laughing precisely because it does not believe in these programs.
A Reform member of Parliament complained about the medicare
system and at the same time indicated he would cut the
equalization payment by 1.5%. If I may remind the member,
transfer of money from the federal government to the provinces
includes the equalization payments in addition to cash transfers
for health care.
May I inform the member who has just spoken that the Liberal
Party equally believes in reducing taxes but not at the expense
of medicare, of the security of Canada pension, of education, of
research and development.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You cut medicare by 35%.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: If the member would be polite and
listen to some gems of wisdom, maybe he would learn a few things.
I ask the member who has just spoken whether he is prepared to
indicate that he will completely cut the transfer for medicare.
Will he cut completely the transfer for equalization payments if
in fact it means that the income tax rate for Canadians is zero?
Is that what he is trying to tell us?
Here is a party that believes in so-called referendums. Survey
after survey in Canada has told us that Canadians would like half
of a surplus to be spent for necessary spending on social
programs including education and health. Why is the member
neglecting or ignoring the cry of Canadians?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr Speaker, I am not ignoring the
crying of Canadians. I am listening to the crying about their
taxes.
The Reform Party tax program will yield fairness and simplicity
like the parliamentary secretary has never seen before. If he
would read it he might understand it.
The parliamentary secretary talks about universal medicare,
pension plans and old age security. In Canada, 65% of our
medical money goes in the public sector to look after people. In
the United States it is 53%. Every senior citizen in the United
States has medicare. Maybe the parliamentary secretary did not
know that. Every senior citizen in the United States has
medicare.
The government should not try to scare seniors about how the
Reform Party will hurt them. I am not that far away from being a
senior citizen. I will make sure seniors are well protected and
will speak on their behalf, but the government should not use
that old Liberal tactic of scaring people that the Reform Party
will take something away from them.
The Reform Party will lower taxes. The Reform Party has offered
to increase the transfer payments on medicare. Members opposite
have not read our brochure. We have also agreed to increase
payments to education, areas that increases in payments are
needed in. We fought about those during the election. We will
talk about them now. We will look after senior citizens with a
much fairer taxation program.
The Liberal Party still taxes senior citizens. A senior citizen
making $15,000 with no other income will pay $1,300 in tax to the
government. Does the member think that is fair, even if their
medicare is free? They could have free medicare across the line
also. Seniors are looked after in the United States.
Someone living in the United States could buy a medical program.
It costs so much a month to be covered under medicare. Anyone on
welfare is covered under medicare. Fifty-three per cent of the
dollar goes to medicare in the United States. It does not have a
national program and we do. We have the best program but it has
to be well funded, looked after and fair.
Hon. members must get calls from people. I get them. Maybe
they get them more in provincial government offices. People with
health problems, with heart problems, tell us they have to wait
four months to get tests done. They may die of a heart attack
before they get in there. If they have cancer, a brain tumour,
they may have to wait three weeks to get an MRI. This is what is
happening in some places in this country. It is not right. That
is why $5 billion went out of the country and across the border.
Those people were not prepared to wait to get something done
here. That is one of the problems.
1625
I do not know why the member would try to scare senior citizens
about old age security. He should read the Reform platform. It
is fair. We look after seniors in our program. I ask him to
read it and to have some compassion.
Where is that Liberal compassion we all hear about? There is no
compassion in charging $1,300 in tax on $15,000 in income. It
may be more than that with the seniors benefit. There is no
Liberal compassion there.
When I was a young man all my family were Liberals. I was
always taught that Liberals had compassion. That is why one was
a Liberal. It seems to have changed.
Those who are wealthy do not mind paying taxes or giving to the
Liberal Party, but we want to be fair. We want to make sure that
single parents do not have to pay the abusive taxes they are
paying right now. We want to make sure that seniors who are on
their own—and there are many of them—do not have to pay the
unfair taxes that are there now. That is what we are talking
about. We are talking about lowering taxes, about lowering taxes
for young people who are just starting to work.
They get jobs that pay them $24,000 to $30,000 a year and
suddenly the government starts grabbing a third of that. That is
not fair. They should be given a chance to get going. Taxes
should be lowered for people who earn under $30,000.
The Reform Party would eliminate taxes for people under that
level. That would get the country going and that would create
enthusiasm. It would create private enterprise. It would get
away from the socialist attitude we are getting from the Liberals
and the New Democrats.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member said that his family was Liberal. After that he was a
Conservative. Now he is a Reformer. Maybe he will see the light
one day and become an NDP.
I went around the country and I went around the States too. I
saw line-ups in the States where people were waiting six months.
Those who were waiting for six months were not the rich. They
were not those who had money and who could pay $10,000 for an
operation. Those with all that money were not waiting six
months. The poor people were waiting in the line-ups for six
months because they could not afford American health care.
My colleague in the Reform Party is suggesting that we should
cut taxes, that Canadians cannot pay the taxes. Reformers want
us to give the poor a health care program that will be paid for
from their pockets and they cannot afford to pay it. What does
my colleague answer to that?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I advise my hon. friend
that unless I have a lobotomy I will never join the NDP. He is
absolutely correct that poor people in the United States are
waiting six months. I am not defending that program. He also
has to know that in Canada poor people and rich people are
waiting six months. That is what is wrong with our medicare
program. We have to make some changes to it.
I do not disagree with his party. Medicare needs more funding
in Canada. My party said all during the election that medicare
needed $2 billion more. We still say that, just as we say it for
education. To try to compare Canada and the U.S. in that area,
we are waiting as long as they are. There is no question that
the wealthier people in the United States, those who pay for
medicare, do not have to wait very long and poor people do, but
that is not a comparison. In this country we all wait six months
no matter what our status.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member's speech. I welcomed the defence of
former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It has certainly been a
long time coming. At some point it is at least good to see that
people give credit where credit is due.
When he spoke of a heart condition I cannot understand his
firsthand experience because I do not think there are a lot of
them in that caucus, hearts I mean. He talked about needing a
lobotomy to join the New Democratic Party. Perhaps if he had a
heart transplant he could become a Conservative again.
A lot of economic revisionism goes on in the House.
1630
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I warned the hon.
member that he had a short time to put his question. While I am
sure the House finds his comments helpful, it might be more
helpful if he got straight to his question.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the economic revisionism
that pervades this House sometimes is really astounding. The
fact is that between 1989 and 1993 it was the Conservatives that
started a trend of reduction in income taxes as a per cent of GDP
from 14% of GDP to 13% of GDP by the time our party was asked
politely to leave in 1993. However between 1993 and now, the
Liberal Party has increased taxes as a per cent of GDP from 13%
back up to 14% and the trend is aiming higher. It is very
important that we recognize the trend toward tax reduction and
income tax reduction was started under a Conservative government
and in four years it will be continued under a Conservative
government.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I know the time must be up
but I do not have to say very much. The people who are listening
out there will understand from the comments just made by the
Conservative Party as to why it went from the biggest majority in
Canada down to two seats.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, a bill that the
government feels must be put through early in this session so
that we can address many of the concerns which we are hearing
about today with regard to the transfer payments to the provinces
and the condition of our health care and education systems.
First I would like to make a couple of brief remarks about some
of the comments made this morning. It is nice to see the member
for Kings—Hants here. I am having my office courier the dozen
or so copies of Hansard containing the previous speeches I
have made. That was not my maiden voyage in this place earlier
today.
His remarks when he talked about revisionism and the viewpoint
on the economic things which have happened in this country since
1993 are quite remarkable.
The people sent a clear message, as has been pointed out, to the
Conservative Party in 1993. That message did not change a lot in
the last election, even though it did add a few members from
eastern Canada. Some may be delighted to see them here and
others perhaps not so much.
One of the things which is interesting is that we have heard
about people's viewpoints from different parts of the country. I
conducted a session in my riding. I invited people to come in as
part of a budget consultation process to decide whether or not we
really should stick to the election promise which was that 50% of
whatever surplus would go toward two issues; 50% would go toward
debt reduction and certain tax reductions and the other 50% would
go toward program spending, most notably toward issues like
health care and education.
Rather than just assume because we were elected with that as a
major plank in our platform that everyone agreed that is how we
should carry on, I thought it was important to poll people from
the communities of Mississauga and Brampton. Some of the
municipal leaders, educational folks, business people, the boards
of trade, local business people, interested citizens of both the
cities of Brampton and Mississauga came and we discussed that
particular issue.
We hear calls from all sides. The NDP says we should spend
more. The Reform Party says we should cut more. The
Conservatives are simply saying we should reduce taxes. Without
the balance which is needed in this place, I thought it was
important to go to the people and find out if they still
supported the general thrust and direction that the government
was following. We came up with a number of very interesting
facts and statements.
1635
If members saw the list of participants in the round table
discussion that we had, they would know that many of them were
people who perhaps would be classified as more right wing than
left. Perhaps some of the people from the educational side would
be concerned more about social issues. If members knew the
community I represented, they would understand that the majority
of people in the room would be more business oriented and in my
view they would be more concerned about reduced taxes, less
government, all of those issues.
We simply reported the facts. My colleague from Mississauga
South and I were there to listen to what the people had to say
about the 50:50 plan. Let me share some of the results.
In the area of general impressions there was a clear consensus
that the government had made excellent progress in putting its
fiscal house in order and had achieved it in a fair and balanced
fashion.
Once we did this and compiled the data, we shared this with the
participants. We were delighted to find that they agreed that we
had indeed recorded that consensus accurately.
It was felt that the approach we were taking would provide
sufficient latitude to meet the need to reduce the debt and to
make targeted tax cuts to restore some social spending and to
make stimulative investments in programs.
Let us talk about restoring some of the funding, the restoration
of the floor as it is referred to in the case of the CHST, the
Canada health and social transfer which replaces the CAP, the
Canada assistance plan to a level of $12.5 billion. I believe it
was the member for Kamloops who said that it was somewhat
deceitful, that it was trickery. It is not at all.
We clearly announced in the election campaign that those
transfer payments had been reduced to $11 billion due primarily
to the fact that we had inherited a $42 billion deficit, an
overdraft of $42 billion. Canadians would understand that. Often
there is confusion and discussion about what is a deficit and
what is a debt. A deficit is an overdraft and a debt is a
mortgage. We had a $42 billion overdraft that the Conservative
Party under Mr. Mulroney left as its legacy to the Canadian
people.
We simply had to make changes. I will admit that the transfer
payments were indeed reduced to $11 billion. However, as
progress was made due to the leadership, due to the financial
strength that this government was showing, due to a commitment to
stick to the guns, to follow the policies led by the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance, due to the improvement in
our financial situation and nothing else, we were able to restore
the funding levels and put back the floor in the transfer
payments to $12.5 billion.
Perhaps more significantly, we have made a commitment. It is a
five year commitment which says that the level of transfer
payments will not fall below $12.5 billion. I would hope that
all future governments would be able to live up to that kind of a
commitment. One of the things I have found in my 20 years or so
in elected office is that the most difficult thing to do for any
government be it municipal, provincial or federal, is to plan
properly and far enough in advance so that the hiccups and bumps
that occur when certain crises occur can be avoided.
As a federal government we must be the leaders. We must say to
our provincial partners who in turn work with their partners in
health care and education and at the municipal level. We want to
be able to say to them “Here is something to count on.
You can be assured that the CHST transfers will never fall below
the floor of $12.5 billion”. The ability that then gives the
provinces in knowing what their per capita share might be or what
their total revenue pot might be in my view gives them a better
opportunity to plan. I think that is an obligation we have as a
federal government and is something I am pleased to see we are
doing.
1640
Somebody else also made reference to the fact that there would
be some damage that would occur in certain parts of the country
because of changes in the amount of money that was transferred to
certain provinces or territories based on a per capita formula.
Someone said that it was unfair. We talk about representation in
this place. We talk about equality in this place. We talk about
providing services for all Canadians. With a mind to certain
adjustments that may need to take place due to certain
geographical problems, transportation problems and other issues
of concern such as climate or problems in the economy, what could
be more fair in determining a floor, a base, a guaranteed amount
than doing it on a per capita basis?
The province of Ontario of course represents the largest area in
terms of population. The grant formula will provide $9.1 billion
to the province of Ontario. The second largest population area
being the province of Quebec it comes in at $6.8 billion and
British Columbia at $3.1 billion and so on.
The point is that the provinces, under the somewhat difficult
arrangement we have in the federation of Canada, deliver the
services. They are on the front lines in making sure that health
care is delivered to the Canadian people. Therefore it is our
responsibility to set standards and to provide the funding based
on the fact that we collect tax revenue from all Canadians.
By and large the system works reasonably well. Where we run
into problems I would submit is when we get into the
one-upmanship of partisan politics where somebody decides that
because they want a headline, they want to look better or they
want to win an election, they are going to dangle something like
a tax cut out front.
The people clearly want to see tax relief. I believe they will
see tax relief in the Minister of Finance's budget. We have said
we are committed to reducing taxes in this country. I happen to
represent a community that is a prime example and provides the
proof of how it should never be done. It should never be done
across the board and it should never be done on a flat
percentage.
People understand that the Conservative proposal of a 10% tax
cut across the board will clearly benefit people who earn in the
six figure range dramatically more than it will the people who
earn $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000, the examples that the so-called
compassionate right, the Reform, is throwing out on the table. It
is trying to pretend to the Canadian people that it is concerned
about people earning $15,000 a year and whether or not they
should pay taxes. This is a born again political vision that we
are seeing in this place and is really quite remarkable.
The Reform Party would support an across the board cut. All we
hear about are the cuts instead of being responsible and standing
up and saying that we have to ensure that the strength of our
health care system is maintained. I would suggest that comparing
our way of life, in listening to the member opposite almost
acting like a cheerleader for the United States way of life,
frankly worries me.
It worries me when I hear elected representatives telling the
Canadian people that life is so much better in the U.S.A. I am
not an American basher. I happen to think it is a wonderful
nation but it is fraught with economic problems and its debt. I
do not know anybody who could even figure out how many zeros
there are in trillions, and that is its debt we are talking about
here.
We are talking about trillions. They have more serious problems
and yet we hear members of the Reform Party saying that all the
solutions are there.
1645
A young man 28 years ago, who was the best man at my wedding,
moved to the United States with his wife. His wife was diagnosed
with cancer. His wife is fine today. The cancer has been beaten
back, but it cost that family a quarter of a million dollars to
deal with that health care crisis.
I heckled and yelled don't get sick in the States and it is
true. Yes, people can buy health care plans, but the operative
word is buy.
What we have here is the envy of the world. Are there problems?
Yes, there are problems. There are problems in the province of
Ontario because the current government has decided it is more
important to deliver a 30% tax cut than it is to provide fair and
equitable health care treatment.
We have the five pillars of medicare in this country,
accessibility, portability, universality, public administration
and public funding. I have a bit of a concern about whether we
need to expand those pillars. We continue to provide a base
floor and a level of grant structure for the provincial
governments to deliver health care. However, if they in turn
take the money and simply cut other areas while delivering the
health care dollars to the point where they can deliver a tax
cut, and they take money out of the mental health treatment
programs in Ontario, I want to say to Mr. Harris and Ms. Witmer,
for whom I have a lot of respect, that they are on a very
dangerous slippery slope. They are closing 2,000 beds in
psychiatric care facilities, most of them in the greater Toronto
area.
What is the result? We can see it. We wonder why there are
7,000 people living on the street in the city of Toronto. We
should ask ourselves are those people healthy. Who would live on
the street in February in Canada?
We have to recognize that those people are sick. They need
help. They need community resources. Elected representatives at
all levels must be prepared to take a stand to provide the kind
of care they need, but we cannot do that.
Minister Witmer has said they will study the situation as a
result of a seven part series done by the Toronto Star.
They are going to study it, but they are going to go ahead with
the bed closures anyway. It is scary, frankly, when we think
about society's most vulnerable people.
I have colleagues in this place who also served in the Ontario
legislature, as did I, who would tell us that it is absolutely
mind boggling what the Tories are doing in Ontario in the area of
health care and they are blaming it on cuts to transfer payments.
However, we know it is a result of their desire to pass on a tax
cut.
In the session we had we talked about tax cuts. Someone earlier
referred to the brain drain. Let me share the message which I
got from those people. This is exactly what I heard from that
group. Concern was expressed about the issue of brain drain and
the inadequacy of incentives for our best researchers to remain
in Canada. A strong case was made to restore funding for our
social humanities and medical research granting agencies.
How do we do that? Do we do that by cutting taxes? Do we do
that by reducing the revenue that is available to the federal
treasury while on the other hand increasing our commitments to
research?
You cannot have it both ways. This government, like any
government, if it is responsible, should find ways to trim the
fat. I think we have done that. The results are there. The job
is not nearly over.
1650
It is my hope that when the finance minister comes out with his
budget we will see a plan that clearly outlines—I am
confident—a commitment to repaying that $600 billion debt which,
when the provincial debt is added, is $800 billion. That is
unacceptable. It is too high. We have to attack it and we will.
I hope we will see a plan to provide some tax relief to
hardworking Canadians but not abandon this Liberal Party's
traditional commitment to better education and better quality
health care for all Canadians. That is very much what Bill C-28
is about, restoring the level of funding and in putting forward
other programs to help our charities and our young people to
build a stronger economy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast,
Immigration Appeal Board.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as a former Liberal, I am used to Liberal rhetorical tricks and
the Liberal approach to the truth. It is a very creative
approach.
I must say that I was really quite astounded by this last speech
by the hon. member who blamed the Ontario government for all the
negative impact on the health care system there as a result of
health care cuts.
Let us get a couple of facts absolutely straight here. This
federal government, the government of that member, has cut health
care transfers to the provinces by 35%, by several billion
dollars, after promising and committing not to cut them but to
increase them in the 1993 election. That government lied and now
it is trying to pass the buck. It does not even have the
integrity to admit that it made a mistake.
The hon. member claims that the Ontario government has cut
health care spending. He knows, as a former member of the
provincial legislature, that just ain't so. The total health
care spending in Ontario has remained constant and is now
projected to increase. It has not cut $1 from the universal
health care budget of the province of Ontario.
He says that people are getting less quality care. Perhaps they
are, because the Ontario government has had to absorb the
transfer cuts from this government but not because of less
revenue as a result of the tax cuts in Ontario.
The Mike Harris tax cuts that have led to tens of thousands of
new jobs have also led to an increase in revenues. Liberals do
not understand that lower taxes mean more revenues. That is what
has happened in the treasury of the Ontario government.
This member, being from Ontario, ought to apologize to his
constituents for misleading them. The Ontario government has
more revenues than it did—
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, talk about verbal
gymnastics, I think he just called me a liar and I pretty much
take exception to that.
If the hon. member knew the first thing about my great province
of Ontario, I might have a bit of respect for his comments. He
does not.
Let me say what has happened in the province of Ontario. If
they do not think there is a problem, ask the people at Women's
College hospital. Ask the people at the Queen Street mental
health unit. Ask the people who live on the streets of the city
of Toronto. Ask the new mayor of Toronto why he found it
necessary to unilaterally ask Anne Golden to head up a commission
to study the problems around housing in the city of Toronto.
There has been without a doubt an unequivocal abandonment of the
people who are the most vulnerable in our province by a
government that is bound, determined and bent on doing one thing,
and that is delivering a 30% tax decrease.
1655
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to assure the
hon. member for Mississauga West that the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast did not call him specifically a liar. That would not
have happened with me in the chair. I would ask everyone to be
really careful how closely they dance around that one.
We will go to another question by the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is true that the speeches today by Liberal members
raise more questions than answers about the stability of our
health care system, but I must say the same holds true for the
comments made by Reform members in the House today. There is an
incredible amount of inconsistency and lack of clarity around
this whole issue. But time does not permit me at this point to
pursue that.
There is another issue around Bill C-28 which deals with the
finances of this country for which there is a deafening silence
on the part of both Liberals and Reformers and that has to do
with this proposed merger between the Royal Bank and the Bank of
Montreal.
My question for the hon. member in the Liberal Party is to get
some clarity on this issue. Why is this member so silent on this
issue and the seriousness of this monster merger? What is the
policy of this Liberal government for today? Why are we waiting
for a report from a committee when in fact this government knew
all along about the problems growing with respect to the power of
the banks and the international agreements?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First,
there would not be much point in setting up a commission and
going to all the trouble that this government has to study that
very specific issue and then simply ignoring it in a knee-jerk
reaction.
We have heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say
there will be no merger approval and we want to see that
report before any discussion about whether or not such an
activity will take place.
I heard the NDP member for Kamloops say he supported the
increase in the RESP contribution from $2,000 for $4,000. He
thought that was good. He supported a number of other issues in
Bill C-28. Yet at the same time I could not quite believe that
he went on to denigrate the economy. He said that our economy is
not strong. He referred to the hon. parliamentary secretary as
referring to some other country in his imagination when he talked
about a country with a strong economy.
Our economy is strong and it can get stronger and it will get
stronger by all of us working together.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Mississauga West for the eloquent speech he just gave.
My question is specific. For greater clarity and assurance to
Canadians, with a floor of $12.5 billion now for cash transfers
for health, and in light of the fact that the transfers also
include the tax points with an increase in the economy and the
increased transfers as a consequence of that, can the member
elucidate that the cash transfer floor will continue to remain
constant and therefore the total transfers will increase.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That is right, Mr. Speaker. If you
look at the statistics, the total transfers will be in the
neighbourhood of $25 billion. The province of Ontario will
benefit over the period that this bill encompasses by some $2.5
billion in increased transfer funds.
I think it is an excellent point that should be brought out. It
just shows that we are prepared to set a floor, as I said in my
remarks earlier. We are prepared to say to Ontario and to
everywhere else in this country that it will never fall below
that level under the terms of the agreement that we are entering
into through this bill. There will be increased funding as well
in the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lakeland, 60 seconds for the question and 60 seconds for the
response.
1700
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
one point of clarification for the member opposite and for the
member from the New Democratic Party who said that the Reform's
position on health care is unclear.
It is very clear. We made it clear in the 1993 election
campaign that we would make no cuts to health spending. In the
last campaign we made it clear that we would add $4 billion in
transfers to the provinces for health care and education. That
is clear and that is our position.
I realize the member may not have been a member of Parliament in
the last parliament, but did he support his government's cuts of
35% in transfers for health care? Yes or no.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I ask all hon.
members to address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to dance
around it at all. When the government was elected in 1993 it
inherited a $42 billion deficit. I said in my remarks, and the
hon. member can look it up if he wants to, that changes
absolutely had to be made in the transfer payments and they were
made. There is no argument about that.
This is about restoring it to the level we are committed to, a
level that it will never fall below. You understand that you
cannot simply continue to spend money you do not have. It is a
philosophy of the government. It is the leadership shown by the
finance minister and the prime minister. It is turning things
around but the job is not done. There is a long way to go.
I am convinced that with this next budget and with bills like
Bill C-28 we will save our health care system, restore the
confidence of the Canadian people in our education including
post-secondary education, and build a great nation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go on to
next intervener, I remind all hon. members that we refer to each
other either by our ridings or by our portfolios.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
before voicing my opinion on the numerous provisions contained in Bill
C-28, I would like to congratulate and thank all my fellow citizens of
the riding of Lotbinière, who rallied to the support of the regions of
Quebec that were hard hit by the ice storm, and Montérégie and the
central region in particular.
I was deeply touched by the generosity of the people of Lotbinière,
be it in collecting firewood and foodstuffs or responding to the many
calls made by the Red Cross and Quebec's emergency preparedness
organization.
These actions reflected the great values of mutual help, sharing and
solidarity by which the Quebec society lives, values that show how much
solidarity Quebecers are capable of when the need arises to meet major
challenges for the Quebec community.
Now, coming back to Bill C-28, the federal government marks its
return by putting up for discussion a bill to amend several umbrella
acts, which could have significant implications in major sectors of the
Quebec economy.
Going over the list of acts affected by Bill C-28, I note the
Income Tax Act, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Old
Age Security Act.
Once again, we can see the central government's strategy to amend
a number of laws closely related to our economy. However, the real
political issues are not those targeted by such omnibus legislation, but
the way the government administers public finances and the partisan
approach and propaganda used by an increasingly centralizing government.
Since the opening of the 36th Parliament, the Minister of Finance
has been boasting that his government would have budget surpluses. It is
said that these surpluses could reach $8 billion. According to the
Speech from the Throne, these surpluses will be used to make an
unprecedented intrusion in areas of provincial jurisdiction, without
giving back what the federal government has cut since 1993.
In recent years, the Liberal government has cut $42 billion in cash
social transfers to the provinces.
The purpose of these transfers is to fund hospitals, higher education
and social assistance.
1705
With the money saved, the federal government is playing
saviour, while the provinces have the dirty job of implementing the
cuts. I would remind you that when the Liberals formed the
government in 1993, social transfers amounted to $18.8 billion
annually. This year they will amount to only $12.5 billion and
will drop to $11.1 billion in 1999-2000. However, seeing the
dissatisfaction at the time of the elections, the Prime Minister
decided to cancel the latest round of cuts.
We are even more familiar with the federal strategy on the
subject of transfers to the provinces, especially Quebec, which is
to discredit Quebec and the administration of Lucien Bouchard's
government.
The federalists are trying every means possible verging on
political dishonesty to destabilize the government of Quebec.
However, the Bloc will again be even more on guard against
underhanded attacks by the federal government, especially in 1998.
It will continue to defend the interests of Quebec, criticizing
even more vigorously the unfairness of this ever more centralizing
government.
Back to the surplus the Minister of Finance will be announcing
shortly. Where is it coming from? It is very simple; it is
mathematical. He will be dipping into the surplus of the
employment insurance fund, which will amount to $12 billion and
which is the contribution of employers and employees alone. The
federal government puts no money into the employment insurance
fund.
Let us talk about employment insurance. For us, employment
insurance means ensured poverty, ensured suffering. Speaking of
the Minister of Human Resources Development, let me say that this
minister, who is always talking about humanity, is dehumanizing his
department with his actions. One need only look at the way the
minister has reacted to the people directly affected by the ice
storm, the total confusion between his message, clearly seen and
heard on national television, and his directives to the managers of
his department.
On top of having to live through a veritable nightmare,
concerned about their family's future, concerned about their
property, the disaster victims have not even had the comfort of the
people in charge of that department. With one hand they are
promising something, while with the other they are taking it away.
When it comes down to it, that approach is the trademark of this
government.
The ice storm is one of the worst socio-economic disasters since
the war, and the Minister of Human Resources Development is still
hesitant about taking concrete humanitarian action. What is
more, the minister is forgetting the thousands of businesses
outside what they are calling the triangle of darkness which had
to close down for a week, two weeks, or even three. These people
are being punished for their gesture of solidarity. Most
companies and businesses had to gear down activities in order to
support Hydro-Quebec's efforts to keep the hydroelectric network
up and running. In Lotbinière riding, for instance, particularly
in the county municipality of l'Érable, of 300 businesses, 50%
had to shut down for two weeks.
If the employment insurance fund were in a deficit position,
or had only a slight surplus, I would understand if the government
were hesitant, but we know its surplus is going to exceed $12
billion.
If the EI fund were administered by an independent body
composed of representatives of businesses and workers, as the
auditor general strongly recommended in his report, these people,
who are much closer to economic reality, would already have taken
significant action to help all those affected by the ice storm.
But it is the Minister of Finance who decides, and he is going
to continue to dip into this surplus to lower his deficit, with
complete disregard for the real needs of storm victims.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is increasingly
dehumanizing his services. Now, EI claimants must dial a 1-800
number for information.
Several of my constituents have been in touch with my riding
office to complain about the poor quality of this service
provided by public servants who are all centralized in the Prime
Minister's riding of Saint-Maurice.
1710
Faced with this unfortunate situation, those dissatisfied with
the service therefore go to the regional EI office, which, you will
recall, is being reorganized and is completely overwhelmed. These
offices have suffered deep staff cuts and want to serve their
clients any way they can, because Human Resources Development
employees are on the front line and know what is really going on.
One of the Human Resources Development offices located in
Drummondville is getting ready to introduce a pilot project.
Unemployed workers waiting to see an agent will be invited to view
videocassettes. That is treating them like people.
I need hardly tell you that there are few things worse than
losing one's job. With the many changes to EI, which are
increasingly limiting eligibility, it is even more distressing for
these people who are living in complete insecurity.
I do not blame this office for what it is doing, given the
numerous staff cutbacks imposed by the federal government. It is
trying to readjust its services and maintain good contact with its
clients. We will keep an eye on how it is doing.
Let us now look at the federal tax. Now, that is something
concrete. This morning, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
strongly criticized a provision of Bill C-28 and exposed a manoeuvre by
the finance minister who, in addition to making political decisions that
benefit the rich, is trying to protect his own personal interests with
this legislation. But what action does the Minister of Finance take when
it comes to individual or corporate taxes?
The finance minister's inaction regarding taxation perpetuates the
unfairness of our tax system, which imposes a heavier tax burden on
Quebec's low and middle income taxpayers.
The last major review of individual taxation was conducted by the
Royal Commission on Taxation in the 1960s. This means that we now have
tax provisions that are obsolete and ill-suited to the current economic
context.
The Liberals should be aware of the unfairness of the current
federal tax system. The Bloc Quebecois has spoken many times on tax
issues. Ever since it first came to Ottawa, the Bloc has been asking for
an in-depth review of individual taxes. Given the finance minister's
inaction in this area, the Bloc Quebecois released a reform proposal
aimed at finally putting an end to the undue privileges granted to the
very rich, by advocating a tax system that is fairer to all taxpayers.
The federal corporate tax system is also ill-suited to the current
economic context. Again, the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a review of
the corporate tax system, so that employment will become the main
objective of the new tax policies.
Again, the last major review of corporate taxation was conducted by
the Royal Commission on Taxation in the 1960s. We get the impression
that nothing has been done since.
As a result, we still have tax measures that are outdated and ill-suited
to our current economic situation. Yet, the Minister of Finance seems
content with this system.
By contrast with the federal government's inaction, in the summer
of 1996, the Government of Quebec established a public commission on
taxation. The commission emphasized at the time the urgent need for
action, while indicating that, in the present context, Quebec could not
act alone without a review of the federal tax system. But this does not
make these reforms any less necessary.
Let me give you a few examples of outdated or inefficient tax
measures. The partial inclusion of capital gains, which means taxing
benefits from capital gains at a lower rate. The eligibility rules for
the research and development credit, which unduly penalize Quebec
businesses as compared to Ontario businesses.
At present, the federal government decreases the amount of assistance
provided to businesses benefitting from a Quebec research and
development credit but not to those benefitting from the major deduction
granted by the Ontario government.
The Bloc Quebecois often raises tax issues. The Bloc Quebecois has
been calling for an in-depth review of corporate taxation ever since it
came to Ottawa.
1715
Since the Minister of Finance has taken no action, the Bloc
Quebecois made public a proposal for reform that would make the tax
system equitable for businesses, while freeing up to $3 billion,
which should be redirected towards the main goal: creation of full
time, long term jobs.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is time the federal
government took action. It is time the federal government gave
back to the provinces what it has cut in recent years. It is time
it amended the Employment Insurance Act. It is time this budget
surplus was used for concrete job creation measures.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, listening to
my colleague, the member for Lotbinière, I had the impression he
was on Sudafed, like the Team Canada hockey players. He was
pumped. He should calm down.
I find it shocking that he would use a debate on C-28 to
indulge in petty politics on the backs of storm victims. He tried
to bash the Canadian government, which was present during this
disaster and spared no effort to help victims. While the people of
Lotbinière, Montérégie, and all over who suffered the effects of
the storm appreciated the Canadian government's contribution, there
is an attempt to play politics on the backs of the storm's victims.
I am extremely disappointed. I was familiar with the great
decency and respect of the member for Lotbinière. Today, he has
greatly disappointed me by saying that the Canadian government did
not do its share.
If the Canadian government had not done its share, if it had not
contributed $9 out of every $10, if it had not sent the army, I do
not know how serious this disaster could have become.
I ask the member for Lotbinière if he did not get carried
away, and if he does not recognize that the Canadian government,
through its Ministers of Agriculture, Human Resources Development
and National Defence—and even his own leader, the Premier of
Quebec, said so—demonstrated remarkable collaboration.
Why is the member for Lotbinière playing petty politics on the
backs of storm victims, who are not interested in playing this
game? Why has he gone so far as to use C-28 to criticize the
Canadian government's response to the ice storm?
He should be ashamed. He should apologize to all storm victims.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I do not need any
medicine in order to be calm. The hon. member is getting carried
away.
All I have to say is that I congratulate all those who took
the initiative, no matter where, municipalities, the province, the
Canadian government, the Americans. This catastrophe has touched
all of North America.
When the member over there accuses me of petty politics, I
would like to remind him of this: at the present time his
colleagues are distributing forms in order to find out what amount
of money the federal government has really invested during this ice
storm. That is really petty politicking.
There was solidarity among us. We worked hard, and that is
how we will finally win out, and Quebec will become sovereign. We
have had an example of how people can join forces. We have had an
example of the pride of the people of Quebec.
You can be sure that we have come out even stronger as a result of
this experience and that, in the next referendum, the pride of
Quebecers will be up front and we will get our country, our Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would simply ask the hon. member if Quebec in fact is
a net gainer under equalization and the CHST. If it is, how
would the hon. member demonstrate how Quebec would continue to
pay for these things if he achieves his goal of separating Quebec
from Canada?
1720
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, the
situation of health, education, social assistance in Quebec, all of
these difficult situations have been caused precisely by the
drastic cuts made by the federal government.
The government of Lucien Bouchard has succeeded in doing truly
amazing things despite the drastic federal cuts. All that we are
asking is to get back what has been cut since 1993. It is simple:
the federal government cuts, yet it maintains standards. If it cut
money, but allowed us freedom, we could manage but, on top of the
cuts, it established standards we have to meet.
I say that if it pays back the amounts it has cut since 1993,
health, education and social assistance will be in far better shape
in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I go back to the comments made
earlier today. We took office with a $42 billion deficit. Had
we not done the things we did when we did them, we might be in
front of this House today asking for further cuts instead of
asking this House to approve a reinvestment into a Canadian
priority.
The hon. member mentioned that Quebec cutbacks were a result of
the federal government cutting back in all these other various
tax measures. I say quite clearly that post Bill C-28 the
province of Quebec will continue to receive additional moneys
each and every year when we add together the tax points, the cash
transfers and the equalization payments. The federal government
is contributing to the province of Quebec and ensuring that the
province is able to deliver the health care that Quebeckers and
Canadians expect.
When a province decides to cut back in the area of health care
it is because the province has taken that decision. This
government has been fair and will continue to be fair and
equitable in its approach. I challenge the member from the Bloc
Quebecois to rationalize and give us a reason. In fact those
payments are going up and not down.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to get into
a war of figures. We were using the figure of $42 billion. That
is something specific.
All we ask of the government opposite, given that it will be
announcing a surplus in a few weeks, is that it be logical and
honest and give back to the provinces, especially Quebec, what it
has cut since 1993.
We will see, as health is a matter of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, when we get this money, the money coming back to us,
we will provide better health care in Quebec.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
what the member for Lotbinière had to say about federal transfers.
According to an October 4, 1997 article written by Claude
Picher federal transfers are not determined by the size of
provincial budgets, but by the size of the individual provincial
economies, which indicates that federal transfers have grown rather
than shrunk.
And yet the same figures and the same amounts are involved.
How can that be explained? I would like the member opposite to
explain. And yet when we talk about federal transfers, the figures
are the same right now, the amount is essentially the same.
Provincial government expenditures increased much faster than
federal transfers until 1990. I will give you an example in
closing: in Quebec, the figure was 3% in 1965; today it is 5%.
Why?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, 3% or 5%, what counts is
the amounts of money cut. We know that it was $42 billion.
It is easy to talk statistics and try to prove that the
government is good. I think we have the figures. We have them in
hand. We can see for a fact in Quebec what happened. Give us back
what you owe us. We will be very happy and so will the people of
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate concerning Bill
C-28 and to support the government's decision to increase cash
funding to the provinces under the Canada health and social
transfer.
The measure of real leadership is where government places its
priorities.
The priorities of this government in this case are clear and
concrete.
1725
Health and education are issues that affect every Canadian in
every region. They are truly national concerns. It is proper
that as our federal financial situation improves, the government
has given first place to investing in health and education
through boosting provincial funding for these vital purposes.
This is the type of investment all Canadians can appreciate.
This is the sort of support for federal-provincial partnerships
that all Canadians should endorse.
Under this legislation federal cash funding to the provinces
under the CHST will be guaranteed at $12.5 billion annually for
the next five years. That is a $1.5 billion increase over the
previously legislated cash floor.
It is important to remember that the cash portion of the CHST is
only part of the total value of our federal support for provinces
in the areas of health, education and social assistance. When
tax points are included, the total funding to provinces provided
under the CHST will exceed $25 billion. That will grow to over
$28 billion in the years ahead.
There are some critics unfortunately who try to dismiss or
minimize the issue of tax points. They try to ignore the fact
that these federal tax points once transferred to the provinces
are not only a gift that keeps on giving, but a gift that keeps
on growing year after year. Tax points. I know that sounds
abstract, arcane and perhaps bureaucratic, but Canadians owe it
to themselves and to our national policy debates to understand
the issues involved, especially if they are to appreciate the
legislation before us.
Over the years as federal-provincial social programs have been
developed the federal contribution has taken two forms. One is a
commitment of direct cash contributions. But as of 1977, we also
agreed to provide the provinces with tax points.
What is a tax point transfer? It simply means that the
provinces can collect a portion of the taxes that would otherwise
go to the federal government. In other words it means that
provincial tax revenues increase, federal revenues decrease and
the national taxpayer still pays the same rate. There was good
reason for the provinces to accept these tax points. As the
economy grows so does the value of those points. While there
have been economic ups and downs, each of those tax points is
worth much more today than when the programs they fund were
introduced.
Consider for a second the tax points transferred to the
provinces in 1977 to support health and social programs. In 1977
those tax points amounted to some $3 billion worth of revenues.
Today they are worth about $12 billion. In other words if the
federal government had not transferred those tax points to the
provinces, today we would have some $12 billion more a year in
our coffers.
Some of that money could have gone to accelerate the deficit
reduction but I firmly believe and I am sure hon. members in
government believe it belongs where it is doing the work it does.
That means providing a national health care system that is the
envy of our American neighbours. It means support for
post-secondary education that makes attending a Canadian
university much more affordable and accessible than is generally
the case in the United States of America.
1730
To me the bottom line is clear. Federal support for health care
and education, two of the most important concerns within our
society, is real and reliable. As our economy grows and our
financial situation improves it is support that is again growing.
I am not trying to hide the fact that to get Canada's deficit
down transfers did have to be cut. The cash portion of federal
funding for provinces represents about $1 in every $5 of federal
program spending. We simply could not get the deficit down
without including transfers in the fiscal restraint effort of our
first mandate.
A number of points should be considered in judging our federal
performance on trimming transfers. First, our original cuts to
cash transfers represented about 3% of total provincial revenues.
In other words 3 cents of every provincial spending dollar. I
hardly think there are too many Canadians who would describe that
as an excessive or exorbitant contribution to resolving a
national debt problem that was hurting us all.
Second, we have always shared the concern Canadians were feeling
about the future of social programs, especially health care.
Because of our better than expected fiscal progress we are now
able to reduce the size of our planned transfer cuts with Bill
C-28 restoring up to $1.5 billion of federal revenues a year to
provincial coffers. This means our transfer cuts will end up
equalling only about 2.5% of provincial revenues.
Third and most important, let us recognize these transfers cuts
brought real bottom line benefits to the provinces not just
losses. That may sound contradictory but it is again the truth.
We should not forget that our federal deficit reduction program
has played a crucial role in allowing Canadian interest rates to
fall to their lowest sustained level in some 40 years. While
international pressures have seen rates move up somewhat, they
are still well below the levels we can all remember from the
1980s.
It is not just individual Canadians and corporations that have
benefited from these lower rates. The provinces have also been
winners.
First, the lower interest rates made possible by our fiscal
restraint have meant lower provincial debt servicing costs. In
fact we have estimated that the drop in rates provided the
provinces with a $1.8 billion dividend between January 1995 and
December 1996. That saving has continued to grow.
Second, the provincial gains go beyond lower interest charges.
Canada's low interest rates are the reasons why growth and job
creation have accelerated significantly in recent months. Our
growth rate is one of the best in the world and our unemployment
rate in December was the lowest in seven years.
That makes the provinces winners as well, providing them with
higher tax revenues through more working Canadians and healthier
companies, not to mention reduced welfare costs. In other words,
the success of our deficit battle has improved the ability of
provinces to invest in health care and education.
Personally I have no patience for those who try to argue that
the government has supposedly acted unfairly and offloaded our
deficit on to the provinces. I see it differently. Yes, we
imposed cuts but as carefully and as fairly as we could.
Provinces, in fact all Canadians, are sharing in the very real
rewards those federal cuts have bought and paid for.
1735
I have raised these points because they serve as a useful
context for the legislation we are now considering. Before
concluding I must make a couple of further points about the
government's commitment to health care and education. The
enrichment of the CHST under Bill C-28 may be the most dramatic
evidence of our commitment but is not the only proof of our
continuing expanding support for these vital social and economic
activities.
For example, also in Bill C-28 we are taking an important step
to help Canadian parents save for their children's education. The
legislation will expand the limit on the amount that may be
invested in a registered education savings plan for a youngster
from the current $2,000 to $4,000 a year. This brings the limit
for such savings—where the income is tax sheltered until used to
pay school costs—more in line with the growth in tuition and
other school expenses.
Our action on health care also extends well beyond the funding
under the CHST. For example, in last year's budget our
government announced that we would provide $150 million over
three years to help provinces put in place such pilot projects as
new approaches to home care and drug coverage that will enable
them to test new ways to improve our health care system.
In the 1997 budget we also committed $50 million over the next
three years to allow both levels of government, federal and
provincial, to put in place a co-ordinated national system of
health data. This will ensure that health care providers,
planners and individuals across our country have the right health
information at the right time, including the most up to date
knowledge possible concerning the treatments available.
I know my remarks have gone beyond the specific legislation
before us, but no act of government stands in isolation from the
overall directions it has established and commitments it has
made. That is why I welcomed the opportunity to speak today in
support of Bill C-28. It demonstrates the government's
commitment to the critical issues of health care and education.
It proves that the direction it has set is one of continuing
partnerships and support for the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the comments made by the hon. member opposite. He used
several terms which, I must admit, shocked me and probably shocked our
constituents and listeners.
Among other things, the hon. member said that tax points are a gift
from the federal government to the provinces. Unless I am mistaken, tax
points are given to a province when it withdraws from a program that is
otherwise administered by the federal government. The province then has
a duty to administer the program itself.
Therefore, as the federal government does not have to spend the
money, it only makes sense that it would hand over the tax points
relating to the program. But why does a province—Quebec among
others—find itself in this situation; why does Quebec prefer to
administer a number of programs itself and be compensated with
tax points? Simply because it can do so better and more cheaply
than the federal government.
People at home will certainly agree that, all too often, the money
taken from their pockets is wasted here by the federal system, in which
we happen to be members of Parliament.
We deplore this situation in every possible way, and I join those who
said so before me, because it is important to say so.
1740
Let us not forget that when transfer payments are made to a
province, it is because that province needs additional revenues to meet
its commitments. So, the question is: why does a province lack revenues?
Why are there provinces that are richer and others that are poorer?
As I recall, when he was asked why certain contracts did not go to
certain provinces, the Prime Minister answered something like this:
“Well, see, we have called for bids and the lowest bidder won.” You will
agree with me that, when bids are called for furniture here, in Ottawa,
it is not likely that a company from the maritimes will be able to bid
the same way a company located nearby could.
In a nutshell, what is happening in this federation is that some
regions are made to grow poorer because our tax money is concentrated in
other regions. Then, out of kindness, certain amounts are transferred to
the provinces adversely affected. This money does not create jobs. It
is hidden social assistance for these governments. No province deserves
to be treated this way, starting with Quebec.
Why not let Quebec keep the tax money it collects and assume full
responsibility for the provision of services? Why not have 100% of tax
points at the level at which services can be provided at a much better
price?
I will conclude by asking the hon. member opposite this question:
Why not simply admit that the federal system is a huge waste of
resources, that it has done its time and that it should just disappear?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I am often struck
by the pessimism that exists on the other side when we as a
country are enjoying an excellent standard of living. There are
areas which need improvement. I mentioned, for example, the
issue of youth unemployment. That is a concern for many
Canadians from coast to coast. I am surprised the hon. member
does not recognize the government has governed well.
We can look to the headway we made on the deficit. It was $42
billion when we took power. That was not long ago. It was back
in 1993. When I was sitting where the hon. member is sitting now
I remember how badly we felt as a nation. We were carrying a
high deficit. Interest rates went through the roof. More
important, we saw a truly demoralized nation, a nation which was
running just to stand still. People's incomes were dropping.
People had lost their hope to purchase a home. Bankruptcies were
going through the roof. People's hopes were dim.
The government cannot take all the credit. Indeed Canadians
rolled up their sleeves and said that we needed to tackle the
deficit. Now they want to tackle the debt. We need to make
strategic investments in areas that count like education and
health.
During the election campaign the increase in cash flow of
approximately $1.5 billion was welcomed by people from coast to
coast to coast. They felt we were investing in the right things:
health and education.
The hon. member mentioned something which struck me as being
odd. He said that this is just money that goes to social
spending and it has nothing to do with jobs. I submit to him
that he is absolutely wrong. The investment we make in education
is perhaps the number one way of ensuring that young people have
the skills and the education required to get the new jobs that
exist in the new economy.
1745
It is the way in which we can respond to the changing dynamics
of marketplace where, as members know, the old rules simply do
not apply.
I think that is the big difference that exists from the member's
attitude and my own. I truly believe that we can equip the
people of Canada with the proper skills. I believe that this
country has great potential for growth.
I believe there are signals given by the marketplace and
given by people's attitude that tomorrow can be better than today
provided we pool our common resources, provided we find the inner
strength to look to the 21st century with the type of optimism
that we have the right to.
If anybody is asked, any economist throughout the world, what
would be the perfect conditions for economic growth in an
industrialized society, what they will say is that human
resources need to be invested in as we have done. The burden of
deficits needs to be eliminated. Interest rates need to be low.
Inflation needs to be low. These are the fundamentals that
generate economic growth.
I simply do not understand why the hon. member cannot take pride
in the fact that Canadians from coast to coast have sacrificed to
reach these objectives, that Canadians from coast to coast have
said to the Government of Canada defeat the deficit. We will
sacrifice ourselves for whom? For our children, whether they
come from Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario or anywhere else in
this country.
The hon. member gets up in his seat and somehow tells the people
who are watching this debate that things in Canada are terrible,
that it does not matter that because of low interest rates we
have seen immense growth in the small business sector, that it
does not matter that over a million jobs have been created, that
it does not matter that because of the almost elimination of our
deficit that we are able now to invest in the social and economic
needs of Canadians, particularly health care and education, that
does not really matter, those are not achievements, the fact that
the unemployment rate is below double digit. When former
Conservative governments were saying that it would take until the
year 2000, that is not worth celebrating.
To diminish the efforts of Canada, that is what the hon. member
is saying. All the work that the Canadian people have
participated diligently in, you are saying that is worth nothing.
I say to you that you are wrong and we—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member knows that he
must address his remarks to the Chair. I have tried to caution
him on this point.
The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming
debate.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to join members in this House in
wishing you a happy new year and to convey my experiences over
this past month in my workings in the constituency and hearing
the concerns of Canadians.
As my colleagues in the New Democratic Party said earlier today,
the experiences we heard about in our constituencies are
certainly not in keeping with many of the statements and
priorities raised today in this House of Commons.
We are in the middle of a serious discussion of a major piece of
legislation, Bill C-28, which deals with many aspects of the
realities of people's daily lives. Yet many of the comments and
statements today have hardly touched on those realities.
I pointed out before the failure for members on the Liberal side
and among the Reformers to seriously deal with the bank issue, to
seriously address this monster merger and talk about it in terms
of the impact of such a development on the lives of families in
our communities.
Why the silence or, even more significant, why the support for such a
devastating development in our society today?
1750
More specifically, we have just heard a number of responses to a
very important part of this bill pertaining to the Canada health
and social transfer. I am pleased to have a few moments to
address what many would consider to be the most regressive social
policy in the history of this country, to talk about a Liberal
policy that many in our communities would suggest is more
destructive of Canadian unity then any other development we have
seen in recent times.
Members of the Liberal Party would suggest that anyone who
raises concerns about the Canada health and social transfer are
just nay sayers and talking without facts. I would suggest that
if members of the Liberal party have trouble hearing the concerns
that we raise on this side of the House then perhaps they should
listen to the words of reputable members and activists in their
midst, people associated with the Liberal party. I suggest they
take a very serious look at the speech made recently by Tom Kent
entitled medicare, how to keep and improve it, especially for
children.
Tom Kent says: “For this medicare we owe no thanks to the
present generation of federal politicians. It survives despite
them. Though they pose because of its popularity as the defenders
of medicare, in fact they have destroyed the financial basis on
which their predecessors created it. That political betrayal is
the root cause of the tension that, despite the public will, now
pervades medicare”.
The bill today or that part of bill today which deals with the
Canada health and social transfer allows the Liberal party to
live up to its astonishing claim, its astonishing commitment to
put back into the health care system what it has not yet taken
out. It allows this government to create an illusion of being
concerned about health care, standing up for medicare, all the
while taking the heart and soul out of this most important
national institution.
This is really a bill of tricks to try to convince Canadians
that the government is deeply concerned about medicare while
cutting deeply into the system and causing the very things it
says it is opposed to, privatization, two tier health care, user
fees, people's loss of confidence in our health care system. It
is this government's policies starting with the CHST that have
done more to erode medicare than anything else we have seen in
the history of this country.
In the last election we heard from all parties on this issue.
The Liberals claim to have seen the light, to recognize the
errors of their ways and are investing new money into health
care. We saw that promise reconfigured in an announcement last
month by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance
suggesting that this new investment was happening and $1.5
billion, as we heard today from members opposite, was suddenly
going to appear on the table and be reinvested in health care.
Let us be clear that is absolute rubbish and nonsense and an
absolute misrepresentation of the facts. In no uncertain terms,
this government is not putting any new money into health care; it
is simply announcing that it will not proceed with the cuts that
were going to happen next year.
What kind of hypocrisy is this? How can people have faith in a
political system when those kinds of untruths are spread across
this country? The fact is this government in 1993 was handed a
$19 billion investment in health, post-secondary education and
social assistance and proceeded to take $6.8 billion out of the
system.
1755
We know what that has done from coast to coast to coast in this
country. You cannot just take that kind of money out of the
system and pretend that everything is rosy. You cannot now say
that you are putting money in that you are not putting in. You
cannot do that to the Canadian people.
Let me say while I am on this topic that the Reform Party has no
business suggesting it is the defender of medicare by
claiming to put $4 billion back into health care. We heard it in
the election. What did we hear? The Reform Party was putting an
extra $4 billion into health care. What Reformers did not say was that
they were planning to cut $3.5 billion from welfare spending.
What does that mean? They were planning a $500 million investment
in terms of federal social transfers.
Let us put it into today's context. Today they say they are
putting $4 billion into health care. In the same speech and in
the same breath they are going to eliminate equalization. By
today's figures that is $8 billion.
How can Canadians believe that Reformers or Liberals in this
House are standing up for medicare when in fact their real agenda
is to destroy medicare, to move us to the Americanized model of
health care where the rich get access and the poor are denied any
hope of quality health care?
The Conservatives started the erosion in the whole transfer
system through their series of legislative amendments changing
the rate by which money would flow to the provinces so that in
fact cash would eventually run out, destroying any hope of
enforcing the principles under medicare. What did the
Conservatives turn around and promise in 1997? To increase health
care spending by 30%. What they failed to mention is they were
basically offering to transfer federal taxing power to the
provinces—no cash.
That brings us to the current issue today. Never mind that this
is not real money we are talking about, the government is
suggesting it has put all this money into cash points, missing
the whole point that the future of medicare depends on stable,
significant, realistic cash funding for health care, without
which there is no hope, no possibility of ensuring that all
provinces and territories live up to the standards under the
Canada Health Act.
In my last minute may I suggest four recommendations to the
government that will help us preserve medicare, put medicare on a
solid footing so it is there for the youth and the children of
this country. Let me suggest first that this government stop its
agenda of deregulation and privatization, beginning with its own
health protection branch.
Second, try for goodness sake to rethink its position on patent
protection. It makes no sense to talk about preserving medicare
when it is allowing patent protection for big brand name drug
companies to go on for 22 years adding enormous cost to our
health care system.
Third, begin to restore the federal cash transfer payments and
ensure that money is used to mould and improve our system so that
it is truly a community based preventive health care model which
will endure for years to come.
Finally, I suggest this government actually look seriously at
consulting all these organizations which are deeply concerned
about the future of health care and have an open ear and an open
mind to some very positive constructive suggestions and start to
truly invest in health care. Work with those communities, with
the provinces and the territories to ensure that we have a
medicare system that is on a sure footing but prepared to take on
the challenges of the millennium.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr Speaker,
I would like to thank the hon. member and concur with her
comments about the hypocrisy of this Liberal government in
claiming to be the great defenders of transfers to the provinces
for health care just after having slashed several billions of
dollars in such transfers.
I think she made the point eloquently, a point with which we
agree. I would however like to correct the record on a couple of
points.
1800
The hon. member suggested in her remarks that the Reform Party
proposes to eliminate the equalization program and payments. That
is inaccurate. We have proposed to reduce those payments by some
12% which is hardly the 100% she suggests. It is 12% because we
believe that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world
there really are not seven legitimate have not provinces. We
believe those benefits would be better focused on the very
poorest provinces as opposed to taking from two or three
provinces and spreading them among seven or eight.
The hon. member also suggested that the Reform Party proposes
the adoption of a free market American style health care system.
That as well is inaccurate. First of all, roughly half of the
American health care spending is funded by the public sector
through medicaid, medicare and other programs.
That aside, the Reform Party supports a universal publicly
accessible health care system. But we support a system which
provides quality care, accessible to all, unlike the kind of care
provided today in the socialist utopias of Saskatchewan and
British Columbia where waiting lists continue to grow, where
rationing is increasingly a problem, where expensive diagnostic
infrastructure is less and less available to the people who need
it and where specialists continue to leave for more hospitable
health care systems.
The hon. member being from the NDP hardly has a clean record in
her own party's management of the health care system. Therefore
I think she ought to be somewhat tempered in her remarks.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, this begs a lot of
questions about Reform policy when it comes to cash transfer
payments from the federal government to the provincial and
territorial governments for health, education and social
services. Looking at the Reform Party's promise in the last
election, it was very clear about yes, spending an extra $4
billion a year on health care but in fact cutting $3.5 billion
from welfare spending and therefore only promising to add $500
million to the federal social transfers. In other words it was
going to restore about 9% of what the Liberals had cut.
Today we are hearing about its promises to cut either totally or
in part equalization payments. We have to look at equalization
and transfer payments for health, education and social assistance
as a package. We are talking about means by which we try to
equalize conditions in this country so that everyone regardless
of region, regardless of sex and regardless of income has access
to quality health care services, to public education and to
assistance in times of need.
We have not heard a peep out of the Reform Party about the fact
that the CHST really took 40% out of the transfer payment system
which put a lot of people into precarious situations and drove
more people into poverty. It is not prepared to stand up and
talk about transfer payments as a goal to meet the values of this
country which stand for equality, dignity and respect for
everyone.
My comment is simply to call on the Reform Party to be up front,
honest and open about where it stands on this whole issue of
transfer payments and to tell us exactly what it means about a
universal health care system. What we have to go on is the
Reform Party standing up and opposing any attempt to put in place
a universal pension system, any kind of a national income
retirement system in this country.
On every front when it comes to those programs which reflect the
values of Canadians and which have helped shape this country, the
Reform Party has backed off and has in fact played a leading role
in eroding those programs. We have no confidence and have seen
no evidence from the Reform Party about how it will ensure
universal health care in this country.
It needs to start by addressing the question of patent
protection for multinational drug companies, something on which
we have heard nothing but silence. In fact that goes to the very
heart of the matter when it comes to ensuring that medicare is on
a strong, stable footing.
1805
What is the Reform position on 22 year patent protection for
multinational drug companies? What is the Reform position on the
deregulation of the health protection branch? Where is Reform's
emphasis in terms of a universal health care system and a
government that plays a role in terms of ensuring that people are
protected from the vagaries of the marketplace and where
government plays a role in terms of equalizing conditions from
one end of the country to the other?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we are listening to
the NDP rhetoric. If I could go back to the comments made this
morning, the member for Kamloops painted a picture that the
economy was going down the drain, that there has been no progress
made in this country at all since 1993. Clearly that is wrong,
but of course the NDP needs to focus on that rhetoric in order to
deliver its message.
The member started her comments by asking why there is silence
on the bank issue. What does Bill C-28 have to do with the bank
issue? We are talking about an increase in the stabilization of
a cash floor in the CHST plus some other tax measures.
The finance minister and the prime minister have stated quite
clearly that when it comes to the bank merger, which she made
reference to, there is a process in place. This government will
continue with that process. There will not be a knee-jerk
reaction to this announcement of a merger by the banks. The
minister has clearly said that once that information is brought
forward, it will be looked at in consultation with Canadians and
if that merger is not in the best interests of Canadians, it will
not happen. I do not know why the comment was made other than
that it is NDP rhetoric.
With respect to her comments on this bill, she made a comment
that we are supporting a two tier system, that we support user
fees in this country. When the province of Alberta attempted to
set up private clinics and put forward user fees, it was this
government that withheld and was willing to withhold transfers to
that province in order to ensure we maintained the level of
health care that Canadians expect. We are ensuring that we will
support the principles of the Canada Health Act.
The member went on to say that this bill does nothing to put
money back into the social transfers. Let us not be ridiculous.
This bill reflects a changing fiscal reality. We now have
dollars to reinvest in the priorities of Canadians. In 1998-99
the pre Bill C-28 cash transfer would be $11.6 billion while the
post Bill C-28 cash transfer would be $12.5 billion. In 1999-2000
the pre Bill C-28 cash transfer would be $11 billion while the
post Bill C-28 cash transfer would be $12.5 billion. That is
real cash that is going to the provinces in the form of a
transfer. What we have post Bill C-28 is a 2.5% increase in the
transfers to the provinces.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, again what we have
from the Liberals is a promise to put back into the health care
system what they have not yet taken out. They will not deal with
the fact that they took the biggest bite out of financing for
health care in this country in the history of medicare. They
took out $6.8 million which is what has put medicare on such a
precarious footing and has opened the door to developments such
as what we saw in Alberta with the for profit hospital springing
up, with other clinics that are involved in offering services to
those patients with the money. That is the kind of situation we
have as a result of Liberal policy and this bill does not address
the facts.
The member asked a question about what the banks have to do with
anything. They have everything to do with finances, with fiscal
policy, with income tax. As my colleagues mentioned earlier
today, it is precisely that we have a government that expresses
outrage at something while it signs an agreement and then uses an
excuse—
1810
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak in
support of Bill C-28. This bill very much defines the heart of
our country. It concerns the social pillars of our nation, our
shared identity, our shared human values and our shared
aspirations as Canadians.
I would like to hear from members opposite who debated earlier
where they in fact stand in terms of support for the bill. Are
they supporting the bill? Is the NDP supporting the bill? I
hope so. Is the Reform Party supporting the bill? I hope so.
Are the Bloc and the Tories supporting the bill? I hope they all
do at the end of the day. They can of course share their
concerns with us, but at the end of the debate I hope they can
support the shared identity, human values and aspirations of
Canadians.
Why is this bill about the soul of our nation? I see two or
three major components to this bill. The first one is the Canada
health and social transfer which covers the areas of health care,
education and social assistance for Canadians. The second one
concerns the registered education savings plan which relates to
post-secondary education. Third, but not limited to these three,
is charitable donations.
Speaking about charitable donations, Canadians should note, and
opposition parties should also convey this message, that we are
increasing the charitable tax credit from 50% to 75% of net
income. My constituents in Winnipeg North—St. Paul, my
constituents in Winnipeg North before it was changed, told me
that we should increase the tax credit and we are now doing that
with this bill. I hope this will be taken very positively by the
members on the opposite side.
For the first time we will see that donations to charitable
organizations will be the same for all charities and not limited
to donations to crown corporations or crown foundations. By
increasing the tax credit for charitable donations, we are
encouraging even more the Canadian spirit of gift giving among
our fellow Canadians and for those in need. This is truly a
reflection of our social conscience.
The bill also deals with increasing the contribution to the
registered education savings plan from $2,000 to $4,000 a year.
This is certainly a big amount that can be earmarked for the
education of our youth in our families. For parents who fear
that their children for any reason may not want to go to college
or university, this bill will ensure that contributions made to
registered education savings plans will be transferable to the
parents' registered retirement savings plan. Therefore nothing
will be lost and savings will be gained.
Although our youth may only represent about 20% to 25% of
Canadians, they truly represent 100% of our future. We need to
ensure that the cost of education becomes more and more
affordable for our youth.
I will move on to the heart of this bill, the Canada health and
social transfer. This is a compilation of what used to exist,
the transfer payments for health and social assistance. Provinces
in the past have told the federal government that they should be
allowed more flexibility in the delivery of programs. That is in
our Constitution. The delivery of health care and social
assistance programs is within the constitutional jurisdiction of
the provinces. Out of respect for the provinces and to give them
greater flexibility in defining how best to deliver this system,
we have allowed for great flexibility with this kind of Canada
health and social transfer.
However even as we have allowed this flexibility in terms of the
administration of these programs on the part of the provinces,
the federal government has seen to it that the five principles of
medicare which include portability, universality,
comprehensiveness, and non-profit public administration of the
system will be maintained.
While we have ensured these standards of medicare, we have
allowed for flexible federalism.
1815
In addition to the five principles to which I have just alluded,
including the principle of accessibility, I remind members
opposite that there is another principle in the bill which we may
forget, that is no user fees on the part of institutions which
may apply them. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance, has alluded to the fact that when Alberta
tried to impose user fees we withheld the transfer payments until
the province of Alberta complied with the provisions of the
Canada Health Act. Another principle relates to no extra billing
on the part of physicians. We have one of the most beautiful
health care systems in the world.
We have guaranteed a cash floor of $12.5 billion a year until
the year 2003. The government has seen to it that it will be
instituted one year earlier, commencing in 1997. In total it
will represent six years. Instead of getting only $6 billion
over a five year period, actually $7 billion in transfer payments
will be made to the provinces for the CHST. This represents the
largest single pledge which the government has made to date in
terms of our social programs. Certainly it reflects the
commitment of the government to the social institutions of the
country.
Because our transfer payments include not only the cash floor
but equally the tax points, it is important to note that as the
economy grows tax transfers will increase. However, because the
total transfer ought to have subtracted from the tax transfer, we
have ensured in the bill that the cash floor of $12.5 billion
will remain constant and will never fall below that level. That
is what we call stability. It is stability in terms of the
amount and it is stability in terms of the period of funding for
the next five to six years.
When we combine the cash floor and the tax transfer, by any
simple arithmetic calculation the actual amount—and the
opposition parties ought to admit this—will increase to as much
as $28.6 billion by the year 2003.
In addition to this program we have also established the health
transition fund to pilot health care delivery systems in the
country. I hope to see, as per the commitment we made in the
1997 election, the future of home care and pharmacare in Canada.
What we are hearing from the Reform Party is that we need to cut
taxes. We also believe in tax relief for Canadians, but our
approach is more balanced. When we have a surplus we will see to
it that half of it will go toward tax relief, beginning with
those Canadians who need tax relief the most, and as well toward
debt reduction. In contrast to Reformers and Tories, we would
like to spend the other half on social programs and economic
investments so we can continue to sustain the economy and develop
it even more, and as well to ensure that our vital social
programs such as medicare and support for post-secondary
education remain.
The NDP, on the other hand, will say that is not enough. I
think that we need to inject a dose of realism. It is not
enough, but we do not have enough money in the country. There
are competing demands on the amount we have as a nation.
Thanks to the government we were able to reduce the deficit from
$42 billion in 1993 to what perhaps in the upcoming budget will
be almost, if not quite yet, a balanced budget. That is a
significant success in restoring order to the fiscal house of the
country.
That in all humility must merit the commendation of Canadians.
1820
Speaking of fellow Canadians, I would like to add at once that
the success of the federal government has not been because we did
it alone. In fact, we succeeded because Canadians across the
country joined us in the fight to reduce and eliminate the fiscal
deficit.
Now that we are nearing that success, now that we are close to
balancing the budget, we have to respond to the sentiments of
Canadians. We must give back now to social programs and economic
investment although not to the point that we go back, as the NDP
is suggesting, to an era of deficit spending.
We would like to spend more on post-secondary education. We
would like to increase the infrastructure of the country,
including not only roads and bridges which we would like to
repair and build, not only repair of the sewer system in the
country which we would like to do, but actually addressing the
challenge of this current century and the new millennium. We
must invest in the infrastructure of high tech technology. We
must invest in research and development such as increasing the
grants to our granting councils, to the Medical Research Council
and to the Engineering Research Council, including support for
research in the humanities.
In this way we will be able to include the social, the medical
and the technical needs of the country that the current century
and coming millennium challenge us to do.
I heard remarks during earlier debate that there had been cuts
to transfer payments. That we said we did. In fact it was
necessary and it was the sacrifice I was speaking to earlier when
we had to cut transfer payments.
Not to have done that may have meant at this point we could not
be speaking about fiscal surplus. In a sense we took that bold
step and for that bold step Canadians gave us a renewal of the
mandate. That we cannot dispute.
In contrast to what others say, that the transfer payments have
decreased by about 35%, if we include equalization payments which
are also part of transfer payments, the amount of decrease was
not as much as 35%.
Let us support the bill. Last November or December I consulted
with the constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul. To them I
posed the question very explicitly. I asked whether they would
like us to continue as we had pledged, that any surplus would
henceforth be spent half for debt reduction and tax relief and
the other half for social programs and economic investments. Or,
would they like us to change the pledge? Everybody present in
that community forum said that we must keep our pledge. That is
what we are doing.
Bill C-28, as I said earlier, is about the social conscience of
our country. It is about the generosity that we have for each
other as Canadians. The government reflects that social
conscience in Bill C-28.
We would like to have a peace of mind when we get ill by
sustaining our medicare system. We would also like to secure the
future of Canada by ensuring that the cost of education remains
at all times affordable to our youth.
Earlier in the debate an NDP member quoted Mr. Tom Kent saying
that there had been some sort of betrayal.
The NDP member went on to say that what we were seeing here was
an illusion. Then she said that this was about a bill of tricks.
Use of those words can be very beautiful, but when we analyse
them very carefully we can ask whether the NDP is happy or is the
NDP a hypocrite. Is $1.5 billion not real money? Is $1.5
billion only an illusion?
1825
The amount of $1.5 billion is being added to the $11 billion
that was supposed to be. The increase that will now amount to
$12.5 billion did not just come from the air. This was an amount
recommended by the National Forum on Health chaired by the prime
minister himself. This was an amount that was deemed essential
and the government made a positive response to that
recommendation.
The recommendations of the National Forum on Health and others
were supported by the NDP, by the Reform and by the Tories. Yet
how could it be that when we are discussing a specific
recommendation implemented in the bill we are hearing these
questions of betrayal, of tricks and of illusions? We must come
down to reality. When a bill indicates funding that will not go
below the floor of $12.5 billion for the next five years, that is
stable funding by any definition.
This amount was recommended by the National Forum on Health
after wide consultations in the country. That is a realistic
amount. When we give $12.5 billion for the Canada health and
social transfer, by any definition that is a significant amount.
I hope I have addressed the concerns of the NDP that wanted to
hear that we have stable, realistic and significant funding.
I end with a key message. Because of the fiscal progress the
country has made since 1993, we are now able to reinvest in the
priority areas closest to the government's heart: medicare and
education, research and development, and continuing support for
the economy. We have responded very well to the National Forum
on Health. I hope at the end of the day, at the end of debate,
we will have unanimous support for the bill which is in the best
interest of Canadians irrespective of their walk of life.
The Speaker: We have approximately two minutes left so I
will allow a minute for comment and question and a minute for
response. I will go directly to the member for Acadie—Bathurst.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I will try to be brief in
putting my question, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. colleague was saying that the people of Canada support the
Liberals in their fight against the deficit and have joined them in that
fight. I do not agree with him because they did not give Canadians any
choice.
Let me give you an example. In our region, the Liberal provincial
health minister personally stated that, as a result of federal transfer
cuts, in New Brunswick, seniors receiving long term care in hospital who
are transferred to a nursing home may end up losing their homes if they
cannot come up with $38,000 a year. That is the cost involved. I call
that a two-tier system too.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul
has approximately 45 seconds.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, certainly there are
still problems. We do not deny that. We are realistic as well.
However we have to put the problems in their context. We would
all agree that delivery of the health care system is completely
provincial jurisdiction.
1830
When we speak of problems in the delivery of the health care
system we have to challenge as well the provincial governments as
to the level of funding they are giving to their systems in
addition to the transfer payments. We are looking as well to the
home care program that we may want to establish. This will
require federal and provincial negotiations.
We are looking at establishing a national drug plan to the best
that we can, following federal-provincial negotiations. I am
really amazed that the member would say that the Canadian people
did not support the need for the reduction of the fiscal deficit.
I think they did and we are now reaping the benefits.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in December I asked the minister a question about
the Immigration and Refugee Board. I would like to start off by
congratulating an advisory group making recommendations to the
minister for the work it did on that report, Mr. Roger Trempe,
Miss Susan David and Dr. Roslyn Kunin,
One of the recommendations they made was to eliminate the
Immigration and Refugee Board. The Immigration and Refugee Board
is a national embarrassment to Canada right now. I could not
agree with them more. What is interesting about it is that they
make that recommendation, the minister puts out a press release
congratulating them and a couple of days later she appoints a
former Liberal member, Anna Terrana, to the Immigration and
Refugee Board at a salary of $84,000 a year. We have to wonder
how serious the government is in really looking at these
recommendations.
The Immigration and Refugee Board has a 28,000 case backlog. Out
of 21,000 people who have been ordered deported, there are 15,600
people left in Canada; 4,000 deported, 15,600 still in this
country.
The people on this board make $86,400 each. That is the
maximum. There are 198 members, $74 million a year. A good
recommendation is to get rid of this board because it is not
doing the taxpayers in this country any good at all.
There are 29,000 cases outstanding by the Immigration and
Refugee Board. Eight-five hundred previously rejected are now
under review. The average processing time for a claim is 13
months. Review of cases takes seven months. In reality the
first processing of a claim takes two and half years.
Sixty per cent of the refugees who arrive in this country arrive
without a passport or without identification. It costs about
$300 million a year to keep these refugees on welfare and
assistance.
It is time that this minister got serious about this board. The
recommendations from her committee say that it should be
cancelled. There was a great article this weekend by Anne Dawson
of the Ottawa Sun. The chairman of the board, Mawani,
refused an interview. So did the minister.
The public wants this board cancelled. It wants a different
process. The Canadian people are fed up with what is happening
with the refugee situation, people coming to our borders
demanding status in Canada. They should have to apply from
outside Canada like all the other people who come here. We hope
the minister will take what the public wants, take what her
committee is recommending and abolish this board.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the hon. member's comments. It is important that the legislative
review committee task force has done a great deal of work.
The minister has made it quite clear that she wants to consult
with Canadians with respect to the recommendations and to hear
back from Canadians as to the kind of direction the legislation
will take. The hon. member is also welcome with his colleagues,
as is every member in this House, to submit proposals, to react
to the report as well. I am sure members of the committee will
also be looking at this report.
It is premature at this point given that this report has only
just been tabled and the minister will be starting on her
consultations very shortly to immediately start talking about
adopting one part or the other of the report. The report deals
with a holistic approach in all parts of the act. It deals with
the Immigration Act, the Refugee Act as well as the Citizenship
Act.
One of the things the auditor general said very clearly was that
we not take a piecemeal approach to changing the act or changing
the immigration system but to look at a holistic way in dealing
with it in all its parts.
1835
When we deal with the Immigration and Refugee Board and its work
and how its work in future will evolve, we are also looking at
issues such as appeals, removals and so on. These are all very
important issues that will be discussed. I am sure the hon.
member will be participating and hopefully will be giving, with
his party, his views on the rest of the report in addition to
this one part.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)