36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 6
CONTENTS
Monday, September 29, 1997
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1105
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1125
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1130
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1135
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment to the amendment
|
1140
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1145
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1200
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1215
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1230
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1245
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1250
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1255
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1300
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1320
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1335
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1355
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HYBRID TURKEYS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1400
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATOR PAT CARNEY
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THRONE SPEECH
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SWEET HEREAFTER
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1420
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOISEY'S BAY
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1435
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIRABEL AIRPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1440
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL DETENTION CENTRES
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICING OF AIRPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1445
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1450
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICING OF AIRPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
1455
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORTS CANADA POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1500
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEOPLE'S TAX FORM ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-214. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1505
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-215. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-216. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-217. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIVORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-218. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1510
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Prices
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Pension Plan
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sharon Hayes |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1515
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1520
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1535
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1540
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1605
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1620
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1635
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1640
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1655
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1710
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1725
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1740
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1745
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1800
1830
(Division 2)
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
1835
1845
(Division 3)
![V](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived.
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 6
![](/web/20061116184639im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 29, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1100
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion
for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to
his speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me begin by welcoming you to your new position. I know that
you will bring distinction to the Chair as you have as a critic
for your party in the past. As I recall, part of the time you
were criticising my portfolio, but always in a very positive and
constructive way.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the
constituents of my riding of Ottawa South for re-electing me for
a third term. It is a great honour to be able to represent them
again here in the House of Commons.
I am also grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me the
opportunity to continue as Minister of Industry. In fulfilling
this role over the last four years, I have had the opportunity to
meet with business people across Canada in all sectors of
industry. I have had a unique opportunity to see firsthand the
entrepreneurship and dynamism of Canadians at work from coast to
coast.
I am entirely enthusiastic about my portfolio and proud of the
public servants who work in it with me.
[Translation]
My objective today, in setting out the government's program to
this House, is to explain our vision of Canada's economic and
social development in a global knowledge-based economy.
What our government set out in the Speech from the Throne is
nothing more and nothing less than a new economic framework for
Canada, a framework based on one idea: seizing the opportunities
presented by the global knowledge economy in order to create jobs
and wealth in all economic sectors, ranging from high technology to
services and primary resources.
1105
With our vision we will bring into the XXI century a Canada
that is united and built on solid economic and social foundations.
Our vision will bring Canadians, ourselves included, face to face
with the challenge of being the best in the world.
[English]
A new global economy based on knowledge, technology and
innovation is rapidly emerging. Led by dramatic improvements in
computing and communications, this knowledge based economy is
changing the determinants of success for individuals, companies,
regions and countries. It is breaking the barriers of time and
distance, and it is magnifying the role international
developments play in our prosperity.
These changes are allowing individuals and businesses to operate
across borders, around the world, at the speed of light: sharing
knowledge, trading in goods, services and capital 24 hours a
days, 7 days a week.
In this emerging new economy, more than ever people and
innovations are the keys to growth and wealth creation. The
knowledge economy is transforming all industrial sectors from
agriculture and natural resources through manufacturing to retail
and services. As we move into the new century the new economy
will affect the life and work of every person, every business,
every community and every organization in Canada.
[Translation]
There is no question that change goes hand and hand with
uncertainty. The changing world of work and the introduction of
new technologies have left many wondering whether they and their
children will occupy a productive and rewarding place in the new
economy. But change goes hand in hand with new opportunities.
In an economy based on knowledge and innovation, many
Canadians see outlets for their ideas and new horizons for their
children. They see new ways of communicating with others
throughout the entire world as well as right next door, and new
ways of improving their community and enriching their lives.
[English]
A key objective of our economic agenda must be to ease the
uncertainty of those Canadians who need to adjust to the changing
economy and, at the same time, to help every Canadian take
advantage of emerging opportunities and realize their full
potential.
We have a solid foundation to build on. We are, as we often
repeat, according to the United Nations development index, the
best country in the world in which to live. With the help of all
Canadians our economic fundamentals are now the best they have
been in 35 years.
Our focus now must be to construct real opportunities on the
foundations already laid. We are already positioned to be a
world leader in the global knowledge economy of the 21st century.
We have the people, we have the resources, we have the technology
and we have the infrastructure.
But having such assets is not enough. We have to mobilize our
resources toward a clear objective of being the best. Looking
ahead to the millennium, we have an opportunity to explore new
horizons, set new goals for our country and work together to
reach those goals.
The government's agenda as outlined in the Speech from the
Throne sets out clearly the actions that we will take and the
partnerships we will forge to ensure that Canada realizes its
potential in the new economy of the 21st century.
We are implementing an innovative strategy built on four themes.
The first is that of connecting Canadians. Our goal is to make
Canada the most connected country in the world, making sure that
all Canadians can have access to the electronic highway and
information economy by the year 2000. This is perhaps the single
most important action that government can take to ensure success
in the knowledge based economy.
Through a national strategy designed to provide access to the
information and knowledge infrastructure we can enable
individuals, rural communities, aboriginal communities, small and
large businesses alike to find new opportunities for learning,
interacting, transacting and developing their economic and social
potential.
1110
By connecting rural and remote communities through public access
sites across Canada, we are giving these communities the tools to
help further their economic and social development and make the
most of their existing resources to tap new markets and create
new job opportunities for their citizens.
By connecting all of Canada's 22,000 schools, libraries and
learning institutions, we will make life-long learning an
affordable reality for Canadians while Canada becomes a
laboratory for the creation of interactive, multimedia learning
software and networks.
By creating the best environment for electronic commerce, Canada
can become a world leader in this emerging field, leading to
increased investment in electronic networks and growth in areas
such as electronic transactions, multimedia products and on-line
services.
[Translation]
By connecting Canadians to the information highway, we will
create a demand for digital content, which could strengthen
Canada's cultural identity and create new economic opportunities.
By putting government services on-line, we can facilitate
communications between government and the people like never before.
Government services will be available to Canadians wherever they
are 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
By connecting Canadians to each other, to their institutions
and governments and to the rest of the world, we will all better
understand who we are and Canadians will have the tools they need
to maximize their potential.
These are only some of the many advantages we will enjoy when
we link up with the new economy.
[English]
The second theme is realizing our international potential.
Increasingly our prosperity is dependent on making the most of
our international opportunities. One in three Canadian jobs
depends on trade and every $1 billion increase in exports
generates 8,000 new jobs.
With team Canada we have improved our trade and investment
performance but there is still much more that we must do to
secure Canada's place in the global economy. Building on the
team Canada success, we will consult with our industrial partners
to further broaden our trading base outward in the world. We are
already extending our team Canada approach to help Canadian
businesses prepare at home to compete and win in international
markets.
Through Investment Partnerships Canada, we are working with
industry on a focused marketing campaign in priority markets to
attract investment to Canada by multinational firms because
investment equal jobs.
The third theme is investing in innovation and knowledge. Last
year 12 of Canada's top thinkers on science and technology were
appointed to the Prime Minister's Advisory Council on Science and
Technology. Part of their advice was:
A high level of investment, excellence in education, accelerated
innovation through science and technology and an increased
emphasis on the commercialization of science and technology, will
spur job creation and generate increases in the standard of
living for Canadians.
We are taking this advice to heart. We must promote those
knowledge intensive sectors where we are already strong, where
the opportunity for growth and global leadership is highest, and
where the opportunities for young Canadians are the greatest.
Canada has winning sectors, sectors on which we can build and
grow to world leadership, for example, aerospace, environmental
technologies, biotechnology and telecommunications and
information technologies. Together with industry we will set
goals and targets to improve Canada's global ranking in these and
other sectors.
1115
We also believe there is enormous growth potential for
traditional sectors such as forestry, mining and agriculture to
innovate and adapt information technology and biotechnology to
improve productivity, to reach new markets and to develop new
products.
By investing in Canada's research facilities and government and
university laboratories we will maintain one of the best research
and development infrastructures in the world. We will also
improve and expand the knowledge base that individuals and
businesses need in order to succeed. We will see our $800 million
investment in the Canada foundation for innovation used to
leverage additional private and public sector investments to
renew and expand the research infrastructure at Canadian
universities and teaching hospitals.
Last year the government established technology partnerships
Canada to make fully repayable investments in innovative firms
that are developing leading edge knowledge based technologies. We
need to continue to use the leverage of this successful program
to ensure that more products with high growth potential in key
sectors reach the world marketplace.
We will build on the National Research Council's highly
respected industrial research assistance program, winner of the
prestigious Ernest C. Manning award, to help small and medium
size businesses to develop and commercialize new technologies. We
will increase the participation of Canadians in the new economy.
Supporting innovative companies and building knowledge
infrastucture is not enough in itself. True competitive
advantage in the knowledge economy is achieved only through
developing the brains and skills of our people. The transition
to the new economy is not automatic. Some Canadians will be
better prepared than others to take advantage of these
opportunities, and some Canadians will need help to rise to the
challenges. The government is committed to making a difference
so that all Canadians can participate fully in and benefit from
the new economy.
Canadians are among the most well educated people in the world
but the knowledge economy both challenges us and offers
opportunity to ensure that quality education is accessible and
affordable to every Canadian. The prime minister announced a key
part of our response to this challenge last week. The Canada
millennium endowment fund will invest in academic excellence and
will provide thousands of scholarships each year to help give
Canadians access to universities and colleges.
We will also develop new programs to help young Canadians
acquire the experience and marketable skills to take advantage of
the opportunities in today's job market. We will focus
aboriginal business investment programs on more long term
strategic investment opportunities for all aboriginal peoples.
This will help to develop and strong and resilient economic base
and foster partnerships among federal, provincial and aboriginal
governments and the private sector.
We will help rural communities diversify their economies and
capitalize on new business opportunities by supporting their
efforts to identify and build on their strengths to acquire and
use new technology and to strengthen small and medium size
businesses to create new jobs for rural Canadians.
[Translation]
Canada will prosper in the global knowledge based economy. We
will have the opportunity to enrich our lives, create jobs, promote
prosperity and ensure a future for our children.
If we look toward the future, we see a Canada in which the
harsh reality of economic change gives way to new opportunities, a
Canada where jobs and growth support a stronger society, a stronger
nation.
[English]
We see Canadians connected to other Canadians. We see a Canada
where children in an Inuit community in Nunavut can interact over
the Internet with children in a First Nations school in Ontario,
a Canada where an electronic trade information service connects a
Nova Scotia telecommunications business with an Alberta partner
to bring its product to market in South America, and a Canada
where citizens in the Saguenay use their website to connect with
fellow citizens in Manitoba on the challenges of rebuilding a
community. We see a Canada where more and more Canadians can
maximize their potential and realize their dreams.
1120
Whether they live in rural Canada, in a city, on the east coast,
on the west coast or anywhere in between, Canadians deserve a
government that is innovative, ready to lead and ready to advance
new efforts to secure their future in a new economy. By
connecting Canadians, by realizing our international potential,
by investing in innovation and knowledge, and by increasing the
participation of Canadians in the new economy we are acting to
turn the promise of a new century into new opportunity for all
Canadians.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was interested in listening to the minister as he was speaking
about advantages and the various things that the government is
trying to bring into play. With his ministry being responsible
for the CRTC, I find it somewhat incongruous that he would be
speaking this way. Many of the people who try to bring new
technology to the area of communications are thwarted time and
time again by the CRTC.
The minister will know that there are a number of cases which
are before the courts, some of which have been appealed directly
to cabinet. He will also know, as industry minister in the last
Parliament, that during the time that cabinet sat there were
probably in the neighbourhood of half a dozen serious decisions
involving the CRTC which cabinet looked at, many of which were
overturned.
What is his government going to do? What is he going to do?
What is the Minister of Canadian Heritage going to do to
straighten out the CRTC, to get rid of the incestuous
relationships which there appear to be between some people who
have been in the CRTC, who are now out with companies which are
presently applying to the CRTC or vice versa? What will he and
his government do to make it workable so that the CRTC will be
able to do what it should be doing?
Better yet, the CRTC should be completely revised from the
bottom up so that we can get on with the business of building
Canada as it should be built, as the technological centre that it
could be in the world.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, there is a broad range of
issues in the question on which we could have quite a long
discussion.
Let me say first that I do not share the hon. member's pessimism
about the state of the CRTC as it currently exists. In fact, we
are a party to the World Trade Organization's recent agreement on
telecommunications. I will advise the member that there will be
a bill coming to the House shortly to implement our obligations
under the WTO with respect to the telecommunications agreement.
Perhaps we can have some good debate at that time on some of
these issues.
The CRTC, as an independent body with a transparent process,
separate from the political process, is a model which we could
only wish all of our trading partners had fully implemented. He
will know that many Canadian companies find themselves thwarted
in their attempts to obtain licensing in other countries by a
process which is neither transparent nor subject to any appeal or
judicial review.
The member will know that I have participated in giving
direction to the CRTC in certain cases and in changing its
decisions where I had the jurisdiction to do so. In Canada it is
still a better process than that which exists, I would say, in
virtually every other developed country. I am not quite as
pessimistic as he.
Second, we have certainly experienced quite a few difficulties
over a period of time. We have tried very hard to make wise
appointments to the CRTC. Over the last year and a half we have
seen in my view the effect of that. We will always have unhappy
participants before the CRTC because somebody wins and somebody
loses.
1125
I suggest to him that really key to the process is that we have
a system in which the decisions are made by an independent body
whose decisions are subject to judicial review and policy appeal
to cabinet. It is not done behind closed doors by politicians,
and I think that is a desirable way to adjudicate these issues.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
through you I would like to point out right off that the Minister
of Industry recently aroused my sympathy and that of a number of my
colleagues when he said the monarchy should be abolished. I
congratulate him because he was involved in the same struggle as
that fought by our forebears. He expressed his pride in being a
member of the Canadian people. We support his cause.
I would ask him to arouse our sympathy a little more. I have
two questions for him.
First, could he say he also believes in the existence of a Quebec
people. Second, could he say this people has the right to be free,
as he put it so well in the case of the Canadian people being free
of the monarchy? The Quebec people therefore have the right to be
free of the tutelage of a majority that is not of its own.
The Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member
that, as industry minister, I had the opportunity to travel
around the world; I have seen for myself that, as far as the
quality of products, services or technology is concerned,
Canadian entrepreneurs and businesses are recognized all over the
world. The maple leaf is a well-known trademark. It is a great
asset in international trade in every part of the world.
I do not understand why a country like Canada which has
benefited so much from its diversity of cultures and languages
would even discuss a change which could weaken the partners of a
country that is such a global success story.
I will add that, in the areas we are trying to help, that is to say
international trade and technology, a third company like Bombardier
would benefit Quebec far more than a third referendum.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the minister's outline this morning on the
strength of our economy and the position that we are in to take
full advantage of the opportunities of the future.
However, I think he embellishes the picture. Shining through
all of this is the fact that 50 cents of every dollar that
Canadians earn goes to taxes in one form or another. This
perhaps has contributed to the fact that the report is that one
child in every five is living in poverty, that we have an
aboriginal lady who has to live in a van in Alberta on one of the
richest reserves in Canada.
Could the minister comment with regard to his glowing picture of
the position that our economy is in and our society is in with
regard to these particular issues? There are other issues but I
see I do not have time to touch on them. Could the minister
address those two issues, the rate of child poverty in this
country and the fact that we have aboriginal people living in
worse than third world conditions?
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
puts his finger on two of the big problems that we have to
address in Canada. No one would seek to describe a picture in
which everything is perfect or all the work is done.
1130
I think that in relative terms compared to anywhere else in the
world, where would the hon. member prefer to live? Where are the
problems more manageable than they are in Canada at a time when
we have our economic fundamentals finally improved to the point
of being the best in 35 years?
I would not disagree with him that the mountain of debt which
was accumulated over 20 years is one of the causes of the
problems that he has identified. It is the cause of the level of
taxation which he knows is still lower in Canada than in most
other developed countries other than the United States. But at
the same time, what we know and what the theme of the remarks was
meant to point out is that we are at a point in time where the
global economy is changing. It is changing for Canada and for
all other nations of the world. We are positioned to not only
succeed but to succeed beyond the possibility for anybody else to
succeed. Let us seize that opportunity. It will undoubtedly hold
the key to reducing child poverty and aboriginal isolation in
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I intend to share my
time with my colleague, the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in congratulating you and the other Speakers, I
want to thank first the voters of Palliser for the confidence
that they extended to me on June 2. Without offending the Bloc
members, it was a unique experience to enter the House of Commons
for the first time a week ago today. It is an honour not only to
represent them but also to work hard on their behalf over the
life of this 36th Parliament.
To the members on the opposite side I would like to take a few
minutes to explain the riding of Palliser, which is in south
central Saskatchewan. Palliser is a riding that is centred around
the city of Moose Jaw and includes small towns, farm lands,
ranches as well as the southwest quadrant of Regina.
If there was ever a riding that the Liberal Party should have
won on June 2 in the province of Saskatchewan, surely it was the
riding of Palliser. Since the Saskatchewan voters are at least
as sophisticated as those in the rest of the country, I want to
take a few minutes to explain why it did not win in Palliser.
Some of the answers are contained in what is and is not in the
throne speech of last Tuesday.
There is for example nothing on national transportation and only
the barest of references to agriculture. On social policies
there is a very thin veneer but almost without any substance to
it. This is particularly surprising especially because the
government has 65 percent of its members from one province. I would
have thought the government would have recognized this deficiency
and have begun to address it in the initial throne speech but
that was not to be. The government quickly needs to get out of
the Quebec City to Windsor corridor so it can hear from the
people in the rest of the country and begin to address their
concerns.
In the area of transportation it is ironic to have heard in the
last week so many references to Sir John A. Macdonald and his
vision for building a new country and note there was absolutely
no reference in the throne speech to the matter of
transportation. On that point I would like to read a part of a
letter which came to me from a Saskatchewan person following the
throne speech:
The one item that intrigues me about the Speech from the Throne
was the fact that 130 years ago the leaders of this country saw
the necessity of a national transportation link.
The fact that transportation was entirely ignored in the throne
speech would indicate to me that instead of preparing for the
21st century the Liberals aren't even up to speed with 19th
century leaders.
We see this through the dismantling of so much of our
transportation system, whether it is the privatization of air and
sea ports, the privatization of the CNR, the abandoning of branch
lines in western Canada or the doubling of freight rates in the
post Crow era.
There is also no commitment to a national highway system despite
the fact that this government enjoys $5 billion per annum from
gasoline taxes. Canada is the only OECD country which does not
have a national highway system. That makes it harder for our
companies and our workers to compete in the global market.
1135
Saskatchewan as everybody knows is a landlocked province and
good transportation is absolutely essential to move our products
to port, to create and retain satisfied customers and to feed a
hungry world. I would have thought that in all the talk about
partnerships in last week's throne speech, this is one way to
work with the provinces and territories to develop a true
national transportation policy.
On the subject of agriculture, it is one of Canada's best export
earners. Here again a national strategy is required. We need to
build for the future through trade expansion and value added
products. At the same time we note that R and D in agriculture
has been cut by billions of dollars in recent years.
I do want to sincerely extend best wishes to the new minister of
agriculture who was here a little bit earlier and his elevation
to cabinet. Our hope is that he will work with the opposition
parties to help farmers and rural Canadians across the country.
On a personal note may I say that I know the area of the country
that the minister comes from and I am sure he will be
conscientious of working with all of us.
Let me turn quickly to the social safety net and particularly
the subject of intergenerational transfers and what it has meant
in the past to be a Canadian. It was an unwritten agreement
which stated “as a young person let me pay a reasonable tuition
fee and I will help you in your retirement”. Certainly that was
there when I was at university but now the social safety net is
being torn apart. It began under the Tories and has been
continued by the Liberals. The result is that tuition fees are
going through the roof and nobody in their right mind is going to
come out of university with a $35,000 or $40,000 bill for his or
her education and say “Sure, I will pay that off and then I will
be glad to help you with your pension”.
Successive governments have tinkered and cut social programs
under the rubric of a user pay mentality with the result that
they are breaking social contracts between generations. We can
all cite examples, the CHST, employment insurance, CPP, and that
contradiction in terms called the seniors benefit.
We are going backwards in our quest for social justice and
fairness. This regression is aided and abetted by the false
start program of the Reform Party.
Last week there were lots of tributes paid to Stanley Knowles,
the late member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre. If
Stanley had been around he would probably have had another
arrowroot biscuit and a cup of tea in quiet celebration of the
fact. We could honour his memory better by introducing
progressive changes like affordable tuition, a decent pension
plan and a fair and equitable tax system.
Stanley's lifelong friend Tommy Douglas said it very well a
number of years ago, “The measure of a nation's greatness does
not lie in its conquests, its GNP, its gold reserves or its
skyscrapers. The real measure is what it does for the least
fortunate and the opportunities it provides for its youth to lead
useful and meaningful lives”.
Finally let me try to encourage the government House leader and
the members opposite to do the job that all of us were elected to
do in this Parliament. Regardless of our political affiliations,
we are all here to represent our constituencies to the very best
of our abilities. I would say to the government House leader and
the government, do not frustrate but rather ensure that standing
and select committees have sufficient powers and are vested with
sufficient authority to carry out the work ahead.
We have five recognized parties in the House and that means we
require a mature and modern approach to deal with it. It is the
first time that we have ever had five parties. If the government
follows that advice, it will be very good for this 36th
Parliament, it will be good for Canadians and it will be good for
the future of parliamentary democracy.
I will close by moving our party's subamendment in this throne
speech debate. I move:
That the amendment be modified by adding after the words
“legislative program that”, the following: “in failing to set
targets and timetables to reduce unemployment and in failing to
strengthen national programs such as medicare which promote the
equality of all Canadians and the unity of the country is an
affront to fundamental Canadian values”.
1140
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment moved
by the hon. member for Palliser will be checked by the table
officers. We will resume with questions and comments.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to know if the New Democratic Party agrees that this
government should send a team Canada group into the Atlantic
region so that there will be a better understanding of the needs
of our people in the Atlantic region, and find a way to create
the jobs for all those mature people who are out of work, the
moms and dads who want to work, who want to feed their families
and pay for the education of their children and get back their
dignity.
I would like to know if they agree with that.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this caucus
would oppose that in any way. I would also want to acknowledge
the fact that the people from that region sent a number of
opposition members, including eight from this caucus, to Ottawa
to voice their concerns about what was not happening in that part
of the world. I appreciate that there is a reasonable delegation
from the member's party also.
The point that I was trying to make at the outset was that I
would hope this government would be listening to people who live
beyond the Quebec City-Windsor corridor and reaching out so that
we can move this country ahead into the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
industry minister chose earlier not to answer a question a Bloc
Quebecois member was asking him.
The hon. member was asking whether or not the House recognizes the
existence of a Quebec people; given the importance of that question, I
will turn to the NDP member and ask him if, as a representative of the
New Democratic Party, he can give us an answer.
Does his Party recognize the existence of a Quebec people?
I would really like him to give us a clear answer because this
question is closely linked to the Speech from the Throne, when it comes
to national unity and the unique character of Quebec society. We in
Quebec believe this is not enough.
Even some federalist Liberal organizers say it is an empty shell.
I would like to know in no uncertain terms whether or not the member
from the New Democratic Party recognizes the existence of a Quebec
people.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I think the question that
the hon. member from the Bloc is asking was in effect answered by
this House and this caucus on Thursday last when we voted against
the Bloc amendment. There is really no need for us to delve into
that further at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment moved
by the hon. member for Palliser is in order.
1145
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate.
[English]
First I thank the people of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for electing
me to represent them. It is certainly a great honour. I want to
talk a bit about the throne speech and what was in it for the
people of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
I am here today as a member of Parliament representing people
who felt it was time to put a stop to the painful cuts caused by
the Liberal government.
It was time to elect someone they called one of their own: one
who knows what having to borrow money for post-secondary
education is; one who knows what poverty is; one who knows what
having to look for a job means; one who knows what it is to be a
single mom; one who knows what fishing lobster is all about; one
who knows what wood cutters do; one who knows how people survive
on social assistance because some of them are my friends.
Maybe some time we should stop and think about how they live.
Many of my friends on social assistance do not know what it is to
have gifts under the tree at Christmastime. Many of us here have
never been in that situation. Many of my friends do not know how
they will feed their children or where they will be tomorrow.
Some know what it is like not to wonder if they will be able to
feed their children or be able to pay the $100 registration fee
for a six year old to join hockey. Some know what it is like to
live in shelters for battered women. There are many of us out
there and no facilities to accommodate the need.
Some know what impact sun and rain has on tourism in the
Atlantic. Does everyone understand the impact a rainy summer on
the Atlantic region when the tourists do not come? Not only does
it affect workers. It also affects businesses.
I am one who knows the impact of government cuts on small and
medium size business. When people do not have money to spend
businesses do not sell. I am one who knows what it is to be a
seasonal worker.
I am proud to stand before the House on behalf of the people of
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and on behalf of seasonal workers.
Seasonal work is important in Atlantic Canada but misunderstood
by the Liberal government.
Seasonal workers have been called every name in the book by the
Liberal government, from being dependent on the UI system to
being lazy and drunk in taverns and not wanting to look for work.
This is from the ex MP for Beauséjour, the prime minister
himself.
It is interesting when we think about it that they are the same
so-called lazy people he so proudly came to beg for support to
get his one way ticket to Ottawa. I take part of the blame for
his being prime minister; the people of Beauséjour elected him
and gave him that opportunity.
[Translation]
Members may be wondering today what the riding of
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac got from the Prime Minister in return for
electing someone who is not from the area. It gives me great
pleasure to tell you all about it.
First, we got cuts in health care, which have resulted in an
unacceptable situation for our seniors. We all heard about the two
employees who spoke up against the unacceptable situation in nursing
homes caused by the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. I must
denounce the disciplinary measures taken by the management of the
Providence home in Shediac against two employees who tried to pressure
the federal and provincial ministers into putting more money in health
care so that they could properly care for our seniors.
These are the people who fought for our country during the Second World
War. The present government shows absolutely no respect for our senior
citizens.
1150
We also saw cuts in unemployment insurance, now called employment
insurance, a name I do not agree with at all.
Even though the Prime Minister had promised during the 1991
election campaign to shorten the qualifying period, today we find
ourselves with a system that no longer meets the needs of the
unemployed. People call us in our riding offices crying and saying their
employment insurance benefits have run out and their seasonal work is
not due to start for another two or three months. There are also people
who do not qualify at all for employment insurance, such as part time
workers in hospitals, schools, plants, and so on.
They even closed employment centres like the one in Bouctouche.
Instead of helping rural communities overcome the lack of jobs, the
federal government is taking away from the unemployed the necessary
tools that could help them rejoin the labour market.
They also cut the staff of other employment centres, like the ones
in Shediac, Sackville and Richibuctou, at a time when there is a surplus
in the employment insurance fund.
Cutting jobs in our rural communities does not only translates into
lost services. It has a disastrous economic impact on these communities
because these jobs are the only ones that pay reasonably well.
We must start trying to understand the situation in which rural
communities find themselves. In our region, jobs are not found on every
street corner.
[English]
Let us see what Sackville received from the Liberals. We no
longer have an animal pathology lab. Approximately 60 employees
lost their jobs at Maritime Atlantic. The armouries is on the
way out. Can we imagine that in a town of 5,400 residents
Sackville is fighting to keep its post office open? After going
door to door during the campaign I call Albert County the
forgotten land. It has been absolutely ignored in every way
imaginable.
We must not forget jobs, jobs, jobs. The Liberal government
forgot a word in its promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, and that word
is cut. The Liberals meant job cuts, 45,000 federal jobs. Not
only were the jobs gone but the service with them.
In New Brunswick we are getting job creation at $6.25 an hour.
Has anyone calculated how much money a person makes at $6.25 an
hour for 35 hours a week and how much that person is paying for
child care? I have talked to those people. I have had single
mothers around me crying because they just do not work.
The $6.25 an hour jobs are for a maximum of 26 weeks so they can
go back on EI. It is a vicious circle. They end up poorer in
the end than when they started working. Now the Liberals are
wondering why there are so many poor families.
As I look across the floor I can see who is responsible for the
increase in poverty. It is the Liberal government. While it
caters to the bank, families are suffering. This is not
acceptable. Liberals should be ashamed. They should be setting
targets for the reduction of unemployment just as they have set
targets for deficit reduction.
Then we have the GST. We are rid of the GST in New Brunswick.
We have the HST instead. We now pay 15 per cent tax on
children's clothing, electricity, heating, and it goes on and on.
Again it attacks low income families. When will it stop? The
young people graduating from high school have lost all hope in
post-secondary education.
All the cuts came with an extremely high price. Poverty has
increased. Businesses are closing. People are losing their
jobs. Families cannot take that stress any longer. Many
families depend on the fishing industry as a way of life. The
failures of past and present government policies have driven them
to complete despair and destroyed their proud and historical way
of life.
The throne speech mentioned a deep concern for aboriginal
issues. If the government were so concerned about the first
nations, why is the Big Cove Reserve suicide situation not
recognized as a crisis? Two more young first nations people have
died over the last three months since the help line was cut due
to insufficient funding. Unfortunately there was nothing in the
throne speech to give hope to the elderly, the students, the
sick, the unemployed and the small and medium businesses of
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. Let us not forget we got one thing: we
got a senator.
1155
I thank the people of Beauséjour for paying off the deficit and
all the other unemployed, sick and students of the country who
paid the deficit. If members do not believe me they can ask the
banks.
In closing, if a mother starves her child it is called child
abuse, but if the Liberals starve a million children it is called
balancing the books. The pain has to stop.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by thanking the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac
for her excellent speech. It was her maiden speech in the House of
Commons and I congratulate her.
I met the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac a few years back, when
the Standing Committee on Finance was travelling across the country.
She always represented the most disadvantaged members of society with
dignity and in her speech today she is once again standing up for those
who do not have a voice in this Parliament.
My question for the member for Beauséjour-Petitcodiac is not
about her undeniable social commitment, but about the existence
of a Quebec people in Canada. Does the member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac share the point of view of her colleague,
who just replied that the New Democratic Party had voted against
the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois—that the existence
of the people of Quebec be recognized—and that it had nothing
else to say, given the vote? Does the member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, in her great wisdom and as an Acadian
representative, share her colleague's opinion, or does she
recognize the existence of a Quebec people?
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we voted against
the motion because we have a great belief in national programs. But we
most certainly recognize Quebec as a unique people. You have your
language and culture, in your country, as do we Acadians. But that does
not mean that we want to drop our national programs. That is why I
believe strongly that we should keep our country together.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also add
my congratulations to the NDP member on her first speech.
I have a very short and succinct question to ask. She mentioned
in her speech the little phrase “paying off the deficit”. That
is a total misnomer. There is no such thing as paying off the
deficit. The deficit is an amount of money that one borrows. At
best one can reduce the amount that one is borrowing.
The increased spending promoted by the member, and I presume her
party, would require additional borrowing. Thereby more and more
taxpayers' dollars would be sent to the financial organizations
of the world instead of financing and paying for needed social
programs. There is a tremendous contradiction in the NDP
platform. The more borrowed money we spend on social programs,
in the long run the more money we send to financial institutions
and deprive it from being available for social programs.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member is
not understanding that we have a problem and that is who pays
that deficit.
I said it is the unemployed. It is the sick. It is the
elderly. Did any banks pay on that deficit? Did any of the very
wealthy pay on that deficit? He should check with the people who
cannot feed their children any more.
1200
What the hon. member should understand is who is suffering today
because of deficit reduction. We have no problem with deficit
reduction, but why should everyone not pay their fair share? We
have not seen that from the Liberal government.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I reiterate
that we have not paid off the deficit because that is a physical
impossibility. The deficit is the amount of money which is being
borrowed.
The member is confusing it with the reference to debt. The fact
is as long as there is any deficit the debt will increase.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, try to explain that to a
mother who cannot feed her children or to the person who just
lost his or her job. Believe me, at this point no one is worried
about that.
What I am worried about—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time allotment this morning with
the hon. member for Oxford.
I rise to address my colleagues in the highest forum in our
country and in so doing I acknowledge with considerable humility
the great honour and privilege which has been bestowed on me by
the people of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.
[Translation]
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your
appointment and offer you my best wishes.
As the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech in reply to the
Speech from the Throne, this Parliament will be the last one of this
century and the first one of the new millennium.
[English]
As such, the opportunity to participate in this Parliament is an
historic occasion. I will spare no effort to meet the challenges
it will present.
I am here today by the grace of God, by the support of my
husband and family, and the commitment and hard work of many
volunteers and friends. I am most grateful to them, as I am to
all the citizens of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford for their trust and
their support.
My riding is balanced, with the city of Barrie to the north,
Bradford West Gwillimburyberry to the south and the towns and
farms of Innisfil in between.
The northern portion of Barrie and Innisfil have not sent a
Liberal member to Parliament since Duncan F. McCuaig, the father
of our current mayor in Barrie, Janice Laking. He represented
the riding from 1935 to 1945. It is an honour and a great
privilege to bring this part of Ontario back to the Liberal fold
after some 52 years.
The city of Barrie is an exciting phenomena of explosive growth,
combined with a superb geographical location that affords its
citizens an enviable quality of life. It is situated on the
shores of Lake Simcoe and enjoys all the amenities that top
recreational facilities and dynamic economic growth provide.
While its early settlers hailed mainly from Britain and northern
Europe, including such historic figures as Lord John Graves
Simcoe and the legendary Sam Steele of the Northwest Mounted
Police, Barrie now joins other cities in reflecting the
multicultural diversity of Canada today. Indeed, one of the
country's fastest growing cities, Barrie will double its
population by the year 2001, largely due to many of Toronto's
immigrant families moving north.
The workforce in Barrie is well educated, highly skilled and
diversified. The city has a strong automotive manufacturing
sector, plastics manufacturing and a strong industrial automation
sector. The city is well represented internationally by companies
like Albarrie, Yachiyo, Canplas and Alloy Wheels.
1205
Bradford West Gwillimbury in the south of my riding has a
population of 17,000 and has outpaced Barrie in developing a
strong, multicultural mosaic. The municipality is home to 450
businesses and is impacted greatly by the Holland Marsh, the
heart of Canada's vegetable industry, the salad bowl of Ontario.
Over 90 percent of the produce of the Marsh is processed and
packaged in Bradford West Gwillimbury where the agri-industry is
a major contributor to the local economy.
The town of Innisfil is a mixed urban-rural community in south
Simcoe. Last year the celebration of Yonge Street as 200 years
old held special significance for Innisfil as much of its history
was impacted by the development of what was known as
Penetanguishene Road and later Yonge Street. This was the route
used by the settlers who came from Europe to clear the land and
develop their farms.
Today Innisfil has a population of 26,000 with many skilled
workers who commute to nearby urban centres and many who work in
the industrial manufacturing sector of the municipality.
It is then with great pride that I come to Ottawa to represent
this diverse yet typically Canadian part of Ontario. The
citizens of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford supported my election to the
House of Commons because they strongly endorsed the government's
track record on reducing the deficit and moving the country into
the requisite of fiscal responsibility.
Everywhere I went during the June election I was told that the
pain had been real but worthwhile since the strategy of achieving
a balanced budget had been successful. This was what my
constituents had accepted as a very real priority. I was told by
many that to fail to continue along the road to debt reduction
following the elimination of the deficit would be very erroneous
indeed.
The businesses in my riding count heavily on the government to
stay the course and provide the stability that allows for
reinvestment in the economy that will contribute in the long run
to the long term creation of jobs. While I agree with that plan,
I also believe it is very much incumbent on business, large and
small, to partner with us in the creation of these jobs by
providing internships, providing youth with the skills and
mentoring that gives them the experience and life skills to help
them obtain gainful employment.
Youth and adult unemployment are not the responsibility of
governments alone. They are the responsibility as well of
business and industry that are able to grow and prosper in an
economy turned around by the courage of this Liberal government.
The people of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford also believe that the
reinforcement of our social programs is a major goal for the
government and it is one that I heartily endorse. The delivery
of the Canada Health Act is vital. Addressing the causes and
cures of child poverty are also vital. The willingness and
flexibility to work with the provincial governments as our
partners to achieve these goals is very much a part of the
government's approach.
To reconcile the dilemma that the continued support in Quebec
for sovereignty, however diminished as the polls suggest, is a
personal goal and one that contributed greatly to my decision to
run for Parliament.
As a new member of Parliament, the walls of my office are bare
except for one framed poster I brought with me. The poster reads
“If you want peace, work for justice”—“si on veut la paix, il
faut travailler pour la justice”. It is an activist slogan but
then we are all activists or we would not be here.
Indeed we want peace, the peace that results from a resolution
to the current dilemma that some Quebecois are unconvinced that
their future is best realized within the framework of the
Canadian Confederation.
1210
The road to that peace is through justice. We must determine
what is a just sharing of powers, what is a just treatment of a
unique culture and unique province within the constitutional
framework, what is a just guarantee of minority rights within the
part and within the whole.
[Translation]
It is my firm belief that we are capable of giving, of taking
risks, of finding the just solution. I am not naive; I know we still
have a ways to go. But it is very important to remember that the
principles of social justice have long been a part of the Liberal
Party's philosophy. That is why the majority of Canadians chose a
Liberal government and that is why I am a member of that government.
[English]
The concept of social justice is what gives Canada its
reputation for compassion and tolerance. It is partly why we are
considered the very best country in the world today.
[Translation]
Do not forget, my friends from Quebec, that as a Canadian I share
your history and your dreams, and that I will share your future. I will
do everything in my power to see that we share this future together. I
came to Parliament to help keep this country together.
[English]
I look forward with great anticipation to the challenges and
victories we will achieve in this, the 36th Parliament. I have a
sense that the goals we all share will move us forward in our
common quest for the betterment of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, congratulations on
your appointment as deputy chairman of the committees of the whole
House. I am also taking this opportunity to thank the voters of West
Nova for asking me to look after their interests—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but this is
questions and comments.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking as an Acadian from Nova
Scotia and I wish to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for
Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford. In 1994, the then leader of the opposition
said, in a speech to the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario,
that the Bloc Quebecois was the voice of francophones outside Quebec in
the House of Commons.
More recently, in an interview with the daily Le Droit, the Bloc
Quebecois critic on official languages said that the Bloc would always
defend francophones outside Quebec. This is why I am very surprised by
the events that took place in recent days. I am surprised that the Bloc
Quebecois did not make mention of its support for francophone and
Acadian communities in its action plan for the year 2000, which was
tabled last week—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Would the hon. member
put the question to the member on questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
this is questions and comments, I will refer to the remarks made by the
member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford. She spoke of Quebec's unique
character. I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask her, as a member
from Ontario, a question on this specific issue.
As we know, the Ontario premier, Mr. Harris, said shortly after the
Calgary declaration that Quebec was just as unique as Pacific salmon is.
1215
The hon. member claims to be in politics for the purpose, among
others, of saving this great country. This is fine rhetoric, but nothing
concrete is ever done. Still, Quebecers are patient as they approach the
new millennium.
The hon. member, who is a government member, told us she shares our
history. If, indeed, she knows Quebec's history—not the one told in
Ontario schools, but Quebec's true history—if she knows about the
traditional claims made by Quebec premiers since the fifties, will she
tell this House whether or not her government does recognize the
existence of the people of Quebec?
This is very short. Aboriginal peoples are recognized. So, as a
government member, will the hon. member tell us whether Quebecers are a
people, yes or no?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair apologizes to
the hon. member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. I should have gone
back to the hon. member after the comment made by the member for
West Nova.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from my friend on the opposite side of the House. I listened
carefully and found it a little meandering. I hope to conclude
that I do not have to defend people, other than the government,
in their views.
Although Mr. Harris may have made that comment I have not heard
it. I believe that Mr. Harris has participated in Calgary with
other premiers who have moved forward in their attempts to
achieve the just resolution which I spoke of earlier in
recognizing a uniqueness in the province of Quebec and a
uniqueness in its society. They have been joined by our
government in moving forward.
I have great optimism and I believe there has been a variety of
versions of history frequently dependent on the author. We have
to reach across those perhaps slanted views. It is difficult
today to get across the media of each language and speak with one
another, but we have this forum to come together and resolve
perhaps what has not yet been resolved. In this Parliament over
the next few years we will resolve it.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate you on your appointment as one of our deputy
speakers and I wish you well.
I would also like to thank my colleague from
Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for sharing her time this morning and I
would like to thank my constituents for re-electing me to serve
another term in the 36th Parliament.
In 1929 I was born in the Dominican Republic to British parents.
After a short return to England my parents emigrated with our
small family to Canada. Like millions of other immigrants who
have built our great country, my parents came to Canada in search
of a better life for themselves and their children. They watched
as my brother became a successful lawyer in Vancouver, while I
spent my career in education in Oxford Country, retired and was
first elected to the House in 1993.
It is difficult to put into words my feelings as I was recently
sworn in, for the second time, as a member of this esteemed
Chamber. In addition to constituents, present at the ceremony was
my father, age 94, who resides in a retirement home here in
Ottawa. No matter how old we get we each want to gain the
approval of our parents. My presence here as the member of
Parliament for Oxford is an incredible honour for me but it has
made my father, who came to this country so many years before
with a wife an two young sons in tow, a very proud man.
Family ties are precious things, whether it be in our families
at home where parents and children work together for the common
good or in our Canadian family.
The Speech from the Throne talks of building a stronger Canada
for all Canadians. It states that the overriding goal of our
government is to strengthen and unite this country by joining in
the common purpose of keeping Canada one of the best places in
the world in which to live. I think this is a goal of most of
here in the House on both sides. While we may disagree on the
process we all want to effect change that will improve the lives
of all Canadians.
1220
In my first term as the member of Parliament for Oxford I asked
myself what I could do to assist in unifying our nation. To me
one of our biggest problems is a lack of understanding between
various regions of our country. In other words, it seems that
the “two solitudes” of Hugh McLellen are still evident. Our
young people, the next generation of Canadian leaders, need to
increase their knowledge of the different regions of Canada. This
is especially true of our linguistic and cultural differences.
I felt that we could make a difference if our young people were
given an opportunity to spend some time in Quebec improving their
French and getting to know the people of Quebec. I approached
the member for Brome—Missisquoi about beginning a student
exchange in which five students from my riding of Oxford would
spend their summer in Magog, Quebec in his riding, and Oxford
would host five students in return.
I am happy to say that after two summer exchanges with the
assistance of the Canada employment centres in both ridings, VIA
Rail and Heritage Canada, this project can be termed a success.
In fact, the member for Brome—Missisquoi took the initiative to
organize exchanges between ridings from across Canada and towns
and villages in his riding. Students from all regions of the
country were able to visit Quebec, while Quebec students were
able to increase their awareness of Canada outside Quebec.
This past summer the Department of Canadian Heritage was more
heavily involved and over 200 students were able to take part in
similar exchanges between Quebec and the rest of the country. It
is my hope that young Canadians will be able to benefit from this
type of program for many years to come.
Will this program alone solve our unity problems? No, it will
not, but it can increase the understanding Canadians have for
each other and work together with other initiatives at local,
provincial and national levels to keep our country united. As
the throne speech stated, we would all be forever diminished,
forever changed, should we fail to maintain the example Canada
provides to the world. Our future as a country is too precious
for us to risk losing it through misunderstanding.
I was relieved to hear that the provincial premiers have agreed
on certain principles to recognize the uniqueness of Quebec. I
point out to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that in English,
unique and distinct are synonyms. It is a relief also to hear
that the people of Quebec have shown in most recent polls they
would rather accept the declaration worked out in Calgary than
separate. It is now incumbent on us to work together as a
Canadian family to build a better and stronger Canada for our
children.
How else can the federal government bring Canadians together? It
can ensure that future generations are not burdened by
overzealous spending by our generation.
We have, of course, seen the Liberal government take firm action
to ensure that the federal government spends within its means.
Sound economic management and the best federal finance minister
in Canadian history are restoring balance to the nation's
finances. In the very near future the government of Canada will
not have to deal with a crushing deficit. With a common sense of
purpose we as legislators can begin the process of paying off the
national debt while making strategic investments in our children
and our youth, our health, our communities and our knowledge and
creativity. We must ensure that all Canadians can benefit from
this economic success. We must not leave anyone behind.
This government must give all Canadians access to the tools of
economic growth, as the Minister of Industry said earlier this
morning in the House. We cannot allow rural regions of the
country to suffer from a lack of technology while urban regions
prosper.
As the member of Parliament for a rural country in southwestern
Ontario, I have told my constituents that I will strive to ensure
that the rural way of life is protected and that they will
continue to have access to the tools they need to be competitive
in this global economy.
1225
The community access program, CAP, is connecting rural areas in
this country to the information superhighway. By putting
Internet access points in rural communities we are giving rural
citizens the same opportunities to access information and
resources that urban Canadians enjoy. We are also giving our
students in places like Knowlton, Otterville or Cambridge Bay
the same advantages provided by the computer age as students who
may be studying in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.
The people of Oxford are taking full advantage of the CAP
program. When Industry Canada made its first round of approvals
for this program, 15 of the 271 winning bids across Canada were
in Oxford County. To understand the magnitude of this we must
consider that the approvals within Oxford represented nearly 25
percent of the total approvals within the province of Ontario.
This success is a testament to the commitment of Oxford's
citizens to take advantage of the programs that can benefit them
as we prepare to enter the new millennium.
I have also pledged to my constituents that I will fight for a
strong, influential department of agriculture. Canadian farmers
need to know that their interests are being considered when
decisions are being made by the federal government. I am
confident that our new minister of agriculture from Ontario will
serve Canadian agriculture with the same level of distinction as
did his predecessor.
Oxford County has been my home for over 40 years. It is where I
worked as a teacher, principal and superintendent of education.
It is where I helped raise a family and where my heart is. You
cannot visit Oxford without being struck by the beauty of its
farmland and the generous hospitality of its citizens.
When I was re-elected this past June 2, I was mindful of the
responsibility that the people of Oxford had once again given me.
Each day I serve on Parliament Hill and in this magnificent
Chamber I seek to ensure that their voices are heard, that their
views are known and that their values are represented. The
people of Oxford have sent me here as their representative, a
responsibility I do not take lightly. I will do my best to
ensure their trust in me has been well placed.
Our work in this place over the next four years will be
difficult. At times tempers will flare but we must always
remember that together we are representatives of the Canadian
family. Canadians, regardless of their political persuasion, want
us to work constructively and co-operatively to solve the
problems of our nation. Let us get on with the business at hand
so that we can enter the 21st century confident and united.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened with great interest to my colleague, the hon. member for
Oxford.
Most of his speech was about the Calgary proposal and national
unity. Members will recall that, when Canadians and Quebecers were asked
to vote on the Charlottetown accord in 1992, Quebecers rejected the
accord as clearly not enough, while the rest of Canada rejected it
because, in their estimation, it was giving far too much to the people
of Quebec.
Just this morning, it was reported in Le Journal de Montréal, Le
Journal de Québec and The Globe and Mail that a poll by Léger & Léger
indicated that 45 percent of Quebecers said the Calgary proposal was clearly
not enough, while another 35 percent could live with it.
Also, this morning's press summary shows that there are already
people in English Canada who are openly saying that too much is being
offered in the Calgary proposal.
1230
How can an agreement, which I feel is impossible, ever be
reached? English Canada will say it is far too much. French
Canada, Quebec will say it is clearly not enough.
Again this past weekend—and I will conclude on that—former
Liberal Party leader Claude Ryan raised serious doubts. André Tremblay,
who was former premier Bourassa's adviser for several years, said there
was too little in there to say it was not enough. There is also Senator
Rivest, who was also an adviser to Robert Bourassa, who said that the
Quebec Liberal Party should distance itself from its friends in the
Liberal Party of Canada.
Could the hon. member for Oxford tell us, as the representative of
the views of the people of Oxford, whether his constituents feel that
what was offered to Quebec in the Calgary declaration was enough or not?
[English]
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
and the question from my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic whom
I worked with for some years on the environment committee in the
last Parliament.
Simplification and oversimplification are things we have to
guard against. I am quite aware of the results of the Léger
poll. I think it shows some way to the future that my hon.
friend has ignored. It said that 44.4% of the people who
responded said the two phrases are equivalent. He is quite
right. About one-third of those who would vote yes for
separation thought they were equivalent, whereas 55% of
those who would vote no said they were equivalent.
We have to continue to work toward a solution, a compromise,
something that will work in this country. I supported it as a
member of the yes committee in the last attempt in Oxford county.
It was not overwhelmingly defeated by everyone outside Quebec. It
was a very narrow defeat. People can change. People learn.
People develop.
Therefore I would encourage the hon. member not to take it as
the final word. That is what we are here to do, to work toward a
solution.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
share my time. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member
for Burin—St. George's.
I would first like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your
position as Acting Speaker.
It is a great pleasure that I join in the debate on the Speech
from the Throne, representing my electorate of Markham.
I believe and I am sure many members of this House will agree
that the government's plan is an attempt to move forward to the
past. This government through the 29 spending proposals outlined
last Tuesday is seeking to take Canada back 20 some years to the
period of tax and spend Liberalism, a time of ballooning
deficits, the Trudeau years, a time our current Prime Minister
remembers with great fondness. Why then is this government
willing to throw away all the sacrifices made to eliminate the
deficit?
In a free market system like Canada, the private sector has
always operated under budget constraints. It is a fact of life,
a reality that forces companies to make tough choices, choices
that are both efficient and effective.
Since 1984 the federal government accepted budget constraints
and in turn made tough choices, choices that have led us to the
other end of the deficit tunnel. Budget constraints force us as
a nation to set priorities and find efficiencies. This is clearly
difficult for Canadians.
The continued effort however has been that our nation is moving
from intrusive big government to one that supports individual
aspirations of our citizens. Today we see provinces like Ontario
having to make similar tough choices in the face of intense
budget constraints, choices affecting health care and education,
tough but necessary choices.
The throne speech of last week says to Canadians that the future
will mean new spending, new programs and by that, sabotaging what
we have been doing for over a decade.
By telling Canadians that the federal government no longer has to
make tough decisions, we risk going back to the welfare state
where entrepreneurs who brought about innovation will become
lobbyists in search of government goodies.
1235
We know that in a world of inflation, individuals find it
profitable to enter financial professions that benefit from
inflation rather than technological and scientific ones that
promote growth. Why then would the government encourage the
practice of making new promises of dispensing taxpayers' dollars
which gives an incentive for individuals and companies to invest
in seeking those dollars rather than in technological innovation?
For all intents and purposes we have achieved a national
consensus on the need to rethink the role of government, to set
priorities in support of economic growth in employment through
innovation. The Speech from the Throne threatens this consensus
and risks all that has been achieved. We cannot allow the
government to go back to the tax and spend seventies.
The government talks a lot about the new economy but understands
little of it. The new economy is about innovation which in turn
is dependent on a stock of highly skilled workers, workers who
are as mobile as the companies in which they operate.
How do we encourage these domestic and foreign workers to choose
Canada? With attributes such as low taxes, quality education and
health care and a safe and clean environment.
We do not have to research economic theory to know that broadly
based rather than targeted government programs provide the bigger
bang for the buck. This is common sense yet it escapes the
thinking of the government.
We know that taxes are too high in this country. While progress
has been made in lowering the deficit, it has come at the expense
of jobs through higher taxes. Since 1993 this government has
increased taxes no less than 40 times: 12 hikes in the 1994
budget, 11 hikes in the 1995 budget, 10 in the 1996 budget and
more in the budget of this year.
The widening tax gap between Canada and the U.S. continues to
damage our standard of living. Taxes in Canada now account for
almost 40 percent of GDP. The outlook is not encouraging given the CPP
hikes proposed by the government without corresponding cuts in EI
premiums.
To add insult to injury, the proposed CPP premiums will hit
self-employed workers hardest, those workers of the new economy,
yet will do nothing to address the unfounded liability facing
younger generations. Together the CPP and EI premiums will
reduce, not create jobs in the country.
The EI account is expected to reach $16 billion this fiscal
year. This is far from the $3 billion to $5 billion EI surplus
the Minister of Finance talked about in 1995. To put this in
perspective, working Canadians will have contributed over
$110,000 to the EI surplus during the short 10 minutes it takes
me to debate the Speech from the Throne.
To justify the current surplus the Minister of Finance must be
forecasting future unemployment in the 10 percent to 15 percent range,
requiring a recession of immense proportion. The reality however
is that the most pervasive tax, the tax on jobs, has less to do
with being prudent and more to do with eliminating the deficit by
taxing jobs directly.
Now as we approach the other end of the deficit tunnel, this
government chooses to continue to forgo jobs and tax jobs at a
rate of $2.80 per $100 of insurable earnings, nearly 30% higher
than necessary. Members should ask how much more employment is
this government willing to forgo.
This mandate holds little hope for tax relief. Furthermore only
the party to which I belong is calling for immediate tax cuts.
Now unshackled by deficit, the Liberals talk of new spending
while other parties speak of debt reduction before tax relief.
We on the other hand choose to speak about priorities. By
legislating balanced budgets, by holding the line on spending, by
directing surplus to tax cuts, the debt will fall to 45 percent of GDP
within 10 years as a result of the growth in the economy.
The other parties are wrong when they say that tax cuts can only
come at the expense of the debt. This is why the PC party is
calling on the government to reward Canadians for enduring years
of high taxes by reducing income taxes immediately. Only then
can we increase our competitive edge with our trading partners,
notably the U.S., having economic growth and employment growth in
this country.
The Speech from the Throne does little to promote growth in
employment. The government pays lip service to promoting jobs
for young people but its actions do not support its promises.
1240
I see examples of this government's hypocrisy every day in my
riding of Markham. As the government calls on small business to
generate jobs for young people, small businesses will see their
tax bill increase by about $7,000 under the proposed CPP plan for
a company of 10. This represents about the same cost as one or
two summer jobs for youth in my riding. This is typical of the
hypocrisy of this government.
Innovation and the economic growth that it generates is not
produced by any particular program but by fostering a society
that encourages innovation and change. Government programs and
government money do not do this. Putting computers in schools and
hooking them up to the Internet does not do this. Creating
economic incentives and opening up markets while eliminating
regulations, monopolies and protected markets helps to foster a
new economy.
Unlike the 29 proposals found in the throne speech, these are
changes that do not cost the government money. In other words,
growth-promoting economic policies can in many instances be
implemented independently of the fiscal position of the
government. The federal government however chooses to view
everything in terms of revenue and expenditures.
As we move into the next millennium, profound changes will
continue to take place in the economy. This government had the
opportunity in last week's Speech from the Throne to choose one
of two paths: move forward to the future using the tools of
tomorrow, low taxes, a government that encourages innovation and
economic growth; or move forward to the past using the tools of
yesterday, high taxes, interventionist government. Unfortunately,
the government chose the latter and missed the opportunity to
offer Canadians real leadership.
I would just like to leave members with one thought. We must
spend all our energies planning the future because that is where
we are going to live the rest of our lives.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
new member to this House, my colleague from Markham, my next door
neighbour, offers me an example to clearly and loudly say in this
House how different our views of the world are.
I listened very carefully as he talked about the tough choices
the government had to make. He used as an example of his and his
party's policy the Government of Ontario. I would say to him
that the deep cuts to health, education and the important
programs that people care about are directly a result of the
commitment that the Government of Ontario made to cut personal
income taxes by some 30% before the budget was balanced.
We know that is a similar policy to the Conservative Party as
the member has just outlined. However, it is in stark contrast
to the balanced and fiscally responsible approach of the previous
Liberal government which made a commitment to first balance the
budget, protect important social programs and then in a climate
of fiscal prudence look at the balance between enhancement and
maintenance of the programs that we value in our society and
those which have made us number one in the world and a 50%
approach to using surpluses for the purposes of debt and tax
relief.
The member should note a study which was just done for the Bank
of Nova Scotia, certainly not a partisan institution in this
country. The study was done by the Boston Consulting Group. The
study states that quality of life issues are extremely important
in the greater Toronto area and metropolitan Toronto in
particular to attracting jobs and growth.
I would ask the member for the reason that his party is the
fifth party in this House. Perhaps it is because the voters of
this country have recognized the result of having an
irresponsible tax cut before the books are balanced and before
the country is in a state where we can then see tax cuts
implemented in a way which will still protect those valued
programs and the quality of life that we have come to expect in
Canada.
As the member sticks to the rhetoric of the campaign, and as my
neighbour we share such different views, would he acknowledge
that perhaps the reason his party is in fifth position is because
Canadians have seen the dramatic results of irresponsible tax
cuts that have taken place in Ontario and have resulted in
dramatic and drastic cuts to programs which impact on the quality
of life.
1245
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from my colleague.
I think we all realise we are in a very competitive world
today. We are in the global economy and in order for us to
create jobs and be competitive against the rest of the world we
cannot afford to continue with high costs.
Everybody knows in this House that some of the reasons why the
provinces had to make very drastic cuts in the last three or four
years to health care and education are the reductions in transfer
payments the federal Liberals gave to the provinces.
Also, I am not here to defend the Ontario government but the
Ontario government, with its tax cuts, is creating 30,000 to
40,000 jobs a month in the last four to six months. It goes to
prove that low taxes create jobs and high taxes cost jobs.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate the member for Markham on his maiden speech
here in the House, and I would also like to congratulate him on
his victory at Markham.
I have spoken in his riding several times, supporting the Reform
candidate there. Unfortunately the Reform candidate did not make
it this time around, but the next time is going to be another
story.
I find interesting some of the statements the member for Markham
made. I also find very interesting the comments of the member
for Thornhill on the first question. The member for Markham
indicates that sacrifices have been made to eliminate the
deficit. He is referring to the government side.
I sat in this House for four years listening to the rhetoric of
the other side of the House, the government side, and really when
it comes down to it I never noticed too many sacrifices being
made at all.
In fact, the sacrifices made were by those that the load of debt
or spending was dumped on through the different provinces,
transfer payments and the like. The member for Markham made
reference to that.
In other words, the government has failed to transfer money to
the provinces and again the provinces have to pick up the
slack.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has expired. I wonder if the hon. member could put his question
very briefly, and we will allow the hon. member to reply.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if he would
like to reflect on what his party views as sacrifice. I know the
leader of his party does not really accept the general premise
that their membership may want at an assembly. It is open for
debate and discussion. What does the member for Markham really
consider to be a sacrifice?
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, what I was alluding to here
is that the public has made a lot of sacrifices as we have
balanced the budget, or we are close to balancing the budget.
There has been a benefit of $17 billion in taxes from free trade.
Many people have had to cut costs. Corporations have had to cut
costs. If I said the government has made sacrifices, I am really
saying that the public has made sacrifices within the last four
to five years to help the government balance its budget. I am not
so sure that the government has made the same type of sacrifices
that private enterprises made. There are two things that we can
do.
We can try to grow revenue, and that is what this government is
relying on, growing revenue. The other side of the coin is that
we have to continue to reduce costs and find better ways of doing
the job. I am not so sure that the government has done that.
I am saying that the public has made the sacrifices, that the
public will continue to make the sacrifices and it is the
government that has to make the sacrifices on its spending
habits.
1250
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate you on your appointment and all other members who
have been appointed to similar positions. I also congratulate
the Speaker on his re-election as Speaker of the House of Commons
for the 36th Parliament. I would also like to congratulate all
members of the House of Commons who have been elected for the
first time and those who have been re-elected and are back for
the second or consecutive times to this Chamber.
Having served in a provincial legislature for a number of years,
I can say that coming to the House of Commons in this 36th
Parliament is certainly a very special feeling. I thank the
people of Burin—St. George's for electing me and shouldering me
with the enormous responsibility of representing them here.
It is the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne so I
will try to make my remarks pertinent to the throne speech
itself. Over the last few days I have listened intently to the
various speakers and to the questions and comments that have been
put in the House of Commons.
I refer to the comment in the throne speech on the child tax
benefit increase that the government is proposing to bring into
effect on July 1, 1998. It is good to see that there will be an
increase in the child tax benefit allowance. However, I take
exception to what I have found out during that past couple of
days. The federal government has entered into agreements with
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and other provincial
governments that families that are receiving social assistance
will not see any of the child tax benefit increase at all. Their
incomes will not be increased by one cent. A clawback agreement
has been entered into by the federal government and certain
provincial governments that will keep the poor in essence poorer
in this country.
I have stood in provincial legislatures and now in this federal
Parliament where I have heard people talk about child poverty,
the need to address this very important issue and the impact of
hunger on education and learning levels. Yet I now find out that
this very federal government and provincial governments have
entered into agreements which in essence will see hungry children
remain hungry. I take exception to that.
I was pleased to see a reference to home care in the throne
speech. The government is taking measures to support Canadians
in responding to the expanding needs for home care. I am sure
all hon. members on a daily basis receive representation from
families that have aging parents or grandparents, that have a
legitimate need for home care. There are aging people who want
to be looked after in their homes. With the cutbacks to health
care budgets from the federal government to the provinces, more
and more aging people are receiving inadequate home care. They
are just not getting enough hours of home care. In today's
society where most families have both spouses out working, it is
more and more difficult for families to contribute to the home
care of their loved ones. I was glad to see a reference to that
in the throne speech and I look forward very much to seeing the
specifics of the anticipated support mechanism for improved home
care.
Too often over the last fours years we saw this government make
reference to initiatives it was considering. Too often it has
only been that, empty rhetoric. It has been something written on
paper, but government has not shown us the meat after the
promise. I look forward to that. I am encouraged that at least
there is a reference in the throne speech to the issue of home
care.
The throne speech states that government will continue to
address the serious problem of international foreign overfishing.
I come from Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canadians sent this
government a very strong message on June 2, that the Liberal
federal policies are not working for Atlantic Canadians. They
wanted to show the prime minister and the government how poorly
they are working on behalf of Atlantic Canadians.
1255
I am really not sure that the prime minister received the
message. If he did, he is ignoring the message. We need quick
action in Atlantic Canada. We need job creation initiatives, we
need lower taxes, we need to get people back to work. The people
of Atlantic Canada are suffering from a crisis which for the most
part was imposed by mismanagement by successive federal
governments. Successive federal governments have mismanaged our
most important resource in Atlantic Canada, our fishery.
This government said it would continue to address the problem of
foreign overfishing. Let me say that as we sit here today there
are still foreigners who are flagrantly overfishing on the nose
and tail of the Grand Banks. The government in the last couple of
weeks has entered into agreements with those who have violated
our fishing treaties and contracts to give those violators more
fishing inside of the 200-mile limit. It says it will continue to
deal with foreign overfishing when those very people are again
abusing the situation and the government obviously is rewarding
them for taking our fish inside of 200.
Another fishery situation in the country which is very volatile
surrounds the Pacific salmon treaty. I have been monitoring the
situation over the last couple of months and what really jumps
out at me in this situation is that in essence the government is
treating the people of British Columbia and Premier Glen Clark
and his government as the villains in this situation. The
government has decided to stay friendly with the Americans and in
essence take it out on British Columbia. From everything I have
heard from the debates and in following the situation over the
last few weeks, it seems to me that it is the Alaskans
particularly who are at fault in the salmon dispute in the
province with this treaty.
Another thing worth pointing out in the debate today is that
each year there is supposed to be a fishing plan agreed to by the
U.S. and Canada. In the last four years there has not been a
fish plan, the only four years when there has not been a fish
plan agreed to by Canada and the United States. Guess who has
been the government for the last four years—the Liberals.
I say to the prime minister and to the minister of fisheries
that they should really get involved in this B.C. situation and
try to resolve it. There are many fishers in British Columbia
on the brink of bankruptcy, many who need some
flexibility in the area licensing plan they were promised but
have not been given, flexibility that would give them viability
and sustainability in their fishery.
While the prime minister and the minister of fisheries seem to
be so caught up in remaining very friendly with the Americans,
our own people are entering financial crisis. Many of them will
go out of business if something is not done very soon. Therefore
I ask the minister of fisheries, the prime minister and the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries to please
move quickly on this very volatile situation which needs their
immediate attention.
While the the prime minister was calling on President Clinton to
get involved in the problem, President Clinton wrote to the
Alaskans saying that he would not tolerate any more actions such
as the blockade of the ferry we saw in B.C. It shows how
seriously President Clinton takes the prime minister.
It is a pleasure and an honour to be here in the House of
Commons. There are some very serious problems that need to be
addressed. I am pleased to take part in the address in reply to
the Speech from the Throne and I look forward to spending another
few years representing the people of Burin—St. George's.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member for Burin—St. George's, a
Newfoundland riding.
We know very well the important role that Newfoundland played in
the aborted Meech Lake accord, which mentioned that Quebec was a
distinct society.
1300
Given that the Speech from the Throne mentions the unique character
alluded to in the Calgary declaration, I would like the hon. member from
Newfoundland—and I am sure he knows what happened, he knows the role
played by Clyde Wells in the failure of Meech Lake—to tell us
whether, in his opinion and the opinion of his party, the expression
unique character of Quebec society as used in the meaningless Calgary
declaration has the same meaning as the expression distinct society had
in the Meech Lake accord.
This is a simple question to which I would appreciate a simple and
clear answer from the Conservative member.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question.
I remember Meech Lake very well. I remember Clyde Wells very
well, sometimes with pride and sometimes with not so much pride.
I sat in the provincial legislature with the former premier for a
number of years.
My thoughts on Meech Lake are well known. We took opposing
positions in the Meech Lake debate. We had a very thorough
debate in the Newfoundland legislature at the time, as did most
if not all legislatures across the country. To me the result was
devastating. We are still reeling from the effects of the demise
of Meech Lake throughout the country. I really believe that.
The hon. member asks a question about unique character and
distinct society. I have listened to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs a number of times through the media.
My belief is if distinct society is the same as unique character,
then why are we changing the wording? That is the question I ask
myself. If both are the same, then why are we changing the
wording? That is my own personal thoughts on it. I thank the
hon. member for his question and that is my answer.
As I reflected and watched the hon. minister on the news a
number of times that was my first question. Why are we changing
it to unique character from distinct society if both mean the
same thing?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Burin—St.
Georges this. I know that in the Conservative platform on which
he ran in the last election two promises were made on agriculture
that disturbed me a lot.
The first was that they promised to destroy the marketing boards
for the farmers. The second promise was to do away with the
department of agriculture.
I wonder if the hon. member would talk a bit more about those
Conservative promises.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question.
If she is disturbed with a couple of the promises that we made
in our election platform, can she imagine how disturbed we are
with most that they made in theirs? If she can only take
exception with a couple of ours, I can assure her we can take
exception with dozens of hers.
I know her question is a serious one on agriculture. She has
the same concern with agriculture as I have about fish. I can
only go on record and say in this Chamber what I have said
publicly, that I personally did not support a proposal in the
policy platform for a department of sustainable development. I
supported it at the time and said publicly during the election
campaign that my preference was for a separate truly Department
of Fisheries and Oceans and I still stand by that. I am sure she
probably feels the same about agriculture.
I can only answer here what I said in the campaign. I will not
say one thing in the campaign and then come here and say
something different, as many on the other side cannot stand in
their place and say.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to begin with I would like to advise you that I will be sharing
my time with my colleague from Guelph—Wellington.
Mr. Speaker, like a number of my colleagues I would like to
congratulate you on your appointment as deputy chairman of the
committees of the whole House.
1305
I also want to congratulate our Speaker. As a career educator and
seasoned parliamentarian he earned our trust through an election process
I particularly appreciated not only as a newcomer in this House, but
also as a former member of the Quebec National Assembly. I will always
remember that the first thing I was asked to do when I arrived in Ottawa
was to vote rather than having a decision imposed on me from above,
which had been my experience in the past. This augurs well.
I would also like to salute voters in Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies
and thank them for the mandate they gave me last June when they sent me
here to represent them and serve them in co-operation with my team of
assistants.
My riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies is located in the
northeastern part of Montreal island. It comprises the city of Anjou and
several areas of Montreal, including the fast growing district of
Rivière-des-Prairies. It is a riding where the business community is
very vibrant, where businesses are increasing in number, creating more
jobs, upgrading their facilities and exporting more and more. My riding
is home to dozens of volunteer organizations serving our young people,
the elderly, our families, and providing recreational activities, as
well as various cultural communities, which by the way are increasingly
diverse and numerous since 32 percent of my constituents are not of francophone
origin.
It is therefore an honour and a great privilege to be able to
represent and to serve that population, one with a rather
exceptional voter turnout of 78 percent, 47 percent of whom voted for me as the
candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada.
If I may, I would also like to thank the active Liberal party
members in my riding, and the party executive, for their warm
support of my nomination as a candidate. I wish to send particular
greetings to the more than 3,000 members in good standing of our
riding association who supported my progress to this seat right
from the beginning.
I have listened attentively to the throne speech, the Prime
Minister's address and those by the four leaders of the opposition
parties.
I must say that I am very pleased to be sitting on this side of the
House at this time, and I am very proud to have heard the message
from the government and the Prime Minister, for a number of
reasons.
First of all, the Prime Minister has clearly explained the
direction he plans to set for our team now and during the next
mandate. In setting a path toward a more humane and more just
society, he is adhering to the most profound and the most permanent
Liberal values. This I find fitting, because it corresponds to the
expectations of the people of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, whom I
represent.
In recent years, tough decisions have had to be made, ones
that have been both hard to make and hard to accept in some ways.
I am thinking of our unemployed, our seniors, our disadvantaged
families. I am thinking of the volunteer organizations which have
had to do more, often with less.
While maintaining its commitment to improve public finances,
the government can now say it can once again respond to Canadians'
priorities without exceeding our means. It has indicated that it
is now again able to invest not only in economic growth, which it
will continue to do, but increasingly in the development of
Canadian society and of its human resources—men, women, and
young people—the primary capital of Canadian society.
Investing in our children, investing in health, building safer
communities, offering young Canadians greater opportunities,
investing in knowledge and creativity, these are some of our
government's priorities. I think these commitments, once translated
into laws, budgets and programs and put into effect, will take
Canadian societies to new horizons of development and growth and
will enable Canada to remain at the forefront of the international
community.
1310
The throne speech also warrants praise because it basically
reflects the commitments made by the Liberal Party during the last
election campaign in red book II, Securing Our Future Together.
From time to time I hear the criticism that this speech
contains nothing new, nothing dramatic, that it is a rehash. Had
the throne speech contained anything other than the red book
commitments, the same detractors would be accusing the government
of losing sight of and turning its back on the commitments it made
during the election campaign.
What counts most for this country's future, for its unity and
prosperity, for its men, women, young people and families, for its
businesses?
A government committed to fulfilling its promises or a government that
is easily distracted and borrows buzzwords from the opposition parties?
Over the summer, like many of my hon. colleagues, I consulted
people in my riding, business people, representatives of voluntary
organizations, and union organizers from the private sector. They told
me they wanted the government: first, to continue to support job
creation and economic growth; second, to reinvest in social programs;
and third, to settle the issue of national unity by taking into account
Quebec's distinct and unique reality, but in co-operation with the rest
of the country.
These three main concerns expressed by my constituents are high
priority items in the throne speech. I look forward to helping implement
measures in response to these needs and concerns shared by my community
and many other communities in Quebec and across Canada.
In conclusion, I must say that I became involved in federal
politics under the banner of the Liberal Party of Canada because I
believe that this country can not only survive but prosper provided that
the central, regional and provincial powers find a way to join forces
instead of squabbling or even trying to split this country up, as the PQ
government in Quebec and its prophets of doom and division, the Bloc
Quebecois members, are currently doing.
I got involved in federal politics because I believe that the
federal government has a unique responsibility to bring together and
mobilize every part of this country, that is to say every generation,
every region and every citizen of this country, to respond to the
question the Bloc Quebecois is obsessively asking with ambitious plans,
mainly by ensuring that each and every one of us can achieve our full
potential within the Canadian democracy while making an important
contribution to the international community.
[English]
During the course of my years of professional activity in
teaching, the union movement, the environment, in consulting and
in international co-operation, I learned that as Canadians we
have many more similarities than differences, whether we are
teachers, or engineers or unemployed, young and old. I learned
that among Canadians there is an important desire to work
together in a shared political framework. I learned that by
working together as Canadians from Quebec and elsewhere in this
country we can ensure a better future for ourselves and our
children and make a most significant contribution to the
well-being of the international community.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all my
friends in the teaching profession across the country, and their
representatives, and to the union organizers. I would like to
pay tribute to the sustainable development promoters and
supporters of the country, to the people concerned with
international co-operation, and to the business people who I
rubbed shoulders with in my career lives. I do not only wish to
pay tribute to them, I also want to thank them for showing me
that we have everything to gain by getting to know one another
and by working together, with respect to our differences
certainly, but also with the profound conviction that our
membership in the Canadian family is a guarantee of security,
fairness and prosperity for everyone in this country.
1315
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, thank you for
recognizing me. It cannot have been an easy decision.
I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on his
speech. In it, he spoke about the Bloc Quebecois's obsession with
national unity.
Does he mean by this that it is not by asking our fellow citizens
on a daily basis whether we are unique, whether we are distinct, that we
will succeed in improving national unity?
Or does he mean, as they have always said, that the issue will be sorted
out within Quebec, following formal resolutions from the rest of Canada?
I look forward with great pleasure to my colleague's reply to this
question.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for Chicoutimi for raising this question.
My remarks were in reference to the Bloc Quebecois' unwavering
question as to whether the members on this side of the House recognize
the people of Quebec.
It is the only question they have asked since the beginning—
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You still haven't replied.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: —the most obsessive. I replied in advance,
with reference to the people that make up Canada, of course, that this
included the people to which we belong in Quebec, and as French
Canadians as well.
In return, I would also like to hear them tell us sometime whether
they recognize that there is also a French Canadian people, or whether
they think that the contribution made by francophones in this country
does not extend beyond the borders of Quebec.
I would very much like to hear what they have to say about that.
These people are crawling backwards across the Plains of Abraham.
They are trying to climb back up the cliffs at the Plains of Abraham in
their search for their identity, when the place to seek our identity is
in what lies around us, in our own experiences, in the people we
encounter and in what we do with our lives, not just in wondering what
our origins are and who did what.
I intend to move in a forward direction and that is why I joined
the Liberal team here on this side of the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask hon.
members to keep their questions and responses short.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
could take me quite some time to respond to this, but I shall try to be
brief.
Since this morning, we have been hearing all sorts of things. We
heard about such things as the homeland of culture, having a unique
character and being a distinct society. The hon. member referred to
distinct realities in the case of Quebec, etc.
We had Meech, we had Charlottetown, now we have Calgary and
tomorrow we may have Canada's Wonderland. Had Walt Disney been a
Canadian, Mickey Mouse might be the one making the premiers'
declaration. Members opposite should get serious.
One thing being overlooked is Quebec's historical perspective.
I am thinking of Quebec's premiers, in particular of Maurice Duplessis.
The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies certainly remembers
that, in the fifties, Mr. Duplessis said the Canadian confederation was
a treaty of union between two great nations. Not a treaty between
typical, unique or distinct societies, or whatever else. Later, Jean
Lesage spoke of two founding peoples.
Will the member opposite, who is boasting because he is a
government member, tell us here whether or not his government recognizes
that Quebecers are a people?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, I am not the type of person who
engages in semantics. People want to know what we will do for them in
the future.
We, Quebecers, are a people, and just about everyone in this House
agrees with this statement. There is also a French Canadian people, and
a Canadian people.
I wonder if, conversely, our friends from the Bloc Quebecois
recognize that there is French Canadian people and a Canadian people.
1320
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask our colleague a question.
He says he is proud of being with the Liberals, because the
Liberals have made promises in the red book. I just hope he is talking
about the promises contained in the second red book and not in the first
red book, because those promises were not kept, and a minister was
forced to resign and to seek re-election and another member was forced
to join us here in the back. They made promises that they could not
keep.
As a member, did you and do you still agree with the employment
insurance reform that imposed cuts on the workers of this country?
You talked about that in the past as a union organizer. Did you and do
you still agree with these cuts that our people were subjected to in the
regions?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to
congratulate my colleague on his election, and we all know in what
circumstances he was elected. It is with a very definite purpose in mind
that I begin my answer with these words.
I think his voice here will echo the concerns of Canadian workers,
and there are other people who can play a similar role within the
government party. We must all be sensitive to the problems workers are
experiencing and this will be one of the mandates that I will be
fulfilling in this House.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne which opened
Canada's 36th Parliament. I begin by thanking the people of
Guelph—Wellington for the trust and confidence they gave me and
the Liberal Party on June 2.
The June 2 general election marked the first back to back
victories for a Liberal Party candidate in 45 years in my riding.
I am honoured to have the opportunity to serve the people of
Guelph—Wellington for a second term, a term that will end in the
next century.
Before I begin to speak about the present and the future I want
to quote a newly elected member of Parliament, speaking in the
House for the first time on May 23, 1963. I quote from the
members own reply to the Speech from the Throne when he said “I
am very glad to be a member of a party which has a leader of the
calibre of the prime minister”. Those words were spoken almost
35 years ago by our current prime minister. I am proud to echo
those words, and as they were used to describe Lester Pearson
they apply quite equally to the prime minister.
Some parties in the House like to refer to the Speech from the
Throne and the government's agenda as a return to the past. Let
us compare their record to ours. Was it not the same parties
that said we could never balance the budget? We will and our
country's finances are currently in the best position in decades.
Did these parties not predict when the Liberals were elected in
1993 that there would be more of the same? Instead we have
witnessed in four short years record low interest rates and low
inflation, the restoration of public confidence in our finances,
and the beginning of hope for the unemployed. I will compare our
record of hope, opportunity for growth and confidence against
their dire predictions any day, for we have delivered.
We can always point to the positive results of records in the
35th Parliament. Exports have increased to records never before
imagined. Social programs have been maintained and Canada has
been judged by the United Nations, time and time again, to be the
best country in the world. Still there is something happening in
my community which goes far beyond enthusiastic forecasts and
strong growth. I have witnessed a transformation of the people
of Guelph—Wellington in the years between 1993 and 1997.
1325
The people of my riding are optimistic again. Let me quote from
the September 16, 1997 edition of the Toronto Star and an
article written about the technology triangle which includes
Guelph—Wellington. It says:
What's so often overlooked is that communities and regions have
enormous human resources capable of providing the energy,
commitment and leadership skills needed to create a new attitude
and direction.
The article continues by saying that Guelph—Wellington:
provides one example of how people at the local level in
business, government, education, social agencies and unions
helped this region make a transition from old industrial Ontario
to a new knowledge based one.
Sadly these communities are often overlooked for their
leadership and commitment but not, however, by the Liberal
government.
In knocking on doors throughout the general election of 1997 I
experienced that transformation of optimism. That optimism is
witnessed every day by Guelph—Wellington citizens like Luiz
Danninger, president of Trodat Canada Inc., producers of
self-inking office stamps. Luiz employs more than 30 people and
works hard to succeed. This summer he became a Canadian citizen
and represents the spirit of co-operation and partnership
underlined in the Speech from the Throne.
Another example is former Guelph Liberal member of Parliament,
Jim Schroder. Jim has given up some of his retirement time to
raise funds for the new River Run Centre, an arts and
entertainment complex which will officially open this week.
Jim represents our support for the arts, which was announced in
the Speech from the Throne. Dr. Larry Peterson of the University
of Guelph was recently awarded the Helsinki medal for his work
and represents the support for knowledge promoted by our
government.
There are more examples. Paul MacPherson is president and
general manager of Valcom, a growing and successful company in
Guelph—Wellington. Paul and his employees know firsthand the
importance of the Technology Partnerships Canada and represent
the support for technology that has been committed by our
government.
Recently Constable Wayne Hummell of the Guelph police force was
awarded a Canadian banks law enforcement award for his efforts in
combating crime against banks. Constable Hummell and members of
the police forces that help protect Guelph—Wellington can only
serve better because of our commitment to building safer
communities.
Finally, the work of Mindy Ternan, the campaign director for the
United Way community services in Guelph and Wellington county,
can be helped through our commitment in investing in children and
young people and the equal commitment in quality care and good
health.
The people of Guelph—Wellington have rejected the doom and
gloom spouted by the nay sayers. On June 2, 1997 they said yes
to hope, growth and opportunity. They understand that Liberals
throughout the history of Canada have never looked back, except
to remind the opposition time and time again of the realities of
Liberal success. We have always appreciated and comprehended the
present while looking forward to the future. We have always
worked with Canadians to find solutions to our problems.
The government will face many challenges in the 36th Parliament.
We must still eliminate the deficit spending and we must still
tackle an enormous debt. We must continue the transformation of
our social programs in response to new and difficult
circumstances. While investing in our future we must still ask
for sacrifices to secure a quality of life for our seniors, our
families, our young people, and each and every Canadian.
I look forward to those challenges. I am grateful to have been
given the opportunity to serve with the Minister of Labour as his
parliamentary secretary. However, most important, I look forward
to serving the people of Guelph—Wellington, a community that I
describe as the best in Canada.
In conclusion, I again quote that newly elected member of
Parliament speaking in 1963 and saying: “The people of Canada
will find in the Liberal program the solution to their
problems”. I believe that is true today, a solution that can
only be found through optimism, co-operation, partnerships, hope
in our future and belief in ourselves, a solution that will keep
Canada the best country in the world.
1330
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington has to do
with the throne speech and what is lacking in it, which is that
there is absolutely no reference whatsoever to veterans or the
merchant navy veterans.
The hon. member's government took $182 million away from the
veterans programs in the last three and a half years. The
merchant navy veterans have never been treated equally. Five
years ago $100 million was put into a fund that was allocated for
them to become equal. However, the government legislation made
them ineligible to have access to it. They came to me and asked
for help. There are only 2,100 of them left out of the 12,000.
What is the hon. member's government going to do to correct the
error it has made and help those veterans become eligible for the
veterans programs? It should put more money back into the last
post fund and all the programs it has removed.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question.
I do know that as we speak the government is in discussions with
the merchant marine veterans. We believe that we can solve the
problem.
I share the member's concern. However, I have never, ever
believed that the Conservatives would put more money into a
program so I have no faith in that area. But I do share the
member's concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
another member from the province of Premier Harris, who claims to
recognize Quebec as unique in the same way the Pacific salmon is
unique.
The hon. member has heard her colleague for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, in answer to my question as to
whether he, as a member of the government, recognized Quebecers
as a people, reply “Yes, of course”. He even went on to add:
“Everyone does”.
I am therefore asking the hon. member, a member of the same
party as the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, whether she
recognizes the existence of the people of Quebec.
If so, why did she vote against the Bloc's amendment to the motion
on the throne speech.
So there are two questions: Does she recognize the people of
Quebec and, if so, why did she vote against the amendment we moved
in this House?
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, first the hon.
member has asked if I recognize the people of Quebec. I
certainly do. First and foremost they are Canadians and
Quebeckers. They are a part of Canada.
We all know that by being a part of the federation of Canada we
get a great many benefits by being Canadian. Quebeckers enjoy
health care, unemployment insurance, welfare and all the social
safety nets. They enjoy being Canadian. They enjoy not needing a
passport to travel from one province to another. They enjoy the
use of national defence.
There are many reasons why Quebeckers have, as the polls are
telling us now, chosen to be Canadians. I certainly do recognize
Quebeckers. I believe we all love and want Quebec in Canada.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be here
this week and also to congratulate you on your appointment to the
Speaker's chair. It is with great delight that I see you there.
I would also like to take time to thank the voters of South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley for allowing me to continue as their
member of Parliament. I am honoured to have the opportunity to
serve them for another term.
I am delighted to lead off the debate today for the official
opposition which will focus on the issues of national unity and
parliamentary reform.
These two issues are directly related. If we are ever to resolve
Canada's unity problem we have to make significant changes to the
way Canada is governed.
1335
My Reform colleagues who will also be speaking today will be
examining various aspects of these issues in more detail. I
would like to reinforce the Leader of the Opposition's response
to the throne speech of last Wednesday. The throne speech
contains a great deal of rhetoric and platitudes about the value
of Canadian society.
Most Canadians know that Canada is a wonderful country to live
in. The international community knows that Canada is the best
country to live in, but the reality of today is that the majority
of federal and provincial politicians from Quebec want to leave
Canada. Yet there is very little in the throne speech on how the
Liberal government intends to address the threat of separation
from these Quebec politicians.
In the throne speech the government makes a commitment to work
with the provinces and territories to advance the progress made
in Calgary two weeks ago toward the full recognition of diversity
inherent in the federation, including the unique character of
Quebec society. Unfortunately the Liberal government chose to
ignore other parts of the Calgary declaration, which recognize
the equality of citizens and provinces. The government also chose
to ignore any mention in the throne speech of the premiers'
pledge to involve the public before advancing their proclamation.
If it is the intention of the Liberal government to pursue its
national unity strategy by promoting the concept of Quebec's
unique character while ignoring the equality of Canadians and
provinces and the commitment to involve the public in the
process, its strategy will not work, nor will the official
opposition support such a strategy.
Our support for the Calgary declaration as a starting point on
unity discussions was based on the total package, not just one
item out of seven. In the past, discussions that centred on the
unique character of Quebec have been met with suspicion in
British Columbia and other parts of the country.
The two major concerns expressed by British Columbians have been
that such recognition will provide Quebec with special rights,
powers or privileges that are not available to other provinces,
and second, that such recognition would diminish the notion that
all Canadians are equal and all provinces are equal. The Calgary
declaration explicitly acknowledges these two concerns, but if
the government continues to promote the unique character of
Quebec while ignoring the equality aspect of the declaration,
British Columbians are apt to become even more suspicious of the
federal government's motive.
British Columbians, indeed all Canadians outside of Quebec, will
have the opportunity to express their feelings about the Calgary
declaration over the next few months. After these public
consultations, the premiers are then expected to introduce
resolutions in their respective legislatures. I am sure the
wording of these resolutions will reflect the sentiment of the
various public consultations that have occurred in their
provinces.
But will these resolutions make any difference? The Bloc
Quebecois says no. The Parti Quebecois government also says no.
Both of these parties say that the Calgary declaration is
worthless and does not come anywhere close to addressing Quebec's
grievances. They claim it is irrelevant, as was the Liberal
government's Motion No. M-26 in the last Parliament. Some people
may remember when the government quickly passed a motion to live
up to the prime minister's promise to recognize Quebec as a
distinct society.
The Calgary declaration does not involve constitutional change
and as long as there is a separatist government in Quebec, any
constitutional initiatives are futile. Not only would we have a
repeat of the constitutional discussions of the early 1980s but
in another ill-advised piece of legislation passed by the
government in the last Parliament, the separatist government in
Quebec now has a veto over any constitutional amendment. No
matter how beneficial another proposed constitutional amendment
may be, it is extremely unlikely that the Parti Quebecois
government would ever endorse it. Thus the Calgary declaration
is not aimed so much at the Quebec government but for the Quebec
people.
Pollsters and pundits have been filling the airwaves and
newspapers with their take on the reaction of the people of
Quebec and they will continue to do so even after all the
provincial resolutions have been tabled.
1340
We hear today of a poll out of Quebec suggesting that the
majority of Quebeckers do not believe that the Calgary
declaration is sufficient to address their concerns. However,
the first real tangible evidence of the feeling of the people of
Quebec may appear in the next Quebec provincial election which is
expected some time next year.
Will the Calgary declaration and the resulting provincial
resolutions convince Quebeckers to turf out their separatist
government? On their own it would appear not, but hopefully
these initiatives will be viewed as a starting point to convince
Quebeckers that Canadians from all across the country are
prepared to resolve the country's unity problem within
Confederation.
As the Prime Minister stated in the throne speech debate at page
43 of Hansard:
The day may come—I hope it will, and it will if Quebec ever has
a government willing to work for those Quebeckers who wish to
remain a part of Canada and they are the majority—when there is
a legal and constitutional text to consider as such. The words
from Calgary are an attempt to express worthy Canadian values and
that is how they should be welcomed.
After the next Quebec provincial election we will be faced with
one of two prospects: one, a federalist government in Quebec
which will require that Canadians be prepared for another
constitutional initiative or two, a separatist government which
will require Canadians to be prepared for another separatist
referendum.
I will address both of these scenarios, but I will first address
the more desirable scenario, one that will enable a strong and
united Canada to live up to its potential in the 21st century.
If Quebeckers recognize that they are not the only Canadians who
reject the status quo and opt instead to elect a provincial
government that is committed to renewing and revitalizing the
federation, then Canada will undoubtedly enter another round of
constitutional negotiations. If Quebeckers show enough faith in
Canada to elect a federalist government, that faith must be
rewarded. However, while this constitutional debate should
address Quebec's concerns about the federation, it cannot deal
exclusively with Quebec's concerns.
Any attempt to have a Quebec only round will result in
widespread opposition, especially in British Columbia. While
Quebec is naturally a key to any constitutional negotiations, I
can assure the House that B.C. will also play an equally pivotal
role in these discussions.
In accordance with the Calgary declaration, the B.C. government
will hold public consultations with its citizens like the other
provincial governments with the exception of Quebec. While I
would never be so presumptuous as to assume that what the people
of British Columbia will tell their government, some of their
sentiment on the issue is becoming more public.
Last week a senator from B.C. made national headlines by stating
that British Columbia should renegotiate its role in
Confederation and that secession should be on the table. In
response to these comments the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs almost blew a gasket in condemning the senator. Was the
senator reflecting the mood of British Columbians? I believe she
was.
I will not ask the House just to believe what I think. The
House should check with the people of B.C., just like the
Vancouver Sun did with its readers. They asked British
Columbians if B.C. should renegotiate its place in Confederation
and if it should, they asked if secession should be on the table.
The Vancouver Sun had 1,010 responses to these questions.
Out of 1,010 responses 800 of them said yes, British Columbia
should be renegotiating its role in Confederation.
As for the more controversial aspect of including secession in
these renegotiations, 700 respondents said yes, it should be
there. That is right. According to the 1,010 people who
responded to the Vancouver Sun's question, 70 percent said yes,
secession should be on the table.
The senator was just reflecting the extreme frustration that
British Columbians feel.
If that is not a wake-up call for this minister and this
government, then I do not know what is.
1345
The task ahead does have some bright spots. British Columbians
desire many of the same changes in Confederation that Quebeckers
do. One of these issues is the rebalancing of powers within
Confederation.
I have often heard members of the Bloc Quebecois talk about how
federal policies prevent Quebeckers from becoming masters in
their own home. A rebalancing of powers by defining which issues
should be within the provincial government's jurisdiction and
which should be in the federal government's jurisdiction would
certainly go a long way to resolving many of the concerns of
Quebeckers and British Columbians.
One issue that is more of a concern to British Columbia than it
is to Quebec is revamping federal institutions, especially
Parliament.
British Columbia is the most under-represented province in both
this House and the other place. In the Senate there are 104
senators. Using the 1996 census population figures, that works
out to a Canadian average of 277,373 citizens per senator. When
we look at the per capita representation on a provincial basis,
there is only one province which is near the national average,
Quebec, with 297,450 people per senator.
At the low end we have Prince Edward Island with only 33,639
citizens per senator; New Brunswick with 73,813 people per
senator. At the opposite end of the scale we have Ontario, with
448,065 per senator, and Alberta with 449,471. At the top of the
scale is British Columbia, with 620,750 citizens per senator.
There is no equality in the other place now, either on the basis
of equality of citizens or equality of provinces. What we have
is an upper chamber which reflects the reality of over 100 years
ago. Unfortunately there has been a litany of Liberal and Tory
governments, dominated by central Canada, which have been quite
happy to keep things just as they were back in the 19th century.
We are about to enter the 21st century. It is time to bring
representation up to date.
Of course I would be remiss if I failed to mention the illusion
to Senate reform referred to by the Charlottetown accord. That
is the accord that the prime minister always hides behind when he
is asked about Senate reform. He claims that westerners had the
chance for Senate reform but voted against it.
That accord called for Quebec and Ontario to give up 18 of their
senators so that each province would end up with six senators.
Did Ontario and Quebec give them up out of the goodness of their
hearts? Absolutely not.
Under the terms of the accord those 18 senators would be
resurrected as 18 new members of Parliament each for Quebec and
Ontario. Thus British Columbia's under-representation in this
House would be even more significant. Is it any wonder that
two-thirds of British Columbians rejected the accord? Did they
really think we were that stupid?
There is another piece of information for the prime minister's
attention when he says that the Charlottetown accord would have
elected senators. It is true that the accord allowed for the
election of senators, but clause 4 of the accord, which amended
section 23(2)(a) of the Constitution Act of 1867, allowed for the
indirect election of senators by provincial legislatures. In
other words, instead of being appointed by the prime minister
they would be appointed by the premiers.
As we approach the new millennium any rules that permit the
appointment of any representatives are archaic and should be
forever consigned to the 19th century, not to the 21st century.
Returning to the numbers in the Senate for a moment, these
numbers are assigned on a regional basis which, as in the
Constitution, recognizes four distinct districts or regions. Yet
when this government passed Bill C-110 in the last Parliament and
handed out vetoes it recognized five regions. It finally
acknowledged that British Columbia is unique from the prairie
provinces.
How can this government recognize four regions in the
Constitution and five regions in parliamentary legislation?
It is an inconsistency that this government must address.
1350
The Calgary declaration acknowledges the equality of all
citizens and all provinces. If this declaration is to mean
anything there must be true equality in Parliament. In the
Senate, the equality of provinces should be recognized and in
this House the equality of citizens should be recognized. To
accomplish this equality we must have true representation by
population in the House of Commons.
Earlier I mentioned British Columbians' under-representation in
the Senate. B.C. is equally unrepresented in this House. Using
the population census in 1996 the Canadian average is 95,836
people per MP. Once again, only Quebec comes close to that with
95,184 people per MP. The range in representation goes from
33,639 in Prince Edward Island to 109,544 in B.C. Is this
equality? I do not think so. It is due to a little heralded
constitutional amendment made in 1985 that guaranteed that no
province would ever lose seats in redistribution. What that
means is today we have six provinces that have this
constitutional protection. Six provinces have an average of
73,900 people per MP. Meanwhile, three provinces are
significantly under-represented in this House and they average
105,366 people per MP. With the 1985 amendment, this inequity is
likely to be permanent unless the Constitution is changed again.
One thing that B.C. will likely be asking for is to be treated
equally, nothing more, nothing less.
Just in case members are wondering why this is important to
B.C., we happen to believe that if we had our due representation
in Parliament then maybe we would not have a government that
handles foreign overfishing off the Pacific coast by taking the
B.C. government to court. Maybe we would not have a government
that closes the only military base on the mainland of British
Columbia which just happens to have the highest risk for a major
earthquake in a populated area. Maybe we would not have a
government that gives Quebec over $3,000 per immigrant while
giving B.C. barely $1,000 per immigrant. Maybe we would not have
a government that immediately gives Quebec millions of dollars
when it receives a large number of refugees, yet when British
Columbia receives a large number of out of province welfare
claimants the government not only fails to provide any additional
funds, it penalizes the B.C. government for taking steps to deal
with this problem on its own.
Before I conclude my comments I would like to briefly mention
what will happen if Quebecers opt to re-elect the Parti
Quebecois, the separatists. I am certain that the people of
British Columbia, as well as members of the official opposition,
will want to make certain that Quebecers know the consequences of
what a vote for separation will mean.
First and foremost, I would like to dispel the myth that
separatists like to spread that after separation there would be a
friendly equal partnership between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
I would like to inform the Quebec separatists that there is no
such thing as the rest of Canada. The separatists have no idea
what shape the remainder of Confederation will be in after a yes
vote. If Quebec votes to separate rest assured that British
Columbians will review their options.
Do not get me wrong, British Columbians love Canada and will do
everything in their power to have it remain united. However, we
expect that when Canada enters the next millennium it will be a
country where all Canadians and all provinces are treated
equally, fairly and with respect. British Columbians are asking
for nothing more and will settle for nothing less.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very intently to the member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley. I am very disheartened by her tact today.
I am from Ontario and I have never in my life stood up here and
talked about the fact that Ontario feels gypped by Confederation.
I have also lived in British Columbia and I can assure the member
that the people of that province do not think the way she is
talking today.
1355
I have heard her party time and time again talk about the need
to transfer powers to the provinces. We have the social health
and safety transfer which is block funding to the provinces which
allows the provinces to spend the money in any way they want.
Recently I read something from the Fraser Institution, one of
the think tanks that the member quite often likes to quote,
showing the time between when people have been diagnosed for
cardiac surgery and the date of surgery. In the province of
British Columbia it is three months. The same diagnosis in the
province of Manitoba is half a week.
What you tell me about the equality of people and how we are going to
maintain basic national—
The Speaker: Colleagues, I remind all of you to please
address your remarks to the Chair.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it is no great surprise
to me that Ontario does not feel cheated by Confederation when it
seems to control the country. Unless it happens in Ontario it
seems that it does not matter.
How does the member expect to understand what British Columbians
are thinking when he does not even listen to what they are
saying? Seventy per cent of the people in B.C. who responded to
a survey said that secession should be on the table. Is it
because you do not want to hear this message or is it because you
feel that if it is good for Ontario, it is good for all of
Canada?
The Speaker: Once again, with all respect, I remind you
to address your remarks to the Chair.
It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HYBRID TURKEYS
Ms. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow I will have pleasure of attending the facilities expansion
celebration of Hybrid Turkeys in Kitchener.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to Canada Henk
Bakker, the chief operating officer of Hybrid Turkeys' parent
company, Nutreco, from the Netherlands.
He, together with Hybrid's company president Paul Jeenes, will
celebrate the completion of their recent expansion. Hybrid
Turkeys is Canada's only primary breeder of turkeys, one of only
three worldwide, exporting over $15 million in large white turkey
breeding stock to over 40 countries.
I would like to recognize the contribution of Hybrid Turkeys to
Kitchener. Through its expansion and building of new facilities,
including a new production hatchery, new administration offices
and a new diagnostics lab, its investments have created long term
jobs and will have a sustained, positive economic impact on the
Kitchener area.
This is the kind of success story that comes through the
co-operation and partnership of business and government to the
benefit of the communities involved.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week's throne speech had little to offer Canadians on the justice
platform. It mentioned, and quite rightly so, alternative
sentence provisions and crime prevention measures. However, it
was completely silent on section 745. Victims continue to have
to relive the memory of their violent loss through early parole
applications.
It was silent on conditional sentencing. Violent sex offenders
and even those who take life are still able to avoid jail terms.
The throne speech was particularly silent on two issues the
Minister of Justice had said concerned her, violent young
offenders and victim rights.
Our citizens cry for changes and improvements to legislation but
the Liberals do not appear to me listing. The Reform Party is
listening and I pledge to my constituents and fellow Canadians
that we will be continually pressing the government to address
these and other important justice issues.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
hearing Conservative Senator Pat Carney of British Columbia last
week making statements that frustrated provinces should not rule
out separation from Canada made me very angry and very upset not
only as a Canadian, not only as a parliamentarian, but as a
parent who, along with my colleagues, is working diligently to
make sure we make this country of ours prosperous, strong and
united for us, our children and generations to come.
Pat Carney, an unelected and it would seem unaccountable
appointee, made a statement about how tired she was of the bias
shown by the federal government toward B.C.
1400
Let me point out that there were six Liberal members elected
from B.C. of which four are ministers and one is a parliamentary
secretary. I say bravo to the prime minister and shame on Pat
Carney. I was glad to hear the other members of the Conservative
Party, including their leader, not support her views.
Why is it that every time the federal government does not agree
with the provinces these types of tactics have to be used? Today
Sir John A. Macdonald would be turning in his grave. Long live a
strong and united Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
SENATOR PAT CARNEY
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week Conservative Senator Pat Carney stated that the
sovereignty of British Columbia ought to be examined as a valid
alternative.
Like many Canadians and Quebecers, the Conservative senator is
dissatisfied with the status quo and realizes that the federal
government, whether Conservative or Liberal, is totally incapable
of reforming and renewing the Canadian Constitution. The words of
the Conservative Senator are in contrast to those of her leader,
who has nothing to contribute in response to the backward step
represented by the Calgary declaration.
Even in the west, the political elite is starting to come face
to face with reality. Senator Carney's statements are part of a
far broader movement. Whether viewed from the west or from the
east, Canada in the 21st century will surely not resemble the dream
the Prime Minister describes in his throne speech.
* * *
[English]
THRONE SPEECH
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week's throne speech has once again proven to Canadians that
this government is a caring and responsible government.
Thanks to the government's efforts and to the sacrifices of
Canadians over the last four years, a balanced budget is within
sight for the first time in decades. A balanced budget not only
provides economic stability for our nation's finances but peace
of mind for all our citizens regarding the future of our valued
social programs.
Canada's economy is producing impressive employment growth.
Interest rates and inflation remain low but more needs to be done
to ensure that all Canadians in all parts of our country are able
to fully participate in this economic renewal. This is
particularly true for rural Canada.
To this end, our government has committed half of future budget
surpluses to the reinvestment in strengthening our society,
families and communities. Our government will continue to focus
resources wisely in key areas of the economy creating a better
environment for our children and ensuring that our health care
and public pension systems continue to be among our country's
greatest assets.
Our government has demonstrated its commitment to responsible
economic management. It has also shown care and compassion for
ensuring that all Canadians are able to share in the economic
benefits of a growing economy with healthy public finances.
* * *
THE SWEET HEREAFTER
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to recognize the presence in the gallery of one of
Canada's most well-known and internationally acclaimed film
makers, Mr. Atom Egoyan. Mr. Egoyan, who is a guest of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, is here with his wife, Arsinée
Khanjian, who also appears in her husband's most recent and
critically lauded film The Sweet Hereafter, and their son
Arshile.
Atom Egoyan was the most decorated film maker at this year's
Cannes International Film Festival, with The Sweet Hereafter
taking home three awards, including the Grand Prix, the highest
international honour ever awarded to a Canadian feature film.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
producers of The Sweet Hereafter, Alliance Communications
Corporation, and to thank Telefilm Canada for its financial
contribution to the film.
On behalf of all Canadians I would like to say to Mr. Egoyan
that we are all extremely proud of what he has accomplished for
Canadian films and for Canadians.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: My colleagues, you will note that Mr. Atom
Egoyan is here with us today. Mr. Egoyan, would you please stand
and be recognized.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PARLIAMENT
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
* * *
1405
[Translation]
CULTURE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to
the statement made in this House by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, the film proposed by Pierre Falardeau depicting the death
of Chevalier de Lorimier will not be funded by Telefilm Canada for
political reasons.
In the light of this politicization of culture, a group of men
and women has started a campaign to find popular funding to produce
this film, which will revive an important moment of Quebecers'
history.
The repression of 1837-38 led to the sacking of a half dozen
villages, the hanging of a dozen patriots, the exile of thousands
of people and the incarceration of 400 in a city of 60,000.
The Bloc Quebecois would today like to congratulate the men and
women of Comité du 15 février 1839 on their initiative and calls on
all members of this House, regardless of their political
allegiance, to make a contribution as a show of their commitment to
freedom of expression.
* * *
[English]
POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
on Parliament Hill the 20th annual police and peace officers
memorial service was held.
It was a solemn occasion to pay tribute to the men and women who
have given their lives over the years to protect Canadians. It
was an occasion for families and friends to remember their loved
ones. It was an occasion for all of us to remember that part of
the reason why we live in this secure and safe society is because
of the dedication of professional police and peace officers who
work across this country.
Unfortunately it is ceremonies such as the annual memorial
service that make us realize our safety has come sometimes at the
cost of those who are working, the best and the brightest that we
have in these forces.
Being a peace officer is a very difficult job full of many
challenges. In Canada we are fortunate to have police forces who
carry out their daily work with honesty and integrity and
dedication.
It is a time when we should all pause to reflect on the
contribution of our police and peace officers, who they are and
what they make as a contribution to our Canadian society.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are
upset by the attitude of the separatists. The priority of all
Quebecers is to get the economy moving once again. The Government
of Canada is doing its share, but if the Bouchard government
continues to represent the interests of the separatists only,
Quebecers will never reap the benefits.
By continuing to represent only the interests of the
separatists, Lucien Bouchard is showing that he does not care
about all Quebecers. On his arrival in France for a so called
economic mission, the first thing he did when he got out of the
plane was to talk to the French about separation again. Now we
have even the Conseil du Patronat français acknowledging that the
temporary removal of the threat of referendum in Quebec has
permitted a settling of interest rates, with all due respect to
Mr. Bouchard.
It is high time that the separatists of Lucien Bouchard
started working for the welfare of all Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to bring to
the attention of the House another failure of the Canadian
justice system.
On September 7 my hometown of Summerland was shocked by the news
of a double homicide. Cecilia and Tammy Grono were shot to death
in front of Tammy's 2 and 4-year old children. The prime suspect
is the ex-husband of Tammy who was on day parole.
Kevin Machell failed to report to his halfway house in Calgary.
Corrections Canada policy is for tardiness to be reported within
10 minutes to one hour but because of the solicitor general's lax
guidelines, this violation was not acted upon until 24 hours
later.
Tammy Grono had written Corrections Canada and requested that
she be notified of any changes in his status. The Gronos would
be alive today if the solicitor general's department had acted.
Kevin Machell is still at large.
Canadians are demanding a parole system that is limited, earned
and tightly monitored. The Liberal government has failed to
ensure that Canadians are secure in their homes and on the
streets of their communities.
* * *
1410
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of the House the recent
donation of $9.7 million to the University of Toronto chemistry
department by Mrs. Edna Davenport and the estate of her late
husband John Davenport.
The surprise announcement of this generous gift came at a dinner
last night honouring six Nobel laureates from around the world,
including our own John Polanyi of the University of Toronto.
Mrs. Davenport is originally from Owen Sound, Ontario and a
graduate of the University of Toronto in 1929 and was represented
at the dinner by her son Peter Davenport for the announcement.
The chair of the chemistry department at the University of
Toronto, Dr. Martin Moscovits, has said that the gift will be
used to build state of the art molecular science laboratories at
the university's chemistry building and will ensure that the
University of Toronto and Canada remain world leaders in research
in chemistry.
Philanthropy of this type is rare and greatly appreciated. I
hope one day it will lead to future Nobel laureates from the
University of Toronto.
I know that I am joined by the University of Toronto community,
members of this House and indeed all Canadians in thanking the
Davenports for this spectacular act of generosity.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to bring to light the current crisis
concerning the negotiations between Canada Post and the Canadian
Union of Postal Workers. It is due to government interference
that this situation has developed into the state it is in now.
I refer to a memo that describes a meeting between the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services and the president of the
Canadian Direct Marketing Association. According to the memo the
minister suggested that the government might use conciliation to
delay negotiations, blame the unions for a strike and then
introduce back to work legislation within eight days of any
strike action.
This strategy by the government and the management at Canada
Post makes a mockery of the collective bargaining process. It
suggests the conciliation process was never intended to resolve
the major issues and is tantamount to denying the postal workers
their legal right to strike.
I suggest to the minister that he remove the threat of back to
work legislation and allow the union and management to seriously
negotiate a collective agreement.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lucien
Bouchard has barely started his sovereignist pilgrimage to France
to find symbolic support for his separatist cause and already the
truth he refuses to see is hitting him right in the face.
A document released at a press conference held by Lucien Bouchard
and French business representatives states that the temporary
removal of the referendum threat has resulted in lower short term
interest rates in Canada.
French business people too recognize that the political uncertainty
generated by the sovereignist threat is hurting Quebec's and Canada's
economy.
What more does Lucien Bouchard need to hear to put an end to such
a costly threat to our economy?
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE HELICOPTERS
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the need to
replace our aging and unreliable search and rescue helicopters was
established over four years ago. We hope the government's decision to
postpone the replacement of these helicopters, at an enormous cost to
Canadian taxpayers, will not have unfortunate consequences.
[English]
If there are any further accidents, injuries or losses due to
the prime minister's callous partisanship in delaying this
purchase, Canada will hold him personally accountable.
[Translation]
For the safety of the men and women who fly these helicopters, we
sincerely hope we will never reach that point. Party politics have no
place in the managing of our Canadian forces.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I want to thank you very much
for last week. It seems that the question period is progressing
very well thanks to you because you want it, not because I want
it. I would encourage you in the name of the House to please
continue to keep the questions right on time and the answers
also. With this I am going to recognize the hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the papers are quoting opinion polls in Quebec in which
Quebeckers were asked their opinion on the premiers' declaration
from Calgary. However most Quebeckers have no way of knowing
what is in that declaration, that it is primarily a commitment to
consult the public and that what it is seeking to do is to
balance acknowledgement of uniqueness with acknowledgement of
equality as citizens and provinces. All Quebeckers have heard
about this agreement is some negative attacks by the Premier of
Quebec.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
What specific steps will he take to inform Quebeckers about the
content of the Calgary declaration?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to have the same kind of
process in Quebec as in the other provinces since the Premier of
Quebec is not interested in consulting the people of Quebec about
the Calgary declaration.
We will continue to make the case for the Calgary declaration
everywhere in the country including Quebec. I would say this
about all the principles in the declaration, about the
declaration as a whole.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week when the government indicated that it might
consult ordinary Quebeckers with respect to the Calgary
declaration, a hostile Premier Bouchard said “I dare you”.
Meanwhile Bouchard is off consulting the Government of France
and Quebeckers are kept in the dark concerning what Canadians in
other parts of the country are proposing to make the federation
work for the benefit of all.
Will the minister mail a copy of the Calgary declaration to
every household in Quebec, or will he be intimidated by the
Premier of Quebec on this vital issue of consultation?
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I may have shortcomings, but being intimidated by the
premier of Quebec is certainly not one of them.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the government is not to be intimidated by the
Premier of Quebec and is not prepared to say exactly how it will
consult with Quebeckers on the premiers' declaration, could the
minister at least make the simple commitment to mail a copy of
the Calgary declaration to every household in Quebec so
Quebeckers will at least know what is being talked about in the
rest of the country?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Calgary declaration has been released widely by
the media in Quebec, but the suggestion of the Leader of the
Opposition is welcome and we will study it.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government professes to be concerned
about the unity of federation, yet when a B.C. senator commented
on the topic last week the minister responded with disdain.
Today the Vancouver Sun reports that almost 70 percent of
respondents support Senator Carney's comments, including her
suggestion that B.C. should not rule out separation.
Could the minister explain why he and his government are so
insensitive to the concerns of British Columbia?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a common practice of separatist leaders in
Quebec to describe anyone who is fighting separation as someone
who is fighting Quebec.
If the hon. member is now starting to put forth the same kind of
argument, she will receive from the Government of Canada the same
answer we have always given to the PQ Government of Quebec.
Quebec and British Columbia, yes, yes and yes. Secession, no, no
and no.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, neither British Columbians nor I are calling for
secession. What we are calling for is a little respect from the
government.
1420
The government responds to foreign overfishing off the west
coast by taking the B.C. government to court. It closes the only
military base on mainland British Columbia. It withholds
millions of dollars in transfer payments because it claims the
B.C. NDP government is too hard on welfare recipients.
Would the minister agree it is because of the government's
mishandling of west coast issues that so many British Columbians
do not feel at home in Confederation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started by talking about
the Pacific salmon treaty, as she did last week with the same
preface to the question.
We wish to have a treaty with the Americans which guarantees
proper management of west coast fish stocks, whether they be in
Canadian rivers or in others.
The issue with the province of British Columbia is defence, the
Nanoose base which we believe to be extraneous.
I would remind the hon. member when she talks about the closure
of bases that bases have been closed in Quebec, in the maritimes,
in Alberta and in Ontario.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, the leader of the official opposition, whom the Prime Minister
himself views as a key player in the debate on Canadian unity, sent an
ominous message inviting western Canada to get involved in the
consultations on the Calgary declaration so that the notion of Quebec
having a unique character does not lead to the constitutional
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
I would like to know if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
agrees with the leader of the official opposition, who—must I remind
the hon. members—is considered by the Prime Minister to be a key
player in the debate on Canadian unity.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): It is a pity,
Mr. Speaker, that the Bloc leader cannot put the question to the leader
of the official opposition.
What I understand of the official opposition leader's position is
that he wishes all principles, including the recognition of the unique
character of the society in Quebec, to be discussed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): It is a pity, Mr.
Speaker, that the minister cannot answer the questions put to him. My
question was quite clear. We want to know if he agrees with the leader
of the official opposition, who is against any recognition of distinct
society.
The leader of the official opposition was not the only one to
comment on the Calgary declaration over the weekend, as Quebec Liberals
stated that, as far as they were concerned, the Calgary declaration was
not enough, that it needed to be fleshed out.
My question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is this:
Does he not agree that Canada is headed in the same direction as with
the Charlottetown accord, which the people of Quebec felt did not offer
enough to Quebec, while the rest of Canada felt it gave too much to
Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Calgary declaration was very well received in Quebec. I can see how
this would concern the Bloc leader.
Quebecers regard it as a step in the right direction, but when
asked if it is enough, of course they say it is not. Is the economic
situation good enough right now? Is the social situation good enough?
The public wants improvements and one way to improve this
federation would be through the principles set out in the Calgary
declaration, including the recognition of the unique character of
Quebec's society.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one wonders
whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs lives in Quebec. We
read the papers and we see—
An hon. member: That's a cheap remark.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: It is not. One wonders whether he still lives
in Quebec, because he misinterprets what is going on there. He badly
misinterprets it.
Last weekend the federalists in the Liberal Party of Quebec—they
are federalists in Quebec's Liberal Party, not sovereigntists—found the
Calgary declaration wanting, given Quebec's traditional expectations.
My question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is this:
Does he realize that even the most modest demands from Quebec's
federalists place the bar so high that the premiers of the other
provinces cannot make it over?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, the member has it all wrong.
1425
Mr. Johnson explained that it was a step in the right direction,
that it was a good start and that he also had other demands. I know of
no other province that does not have other demands. They all have
demands for improvement. The Government of Canada also has demands, and
we are working together, in partnership. This country offers the best
standard of living in the world. And we will continue to do so,
regardless of the member.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that the only
Quebec federalists who still hold any hope for the Calgary
declaration are those who think that “unique character” means
the same thing as “distinct society” and that it will be in the
Constitution, exactly the opposite of the message delivered by
the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend to the rest of
Canada? Does the minister realize this?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I do realize is that the very great majority of Quebecers want to
stay in Canada. And I realize that the Bloc Quebec finds this continued
and inescapable state of affairs annoying.
That is why they are always trying to disguise their option. They
know that if they put the question clearly their support would
disappear. We are going to go on improving Canada in various ways,
particularly by strengthening the recognition of Quebec in the Canadian
Constitution.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of the Environment.
In 1992 at the Rio earth summit Canada agreed to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. In 1994 the
deputy prime minister and former environment minister committed
to further cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. Yet in today Canada
it is almost 10 percent above those levels.
When will the government finally show leadership and live up to
its promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very concerned about
meeting realistic, legally binding targets at the meeting we are
to have in Kyoto, Japan, in December.
We made commitments at Rio in 1992 to try to achieve reductions
by the year 2000. We have admitted that we are not able to
achieve those targets, but we are trying to work with all our
partners in Canada and abroad to make sure that we achieve
realistic targets for the future.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
are getting very concerned that all we hear from the government
is concern but nothing in the way of solid, detailed plans. Even
the prime minister has said that he supports legally binding
targets, but where is the plan?
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Could she
assure us that she will take to Kyoto in two months time a
specific detailed plan that lives up to Canada's promise to
reduce emissions by 20 per cent from 1988 levels by the year
2005? Will the environment minister commit to this today?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be committing to that today in the
House.
The government has a commitment to work with our partners in
Canada and with the international community to meet realistic
targets.
* * *
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the health minister.
In 1993 the prime minister described the decision to purchase
much needed maritime helicopters as a colossal waste of
taxpayers' money. On national television he told Canadians “I
will take my pen and I will write zero helicopters”.
Canadians know the government has wasted an obscene amount of
their money to delay the purchase of helicopters that Canada
needs.
Will the Minister of Health agree that the colossal waste of
money cancelling the helicopter contract would have been better
spent on health and education transfers to provinces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a health question in terms of
making sure that the people who operate our search and rescue
helicopters have the best possible equipment because they do save
lives.
For someone from the Conservative ranks to be raising an issue
like this one after they were prepared, when they were in
government, to spend an exorbitant amount of taxpayers' money to
buy helicopters that were far in excess of our needs, is
a little bit of gall.
1430
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is now for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Liberal government has spent close to a million dollars
cancelling a helicopter purchase, which it now admits it will have
to go through with anyway. It argues that spending $90 million to
create 3,000 jobs will reduce the excessively high youth
unemployment rate.
When will this Liberal government stop wasting the taxpayers'
money for petty politics and start assuming its responsibility to
deal with the crisis of youth unemployment?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question, and I can tell him in reply that, of necessity, governing
implies assuming responsibilities in a great many areas.
Of course we have responsibility for defence, since we are a
large country with defence responsibilities. We also have a foreign
policy, and social responsibilities.
As for the youth situation, I believe that the youth
employment strategy announced by 12 of my colleagues and myself
this past February is beginning to show some very promising
results. I am extremely pleased to see the Prime Minister of
Canada and the premiers have specifically addressed the situation
of our young people—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The
member for Athabasca has the floor.
* * *
[English]
VOISEY'S BAY
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Voisey's Bay nickel project has already produced $4.3 billion
worth of investment and promises thousands of highly paid
permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
resource royalty revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador.
I spent four years in this place listening to this government
make commitments to maintain existing regulations once a mining
company has invested substantially in a mining project.
My question for the natural resources minister is why is the
government threatening the viability of this project by
constantly changing the regulation.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the objective of the Government of Canada, as with all
the other players in the potential Voisey's Bay development, is
the development of an environmentally sound project whose
benefits are shared in a responsible manner by all the key
stakeholders. The Government of Canada has been working with all
the other partners to facilitate the necessary agreements among
all the players to allow the project to go forward in a proper
manner.
The hon. gentleman will know that there are a number of players.
The Government of Canada is only one of several that are
participating.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
that warm fuzzy talk has simply served to delay this project two
and a half years and place it in jeopardy. All of the industry
knows that the precedent set in a Newfoundland court last week
will put in jeopardy resource mining development all over Canada.
Again I ask the minister will his government fast track the
needed changes to legislation and regulation or will he simply
admit that mining in Canada really is not important to this
government?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, mining in Canada is important not only to the
government but to all Canadians. It is a major engine of
economic growth, one we intend to promote.
Over the course of the last several years we have moved on at
least 60 different cases of eliminating overlap and duplication
in mining regulations. I am working with my provincial colleagues
to continue that momentum.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Certain information has it that the President of the Treasury
Board plans to introduce a bill whose objective would be to side
step Canadian human rights legislation on pay equity in order to
impose his position in this matter.
Would the minister confirm that he is preparing, through
legislation, to impose his settlement in the matter of pay equity
without awaiting the decision of the human rights tribunal, which
may go against him?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government clearly supports pay equity, since it passed legislation
on the matter in 1978.
What remains to be decided is the amount of the adjustments to
be made to ensure pay equity exists in practice. The government
has already paid out $1 billion for pay equity and it has proposed
nearly $1.3 billion in its current negotiations, which it intends
to continue.
1435
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
will understand that I did not really get a response to my
question, and so I will put it again a little more clearly.
Does the President of the Treasury Board intend to comply with
the upcoming decision of the human rights tribunal in the matter of
pay equity?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly it would be better to reach a negotiated settlement with
the unions.
This is why we are continuing our negotiations. However, the
government will look at all the options necessary so that our
employees may have their money in their pockets without delay.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Last summer the Tax Court of Canada struck down a cruel effort
by the minister's department to impose back payroll taxes on Mrs.
Janice Collingridge, a severely disabled, low income, non-verbal
quadriplegic. The minister's lawyers said that by contracting
care givers to help her live at home she was running a business
in her home and was therefore assessed nearly $5,000 in back
payroll and CPP taxes and penalties.
Is it the policy of this minister and government that severely
disabled Canadians who contract home care services are in fact
running businesses and will be dragged through the courts and
encounter personal financial hardship to satisfy this
government's insatiable desire for tax dollars?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for
his question. I would also like to inform the member that I
could not comment on any specific cases. I have had
representations from the member which I will look at.
I also want to ensure the member that we have a fairness code in
Revenue Canada and we are committed to the fairness code. We
abide by that code as well.
I can assure the member that this minister will take those
representations and look at the matter. I can also assure him
there is an Income Tax Act and we are supposed to follow that. I
as minister will ensure we do that for all Canadians so that we
have fairness—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
frankly I am shocked at that answer. This is a simple question.
Can this minister not stand up in this House and say that it is
not the policy of this government to pursue and chase down
severely disabled Canadians in the courts to try to squeeze money
out of them? Are they or are they not running businesses by
employing personal care givers at home?
I do not see anything in the Income Tax Act about that. Is this
minister in charge of his department and its policy or is this
minister's department in charge of him?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work we have done in
the disabled community.
The solicitor general was involved in a one year task force
which made recommendations to the government. If we look at the
last budget we have made substantial commitments and this finance
minister in his last financial budget made a commitment of over
$300 million for the disabled community.
We are proud of what we have done for the disabled community and
we will continue it. It surprised a few on that side of the
House. The members of the Reform did not support those items—
* * *
[Translation]
MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last week, the mayor of Montreal stated that he had met with the
Prime Minister of Canada and solicited his help, adding that the
business community was in favour of moving international flights to
Dorval and that they had settled the matter between themselves with
Ottawa's help.
How does the Minister of Transport explain the fact that mayor of
Montreal himself said he met with the Prime Minister to discuss the
Dorval issue, and a settlement was reached with Ottawa's help?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said last Friday, the decision to move flights from
Mirabel to Dorval was made by Aéroports de Montréal. That was not a
political decision. The Aéroports de Montréal group has that power and
exercised it.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will
the minister tell us how the Prime Minister can agree to discuss the
Dorval airport issue with the mayor of Montreal but refuse to discuss
the Mirabel airport issue with the premier of Quebec, as he told us on
Friday?
1440
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has received from the premier of Quebec a
letter to which he will reply.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Health
Canada officials lied to obtain the personal protected files of
Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards. This scientist is a thorn in the side
of the department, with personal allegations that there are
problems where profits take precedence over safety.
The minister promised us a full report here in the House. What
has he found about his officials?
The Speaker: Was the word “lied” used in the hon.
member's question? I did not hear it. Would the hon. member be
kind enough to rephrase the question?
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, Health Canada officials
covered up the truth.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member can use any words he chooses. The reality is he does
not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about. Another
example of all kinds of noise and fury.
Last Friday afternoon department officials explained why
they had asked for the file in question.
As long as I am Minister of Health we will focus on the issues
affecting the health system. We will not be involved in any
smear campaigns. We are going to work to improve medicare in
this country and make sure—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have their
feeble excuse for accessing this file too.
The fact of the matter is permission must be sought of the
individual. It was not. A valid reason must be there to access
the file. There is not.
The minister has a choice opportunity here. He could choose to
support out of control bureaucrats on a witch hunt or he could
choose to support the scientist who has allegations of truth.
Which will it be?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has taken the facts wrongly and then he has
misinterpreted them.
What we are going to do is what I announced last week. We are
going to work to renew and strengthen the health protection
branch. I have already explained that we are going to appoint an
arm's length science advisory board to get independent
assessment. We are going to have a public consultation and we
are freezing further cuts. That is the best way to respond.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL DETENTION CENTRES
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Solicitor General.
Events in recent months have shown that working conditions for
employees in federal detention centres in Quebec are extremely
dangerous.
Will the Solicitor General respond to the request that I made of
him at the beginning of September to establish an external inquiry into
the volatile situation that prevails in federal detention centres in
Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reassure the employees of
Correctional Services Canada that we are very mindful of the
danger their job carries with it. We say this specifically after
the recognition of peace officers which took place yesterday.
Yes, I would like to confirm to the member that we are very
mindful of the dangerous situation which all correctional
officers face, which is a part of what they do every day.
* * *
[Translation]
POLICING OF AIRPORTS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question concerns the safety of Montreal's airports.
The maintenance of RCMP services at Dorval and Mirabel continues to
be the subject of a wide range of speculation.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister
tell the House, so as to clarify matters, who will be responsible for
policing Montreal's airports?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the safety of air transportation continues to be the Government
of Canada's priority. As the member well knows, there are two airports
in Montreal, and international flights have just been transferred.
There are also major renovations under way at Dorval.
For these reasons, the Government of Canada has decided to leave
the RCMP forces in place during this period of change.
1445
[English]
The RCMP will stay at Dorval and Mirabel.
* * *
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this month one of the justices of the Supreme Court of
Canada announced that he was retiring.
He publicly called on the Liberal government to select his
replacement through an open review process. These comments are
unheard of and ground breaking. The justices themselves are
asking for reform.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the Liberal
government hold a public review of any new justice appointed to
the supreme court? Or will it continue on making its
appointments in secret and behind closed doors?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
I would like to point out, and I hope all members agree, that
over the past 130-some years the appointment process by which
supreme court justices have been appointed has led to some of the
most distinguished and meritorious people serving on the Supreme
Court of Canada.
I have indicated that there is some merit in considering how we
could broaden the consultation process in relation to prospective
appointments to the court. I will take that under advisement.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this new justice of the supreme court will be determining whether
Quebec has the right to unilaterally secede. This is perhaps one
of the most important issues in our country's history.
Will the justice minister allow elected members of Parliament to
ratify this new supreme court justice or will she simply consult
her backroom dealmakers and continue to leave the Canadian people
out of the process?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of chief justices in
this country, on behalf of my provincial counterparts, the
attorneys general, on behalf of presidents of law societies and
distinguished members of the practising bar in Atlantic Canada
and elsewhere, I fundamentally reject your characterization of
those people as, what was it? Backroom dealmakers?
* * *
MINING
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Cheviot mine proposal will place a large development in a
pristine wilderness area across the divide from previous mine
sites and adjacent to the Jasper National Park, a world heritage
site.
Is the minister satisfied that all options, such as project
relocation, have been explored to ensure that the ecosystem
impacts are minimized and, at the same time, protecting important
jobs in the area?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposal to put in place the Cheviot mine
project in Alberta has been reviewed by a joint panel under the
Environmental Assessment Agency which brought together federal
representatives with provincial representatives.
Evidence was put forward by three federal government departments
and many others from across the country who are concerned about
this project. We have received a report from the panel and are
reviewing its recommendations.
Our concern is to protect the environment to the highest
standards and also allow—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a memorial service honouring
those law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty.
One way of ensuring protection for peace officers, indeed all
Canadians, is to ensure individuals convicted of first degree
murder do not receive early release. This summer the Olson
hearing as well as the 300 murderers with the right to apply for
early release highlight the need for change in this area.
Will the Minister of Justice stop worrying about the protection
of the rights of criminals, do the right thing and repeal section
745, this offensive and potentially dangerous piece of
legislation.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. He may not be aware, because he was not a member
of the House in the last session of Parliament, but my
predecessor as minister of justice made significant reforms to
section 745.
I think we will see that those reforms strike the right balance
between due concern for victims, due concern for the safety of
society and due concern for a criminal justice system that
reflects a balance of values.
1450
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians should know that the modifications made in
January 1997, of which the Liberals are so proud, do not prevent
dangerous criminals like Paul Bernardo from applying for early
release.
Will the minister stop attempting to bury this issue, revisit
her refusal to strike down section 745, to prevent Bernardo and
other killers from putting the families through this public,
tortuous and senseless process of faint hope hearings?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member
that one of the amendments my predecessor made to section 745 was
a device called judicial screening. Certainly Mr. Bernardo and
any others who find themselves in his situation will now have to
go through a process of judicial screening.
It would seem to me that judicial screening will ensure the
safety of the public in relation to killers like Mr. Bernardo.
The Speaker: Forgive me for breaking the question pattern.
There was a supplementary that I missed.
* * *
MINING
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Cardinal River Divide has been virtually untouched since the
last ice age, and the proposed mine 23 kilometres long by 3
kilometres wide will have a profound impact on its ecosystem.
The government's own departments have drawn concern to this.
Will the Minister of the Environment assure Canadians that Parks
Canada, Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans environmental impact assessment concerns are addressed and
a proper management plan initiated?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the panel are being very
carefully reviewed by the federal government in preparing its
response to the proponent.
We are very conscious of the environmental concerns and
environmental impacts in this area. We are doing everything to
make sure those concerns are addressed.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the Speech from the Throne the government indicated that it
would help small and medium size enterprises develop and
commercialize new techniques.
Can the Minister of Industry indicate how the government intends
to go about this?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the first step is to deepen and increase the resources available
for the government's program of industrial research assistance of
the National Research Council, winner of the prestigious Ernest
C. Manning Award and a program which is at the forefront of
helping small business develop and commercialize technology.
In addition we have refocused and broadened the mandate of the
Business Development Bank of Canada. We have increased the
funding available to small business under the Small Business
Loans Act. We continue to see small businesses prospering as
never before in the wake of interest rates at the lowest level in
30 years—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast, one question.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. The minister has revealed that a year ago she set
up an organized crime unit in immigration which, as she has said,
has thousands of names on file, has a well staffed operation and
has good international contacts.
Can the minister tell the House how Lai Tong Sang, the Macao
Triad leader who received landed status in Canada, slipped
through the stranglehold the minister has on organized crime?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that anyone who misrepresents his
identity or his reasons for coming to Canada can be prosecuted by the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
As for the case raised by the opposition member, you are well aware
that, under the Privacy Act, I cannot discuss this case publicly. The
individual in question has not yet been formally charged.
* * *
POLICING OF AIRPORTS
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Since April 16, 1996, the federal government has been
withdrawing from policing airports. The RCMP has been gradually
pulling out everywhere in Canada, except in Quebec. According to
Richard Cacchione, president of ADM, the federal government is
refusing to withdraw from the Montreal airports for political
reasons.
1455
Will the minister confirm in this House that his government is
refusing to withdraw from policing Montreal airports over a flag,
which has nothing to do with efficiency or security?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered this question in full earlier.
Because of the renovations, because of the change and because of
the unique situation of having two international airports at
Montreal, the government feels that the RCMP should stay there
during this period of change.
* * *
HELICOPTERS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
a simple one for the minister of defence.
There is a lot of chatter about helicopters, Mr. Minister,
concerning what is been taking so long to conform to the
contract. I would like an update on when the government is going
to make an announcement about helicopters for the Canadian
people.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. No decision
has been made yet. A very detailed analysis has been made that
teams of officials have been pouring over to make sure that we
get the best value for the Canadian taxpayer. We want to make
sure that we get the kind of helicopter that will best meet the
operational needs of the people who go out and save lives. Over
400 rescues a year are conducted and over 200 people are rescued
in those endeavours. Therefore, we want to make sure that we get
the best helicopters for the best value.
We hope to have that decision—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
PORTS CANADA POLICE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport. Ports Canada police officers
are specialists in their field. They are trained in national and
international crimes such as drug trafficking, illegal
immigration and terrorist activities, as well as gun running.
Security guards and local police forces are not.
Why is the Minister of Transport subjecting our communities to
the possibility of increased crime by disbanding the Ports Canada
police? Does the minister realize that a lack of national
standards for policing our ports will make them much more
inviting to criminal elements?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, for whom I have great
respect, is being very irresponsible to suggest that there will
be an increase in crime.
This is about the devolution of authority to local
organizations, councils and communities. It is a policy that the
former Conservative government talked about quite a bit but never
did anything about it. We put this regime in place.
I can assure the member that the quality of policing will not
suffer and crime will not increase. It is going quite well
across the country, including the Atlantic and the port of
Vancouver.
* * *
JUSTICE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the justice minister. When she was appointed and
gave her first speech to the bar association this summer it was
tough talk all the way. She was going to tighten up victims'
rights, tighten up the Young Offenders Act even more and tighten
up parole reform. There was not one word about any of that stuff
in the throne speech.
What happened to all that tough talk? Who in cabinet vetoed her
for the throne speech?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that
I respond to that question.
The three priorities I outlined in the speech to the Canadian
Bar Association in August were, first, crime control; second,
working with provincial counterparts and victims' rights
organizations to see how we can define an appropriate federal
role in the area of victims' issues; and in relation to the
reform of the Young Offenders Act.
In relation to crime prevention, we are in fact in the process
of developing a new crime prevention strategy with partners as it
relates to victims. We have begun our consultations—
[Translation]
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor.
* * *
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
harmonizing the GST and the QST resulted in considerable costs
estimated at over $2 billion and paid for by the Quebec
government alone.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. When will the
minister treat the Quebec government fairly and pay the $2
billion claimed as compensation for harmonizing the GST and the
QST? This is a legitimate demand that even got the support of the
premiers, when they met in Saint Andrews.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows full well that we offered to compensate the provinces that
lost money.
1500
The fact is that some provinces, including Ontario, Quebec,
British Columbia and Alberta, would not have lost money if
federal and provincial sales taxes had been harmonized. In fact,
Quebec did not lose money.
Let me just quote some figures. In the first year following
harmonization, Quebec experienced a 2.7 percent increase, but no
losses; in the second year, a 20.4 percent increase in sales tax
revenues and no losses; in the third year, an increase of 17—
[English]
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister,
but this will bring to a close our question period.
I would like to invite all hon. members to a reception, which I
will be hosting in their name, for Mr. Atom Egoyan in my chambers
following the question period.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the 1997 report of the privacy commissioner.
[Translation]
This report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
* * *
[English]
PEOPLE'S TAX FORM ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to allow taxpayers to
inform government of their views on levels and priorities for the
expenditure of tax revenues and to provide for a parliamentary
review of the results.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Calgary Southeast for seconding the people's tax form act.
Last week the prime minister defended his government's handouts:
$42,000 for a Latin song book, $100,000 for a military golf
course, and $19,000 for golf balls. When I gave my constituents
the opportunity to fill out the people's tax form they told me in
no uncertain terms that they did not want their tax dollars spent
on official bilingualism, funding for special interests groups,
gun registration, foreign aid, multiculturalism, the National
Film Board, subsidies to businesses and the CBC.
Today I am reintroducing the people's tax form act which will
give all taxpayers the opportunity to tell the government what
they think by voluntarily filling out a form which would be
included with each tax kit distributed by Revenue Canada.
If passed, my bill would require the results to be tabulated and
reviewed by the finance committee as part of its pre-budget
consultations, a report that would be tabled in Parliament. This
would make it much harder for the prime minister to defend
spending which millions of Canadians have expressly indicated
they oppose.
1505
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Section
227).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private
member's bill. I thank by colleague from South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley for seconding the motion to amend the Criminal Code
(section 227).
Section 227 of the Criminal Code now states that no person can
be convicted of a homicide if the death occurs more than a year
and day from the time of the offence. This private member's bill
would allow murder charges to be laid if the assault resulted in
death, no matter how long the victim was able to hang on to life.
I was pleased to hear that the Minister of Justice also planned
some legislation to scrap this section. I urge her to facilitate
this process by supporting my private member's bill. In fact it
addresses the very issue. The work has all been done. I look
forward to unanimous support from the Liberal government to pass
this private member's bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to
Information Act (Crown corporations).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill will make all crown corporations
subject to the Access to Information Act. As it stands now crown
corporations such as Canada Post, the CBC and the Canadian Wheat
Board are exempt from access to information even though they are
subsidized by our tax dollars. One must ask why the CBC and the
wheat board should be exempt from access to information. The
answer is that they should not and that is what the bill
addresses.
During the last Parliament the auditor general published a
scathing report on the operation of crown corporations. The bill
will open crown corporations to the public and make them
accountable.
It is my hope the House will recognize the right of all
Canadians and support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-217, an act to amend the Access to Information Act
(disclosure of results of public opinion polls).
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing this Reform bill
dealing with the rights of Canadians to know what their
government is pulling on them. It is a bill that says Canadians
have the right to know where their hard earned but easily spent
tax dollars are going.
The bill would force the government to disclose the results of
all public opinion polls to the public. Under today's system the
government does not have to do this.
The government only releases the results of public opinion polls
when it wants to. This is a blatant disregard for the rights of
taxpayers. I believe those who pay for the survey must be
allowed to see the results of the survey.
If the Prime Minister wants to keep the results of his public
opinion polls to himself, he should pay for the public opinion
poll himself.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-218, an act to amend the Divorce Act (marriage
counselling required before divorce granted).
1510
He said: Mr. Speaker, this year the Vanier Institute advised
Canadians that the divorce rate in Canada had now reached 50
percent and that 75 percent of common law relationships break
down within the first five years. Sixty per cent of these
relationships involve children. When they break down, 85 percent
of the families are mother led.
As a result of family breakdown we are creating a most dangerous
environment for our children. It is a new fatherless society
that is filling up with children who are so emotionally damaged
by their parents' behaviour they may have difficulty forming
commitments and families.
The bill requires mandatory counselling prior to legal sanction
or granting of a divorce, not to try to reconcile a broken
marriage but rather to serve two purposes. One is to ensure an
appropriate parenting plan is in place for children of a broken
family and to address the serious issue of post-divorce acrimony.
I am proud to introduce the bill. I look forward to debating it
with colleagues in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present the following petition.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
Canadian consumers are deeply affected by the price hikes in
gasoline. Though gasoline is a Canadian natural resource,
Canadians have little control over this important resource.
Therefore they request that Parliament encourage the
establishment of a gas price review commission to keep gasoline
prices and other oil products in check.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by a good number of constituents in the
Wetaskiwin riding who are concerned with the sustainability of
the Canada Pension Plan.
They are also concerned with the tax hike foisted upon them by
the increases in the pension plan and that they will be paying in
more and getting back less.
I present this petition on behalf of my constituents.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody—Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to present seven petitions today on the same
topic.
The petitions contain 100 signatures from Medicine Hat, over 300
from Lethbridge, 132 from Winnipeg—Selkirk, 62 from Regina, and
hundreds more from the St. Catharines area of Ontario.
The petitioners call upon the government and draw attention to
section 43 of the Criminal Code that says every school teacher,
parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified
in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child who
is under their care, if the force does not exceed what is
reasonable under the circumstances.
They request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to
responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs, and to retain section 43 in Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1515
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the
opening of the session, and of the amendment, and of the
amendment to the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Milliken): When the House broke for
question period the hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley had eight minutes remaining in questions and
comments following her speech. Questions and comments. There
being none, we will resume debate.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take the opportunity first of all in
participating in this debate to express my sincere gratitude to
the prime minister for the confidence he has placed in me by
appointing me as the Solicitor General of Canada. I am
particularly honoured and proud to have been given this task.
I also want to express my regrets to those members particularly
from New Brunswick who served in the 35th parliament and were not
re-elected. Their leadership will be sadly missed.
Last week we listened with interest and with optimism to the
Speech from the Throne opening this the 36th session of
Parliament. This occasion was particularly significant to me as
a newly appointed minister. This is a parliament with a unique
and historic opportunity to provide leadership on national issues
to secure the social and economic future of Canadians as we
approach the next millennium.
As solicitor general I am responsible for providing national
leadership on issues relating to federal corrections, policing
and national security. As such I would like today to address
this session of the throne speech dealing with building safer
communities. I want to provide an overview of the direction my
ministry will be pursuing to help protect the safety and security
of Canadians.
Canadians identify their feeling of personal safety and security
as the one overriding element that contributes to their
definition of being Canadian. The notion of living in safe
communities is a hallmark of the Canadian identity. We know that
crime creates fear not just for our personal safety but also for
the safety of our families and our communities. It undermines
the very quality of life in our neighbourhoods.
Canada is a comparatively safe society with a crime rate that
has dropped steadily over the last four years. Yet there are
many indications that Canadians do not feel safe and that is a
reality to which governments must respond.
Canadians are entitled to know and feel that their communities
are as safe, as peaceful and as secure as we can make them. Since
the government's first election to office in 1993, we have made
public safety a priority for action. We have made solid gains.
Carrying through on our red book promises over the past four
years resulted in an intensive focus on criminal law issues to
improve public safety. In particular, Canadians told us loud and
clear that they wanted the government to get tough on violent
high risk offenders. Here are just some of the measures that we
took to improve public safety in that way.
We strengthened the dangerous offender provisions in the
Criminal Code, created a new long term offender designation and
passed measures to make it easier to detain until the end of
sentence sex offenders who victimize children. We devised a
national flagging system to help crown attorneys identify high
risk offenders.
We established a national volunteer screening system to help
organizations screen out child sexual abusers who apply to work
with children. We passed tougher laws on stalking and made peace
bonds more effective in keeping abusers away from women and
children. We passed laws allowing police gathering and use of
DNA evidence. Just last week we introduced a bill to create a
DNA data bank.
The overarching theme of our safe communities agenda in the
second red book is that building safer communities requires a
multidimensional balanced approach.
This government recognizes the importance of dealing firmly with
those offenders who threaten public safety. Some offenders must
be imprisoned and in some cases for lengthy periods of time. This
is not debatable in order to protect the public. However, there
are others who can be dealt with more effectively and safely
without lengthy terms in prison.
Almost all offenders will ultimately return to the community one
day. Our best long term protection results from their return to
a law-abiding lifestyle in the community. Where this can best be
achieved through community supervision, with adequate programs in
residential communities this should be our approach. This
approach does not mean being soft on crime nor letting criminals
go free. It means making these offenders responsible and
accountable for their crimes through other means.
1520
The Speech from the Throne speaks to the issue of alternatives.
The federal and provincial governments are committed to
developing alternatives to incarceration for non-violent
offenders who can safely and effectively be managed in the
community.
Let me say also a few words about public attitudes on criminal
justice issues as they relate to this subject. A recent Angus
Reid survey demonstrated the remarkably strong consensus that
exists among Canadians on the need for a balanced and
comprehensive approach. According to that survey Canadians
believe that the protection of the public and the rehabilitation
of offenders are of higher priority than punishment as goals of
incarceration.
The results of the Angus Reid survey suggest how we may further
reform Canada's criminal justice system but they also speak to
the need to involve citizens in the communities in the
development of safe and effective solutions. This is nowhere
more important than in our work to address the needs of
aboriginal offenders who continue to be overrepresented in our
correctional system.
While dealing more appropriately with high and low risk
offenders will remain a priority, it is imperative that we also
work to prevent crime in the first instance. As stated in the
Speech from the Throne, the government will increase funding for
community based crime prevention initiatives to $30 million a
year. In our safe communities agenda we focus on crime
prevention at the community level which is essentially a process
of community building with local involvement over a wide range of
issues.
There is a wide consensus that successful crime prevention must
take a comprehensive approach to tackling the root problems that
lead to crime, and that these efforts must start at the earliest
stages of a child's life. Our efforts must bring together the
expertise of those responsible for housing, social services,
public health, recreation, schools and policing. Our efforts
should include the contributions of the ordinary citizens who
live and work in the very communities we seek to serve and
protect.
In 1994 the National Crime Prevention Council was established as
part of the national strategy on community safety and crime
prevention. Together with the council and the Department of
Justice, my department is targeting prevention programs where
they are needed and will have the greatest impact.
These include aboriginal communities. In the coming months we
plan to work more closely with aboriginal communities to develop
crime prevention initiatives. This speaks directly to the red
book commitment concerning the reduction of crime in aboriginal
communities by assisting these communities in the development of
community driven activities.
Another focus of our crime prevention activities involves young
people. Issues related to youth crime including the
victimization of young people, the most vulnerable members of our
society, will continue as a priority in my ministry. We look
forward to helping to renew and develop new partnerships between
communities, the police, the voluntary sector and all levels of
government.
Another area where partnership and co-operation are vitally
important and one that is also aimed at improving the safety of
our communities is that of information sharing among federal and
provincial criminal justice agencies. Corrections staff and the
National Parole Board need police and court information to make
good decisions on handling offenders. In turn the police need
corrections information to deal with released offenders. Here
again gains have been made in recent years to bring about
improvements.
I spoke earlier of the need for the government to provide
leadership in policing. We have made a concerted effort over the
last four years to consult with police to determine what tools we
can develop to help them fight crime.
To this end just a few days ago I introduced legislation to
create Canada's first national DNA data bank. The data bank to
be established and maintained by the RCMP will be a powerful
investigative tool to help protect Canadians from violent and
repeat criminals. With this legislation Canada will become one
of only a handful of countries to have a DNA data bank.
Another area where police have said they need more and sharper
tools is in the fight against organized crime. Organized
criminal activities are clearly a matter of growing concern for
the police, the general public and the government. The recent
bikers war in Quebec underscores that organized crime is not
something intangible, something that happens in dark alleys
hidden from view, but can and does have a direct impact on our
neighbourhoods.
The international trafficking in illicit drugs with associated
money laundering continues to be the highest threat of all.
Recognizing that organized crime knows no jurisdictional
boundaries, our efforts to fight it are and will continue to be
domestic, continental and international in scope. Nationally
there is a strong and growing commitment among police and law
enforcement agencies in all jurisdictions to work with my
ministry and the Department of Justice to build stronger
partnerships to combat organized crime.
1525
This fall I will be making in the House of Commons the first
annual statement on organized crime to report on the
implementation of the anti-gang legislation, Bill C-95, and our
efforts to improve co-ordinated enforcement. Also in this regard
I will be meeting tomorrow with Janet Reno, the American attorney
general, to review progress and identify the next steps in our
co-operative Canada-U.S. efforts to fight cross-border crime.
Citizen participation in determining solutions is no longer an
option. As far as we are concerned it is an obligation. We in
government must not forget our obligation to keep Canadians
informed of developments in the criminal justice system. We need
to share information about issues of importance to Canadians in
order that we can have fruitful and informed discussions on those
very issues.
I would also like to speak briefly as a minister from the
province of New Brunswick. The throne speech was clear in stating
that in order to secure a strong Canada for the 21st century,
governments will need to work more closely with others in
partnership. We will have to welcome new ideas that are citizen
based, pursue more aggressively the strategic alliances available
to us and consider collaboration an essential ingredient for our
national and regional success. These are important messages.
Co-operation, collaboration, sharing ideas and talents and
collective problem solving are the essence of our ever evolving
democracy. It is about achieving together what we could not
possibly do alone.
The issues are very complex and very numerous today and easy
solutions are elusive, so elusive in fact that any chance for
successful solutions usually requires collective thinking and
action. Governments at all levels are becoming more mindful of
this new imperative in the conduct of their business. As a result
citizens can expect better decisions and more informed policy
making from their leaders. This is important too in deciding what
the state itself can do best and what the state should concede to
the community as a better place for certain things to get done.
For example Canada's old age security and medicare benefits are
regulated and funded by the national government and rightly so.
The enviable success of these programs would not have been
achieved without the resources and overarching presence of the
federal authority. Regulating and distributing the country's
wealth to achieve equitability among the provinces is a proper
role for the federal government. However there have been other
initiatives emanating from the nation's capital which have been
more effectively implemented regionally or even better at the
community level if that option were considered.
I earlier indicated my commitment to involve communities in the
issue of crime prevention. Fixing crime in the different
communities in our country will come only with the direct and
meaningful involvement of those placed in and knowledgeable about
the particular communities in which they reside.
The role of the national government in such cases should not be
to prescribe solutions; rather government's role is to encourage
and help facilitate a process of problem solving at the community
level from the ground up. This approach to governing is not
indicated only for crime prevention. Communities it turns out
are the best places to address a range of problems from poverty
and unemployment to human resources development.
Thanks to the foresight of the four Atlantic premiers an
Atlantic vision conference is being organized next month in
Moncton. The conference is planned as an important step in a
process of sharing and discovery aimed at economic recovery in
Atlantic Canada.
The federal government will participate in the proceedings. In
fact I will attend the conference from start to finish. Other
federal ministers will also attend. The deliberations will be
conducted in a true spirit of partnership, federally,
provincially and interprovincially. This is as it should be and
the better will be the chances of success for the conference and
for our region.
We know that economic growth solutions in Atlantic Canada will
be found in Atlantic Canada if each of the four provinces seeks
solutions on their own for a stronger economy. The Atlantic
vision conference will feature sharing, collaboration and
consensus building. It aims for the crystallization of federal,
provincial and industry participation in the region's future
development.
1530
While we recognize there is a great deal to be done, it is the
beginning of a voyage toward economic recovery.
The Atlantic premiers deserve our commendation for their vision
in undertaking this project. The leadership in Atlantic Canada
recognizes it is a part of a larger community which is Canada.
The challenge is to find ways for all Atlantic Canadians to both
contribute to and share in our national bounty. The Atlantic
vision conference plays quite largely in making this possible.
This will be a collaborative exercise, one which I understand
very well. In my own constituency I have made it a practice to
hold regular, broadly based, very visible community forums. I
held a forum on aboriginal justice issues during the third week
of August in Fredericton. Other consultations I have engaged in
in the short time I have been solicitor general include meetings
with IACOLE, the Canadian criminal justice system, the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police, the aboriginal police chiefs and
the national reference group which we established with some 40
organizations. We spent a day together here in Ottawa discussing
the issues of importance to that community. I also visited the
RCMP depot in Regina to discuss policing issues with members of
the RCMP.
We approach the new millennium with great optimism, but we also
recognize that difficult decisions will have to be made. I
firmly believe that we are on track, that we are making progress
and that we are well equipped to handle both the challenges and
the opportunities which lie ahead.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I had the opportunity to ask a parliamentary secretary
a question about section 745. In her response she indicated she
felt the legislation which the government had brought forward
achieved a fair balance. I can tell the minister, man to man,
that it does not.
I have had people visit my office who have been fearful for
their lives. They are fearful because of a murder which occurred
15 years ago. The murder was so bad that the presiding judge
said there would be no opportunity for parole for a minimum of 25
years. That was a condition of the sentence. My constituents
have now been put in the position of being fearful for their
lives.
I say this from the bottom of my heart. I have never been in
the presence of people who have been so petrified, so scared for
their lives. This was a case of first degree murder. The judge
said it was such a heinous crime that the individual would not be
permitted parole for 25 years. These people are being put
through a meat grinder.
I would like the solicitor general to answer my constituents.
How is it that this government can be so unfeeling and so callous
toward the victims, the family members of the victims and the
family members of the murderer himself? Why do they have to go
through this?
Second, today when a judge sentences a first degree murderer and
says this crime is so heinous that this individual may not have
the opportunity for parole for 25 years, what do those words
mean? They mean nothing. Under existing legislation he will be
able to apply for parole in 15 years, notwithstanding the
sentencing recommendations of the judge.
Can the solicitor general please explain to my constituents,
indeed to all Canadians, why the government insists on giving
this open door policy to first degree murderers at the expense of
the people who are the victims in these cases?
1535
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
reassure the member of my own strong feelings about these issues
as well. Surely all members of the House would recognize that
each of us deals with people in the circumstances that the member
has referred to in our activities as members of Parliament and
each of us is moved by those stories. I am certain the member
recognizes that of all of us.
In terms of the government's reaction to the circumstances that
we found when we took office in 1993, actions were taken. They
have been repeated often and I will repeat them again.
The reality is the likelihood of a person's being able to
exercise what has become known as the faint hope clause in the
Criminal Code has been limited by the fact that now there is a
screening process where a judge would have to determine the
likelihood of success. Originally in the legislation eight out
of twelve members of the jury had to make that determination.
Now it has to be unanimous. Those are just two things.
The bottom line is that the likelihood of that option being
exercised, the likelihood of people having access to liberty, as
I think the reference was by the member to an open door policy,
is not really reflective of the likelihood of that happening. It
is really more likely to be an extremely faint hope. That is the
position of the government to this point. It is one that I
believe does strike the balance that the Minister of Justice
refers to.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the solicitor general for
attaining one of the highest positions that any lawyer in this
country can attain.
My question is a furtherance of a question brought forward by
the hon. member from Saint John. It refers to the devolution of
powers of ports police to municipal police officers and
potentially RCMP officers. This has happened most recently in
Vancouver. There are plans to do the same in the port of Saint
John as well as the port of Halifax.
How does this sit in terms of its consistency with the
government's position in terms of firearms. Trying to keep
illegal firearms out of this country is going to be a huge
problem when we have municipal police officers trying to do the
specialized job of policing ports.
How does the policy that the government is putting forward in
terms of firearms sit with its decision to devolve this
specialized task presently performed by ports police?
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
intervention. It is our first opportunity to engage in this
place, and I suspect it will be the first of many. That is a
healthy thing among maritimers, I am sure.
I should also correct the reference in his question to the fact
that it is the highest office perhaps that a lawyer can hold. It
is also the highest office a sociologist can hold, I think, since
I am not a lawyer.
I would like to speak specifically to the question of port
police. I have had occasion to meet with the authority in Saint
John. We have discussed this issue on a number of fronts, having
to do with questions of security and also questions of job
security and so on. I know members opposite are concerned about
that. I have begun an initiative to see what might be done in
that regard.
We have to remind everyone that there remains an overarching
criminal responsibility with the RCMP that is collaborative with
whomever, local police authorities in our ports. The good work
of the former mayor of Saint John to bring the municipal police
force to the level it is will lend itself to a wonderful port
authority and police authority in that city.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we just
mentioned the devolution of powers from the RCMP to local police forces.
In the province of Quebec, we know that, for some time now, the
Sûreté du Québec has been taking on a lot of responsibilities throughout
the Quebec territory.
1540
Earlier, during question period, when the transport minister was
asked if the RCMP would remain in Mirabel and Dorval, he said that there
would be no devolution of powers to Quebec police forces in that area.
But that is just for the time being.
Has the solicitor general heard of a timetable for the transfer of
police duties from the RCMP to the Sûreté du Québec or other appropriate
police forces in Quebec? Could he tell us what we can expect in the
future?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, the presence of the RCMP at
Mirabel and Dorval reflects changes that are going on with regard
to those two airports that cannot be duplicated anywhere else in
the country.
As far as the timetable is concerned, it really falls within the
responsibilities of the Minister of Transport in terms of his
responsibility to provide the security of those airports. The
RCMP, in this case, is simply meeting the needs as they are
identified by him. As to how long we will be doing that, I say
quite honestly that will be really up to the Ministry of
Transport to make that determination. The RCMP is simply there
meeting that need as requested.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for Scarborough East.
This government has delivered on its key 1993 election promise
to restore fiscal responsibility to the nation after the record
$42 billion annual deficit we inherited from the predecessor
Conservative government.
As the Speech from the Throne has noted, we are now well ahead
of our own optimistic 1993 projections to balance the budget by
the year 2000. We expect to achieve this budgetary goal no later
than the fiscal year 1998-99.
We are putting the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward
track and we have undertaken to devote one-half of the
anticipated annual surplus to a combination of reducing taxes for
Canadian citizens and amortizing the vast accumulated national
debt left behind by the predecessor Conservative government.
The other half of the anticipated annual surplus will be
addressed to the social and economic needs of Canadians. In
striving over the period 1993-97 to get rid of those huge annual
budgetary deficits that had become standard practice, we insisted
on maintaining the integrity of our famed Canadian social
security network and our pensions and free national medicare
systems. We will continue these policies.
Members will note from the Speech from the Throne that the
government has understood, better I think than governments in
other countries, that the approaching 21st century will be a
knowledge century dominated by those who have mastered the new
sciences and technologies and who have comprehended the
infomatics revolution.
In our last budgets we invested heavily in education capital
from the $167 million for the TRIUMPH advanced physics research
project at the University of British Columbia, with its direct
spin-off to major industrial export contracts abroad, to the
foundation for innovation with $800 million for modernizing
advanced research infrastructures in health and medicine,
environment, science and engineering, and the $50 million a year
for creating networks for centres of excellence.
Canada leads today in the aerospace industry,
biopharmaceuticals, biotechnology in agriculture and fisheries
and environmental information and telecommunications
technologies.
Where our last budget offered $137 million in post-secondary
education support for 1997 and substantially increased
scholarship and tax credits for post-secondary students and their
families, the Speech from the Throne commits to a new millennium
scholarship endowment fund intended to reward academic excellence
and to open access to universities and colleges for the well
qualified children from low and moderate income families
throughout Canada.
In recognizing the key to national economic prosperity and
access to meaningful long term employment for our young people
lies in community investment in higher education and in advanced
research, the government has learnt the main lesson from the
ending of the cold war that dominated world community relations
for half a century after World War II.
1545
The old political military base of world public order where
effective power was determined by the number of intercontinental
ballistic missiles that one had in one's arsenal is completely
out of date. Of what value are those remaining ICBMs in their
silos and an aging nuclear powered submarine navy if one's
economic house is not in order?
The new base of world public order in relations between states
is economic-industrial. The use or the threat of the use of
force as a solver of international problems has increasingly
yielded to peaceful modes of dispute settlement that rely heavily
on friendly co-operation and reciprocity and mutual advantage.
In the Speech from the Throne there is a renewed commitment to
an activist, independent, internationalist role for Canada in the
world community in the tradition of our one time Prime Minister
and Nobel peace laureate Lester Pearson whose centenary we
celebrate this year. In this spirit we are co-operating with
like-minded countries in revitalizing and modernizing and also
democratizing the United Nations by seeking to expand the
membership of the security council on a more broadly
representative and legally egalitarian basis without any
extension of those special privileges that were conferred on the
five permanent members at the time of the UN's founding in 1945
and which seem increasingly out of date.
In addition to continuing our longstanding historical commitment
to the protection of the international environment and to the
conservation of the earth's diminishing natural resources, as
part of, in the United Nation's own phrase, the common heritage
of humankind, we have led in the achievement of a new
international treaty signed by 90 countries recently in Oslo
banning anti-personnel mines which have so cruelly killed or
maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent non-combatant men, women
and children around the world in the bloody civil wars of our
times.
Rather than pursuing some far off larger international consensus
that might have included also holdout superpowers at the price
however of open-ended exemptions or delays or special
geographical regional exceptions, our foreign minister has
preferred to move now on behalf of a clear and unequivocal treaty
text that really does have some teeth in it.
At the formal signing ceremony in Ottawa this December, we do
expect other countries beyond the 90 who have already rallied to
the cause to join and to help perhaps to educate by their own
positive example the numerically small but still important and
also politically disparate groups of holdout states.
We will continue our efforts on two oceans, the Atlantic and the
Pacific, to ensure respect and full compliance with existing
international law obligations, both multilateral and also special
bilateral as to the protection of endangered fish resources and
their equitable sharing under law.
We will maintain the position that we have advanced in the
international battle against the Helms-Burton law that a state in
the application of its own national laws is limited as to any
purported extraterritorial reach by the legal principles of
international comity and the duty at the same time to respect the
legal sovereignty of other states.
We are continuing our efforts to establish an international
criminal court which as a court of universal and general
jurisdiction would replace limited geographical sectoral bodies
like the recent ad hoc jurisdictions as the former Yugoslavia and
also Rwanda. It might necessarily extend also to cover United
Nations peacekeeping forces and other regional or state forces
operating under UN legal authority or under the UN aegis
generally.
The end of the 20th century as an era of historical transition
has seen a remarkable convergence of two contradictory historical
forces: the movement toward supranationalism and political and
sometimes economic integration on a regional or at least
transnational basis and the revival of local nationalism and
ethnocultural particularism sometimes on a pathological basis
that finds its outlet in internecine conflict within the one
state.
Our renewed commitment in Canada to a strong internationalist
foreign policy indicates our own Canadian, more optimistic view
of the coming century and of the ability to achieve a genuinely
one world outlook in a plural world community through the United
Nations and related international institutions of the world
community.
1550
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am indeed honoured to rise in the House today, the House that
John George Diefenbaker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Tommy Douglas
have spoken in. It is for me a great honour as the son of a
market gardener to speak in this House in this country.
I represent the riding of Scarborough East which is bounded on
the east by the largest urban wilderness park in Canada, the
Rouge River Park, and on the south by the Scarborough bluffs
which rise from the shores of Lake Ontario.
I have lived all my life in the riding. The riding was at one
time a rural area of sleepy villages and was largely
agricultural. Since that time Toronto has grown out over top of
the riding. Had you said to my father or anyone else at the time
that buses would be running up and down in front of his front
door, he would have questioned your sanity.
It is a riding of about 100,000 people, 40 per cent of whom describe
their mother tongue as something other than an official language.
As a consequence in our constituency office we serve our people
in at least eight languages.
The purpose of my speech is to talk about the role of a
parliamentarian in this parliament which takes us into the
millennium. It is a wonderful opportunity on the part of any
parliamentarian to be able to participate in the process. During
the time leading up to the writing of the Speech from the Throne,
the prime minister invited members of our caucus to make
submissions to him, both written and oral, concerning the
contents of the Speech from the Throne. I was very pleased to
see that the prime minister picked up on certain themes and ideas
and wrote those into the Speech from the Throne. I would like to
thank the prime minister for his willingness to listen to us as
members of his caucus.
In particular the prime minister embraced the idea that this
parliament and the government will be taking this nation into the
21st century. It is a monumental opportunity to foster a sense
of nationhood, a sense of growth in our country and a sense of
where we as Canadians can come together. We cannot simply expect
that this will happen. Nationhood needs to be nurtured much like
children need to be nurtured.
We as members of the 36th Parliament will be given a privilege
never afforded to any of our predecessors. We will take Canada
into the new century and the new millennium. We can make it a
noble time to build our nation or we can make it a destructive
time.
Our citizens watch us daily and frequently they do not like what
they see. For instance, the 26th Parliament engaged in an
intense debate about the national flag and the result of that
debate graces this Chamber today.
[Translation]
The 27th Parliament introduced full health insurance to
Canada. It was hotly debated, but its defenders, Prime Minister
Pearson, Minister Martin and MP Douglas, won out. As a result,
Canada now has one of the best health systems in the world. This
is one of the things which define our country and a source of
general pride. It is an affirmation of Canadian values.
[English]
That parliament and that government also set this nation on a
course to celebrate in a manner never seen before. Canada was
strong. It was proud and it was united. I remember travelling
with my family from what was then a relatively provincial Toronto
to the sophisticated city of Montreal to see that great city for
the first time and to wonder at Man and his World exposition and
to ride on the metro. Every community in Canada celebrated its
centennial in one manner or another. My own community raised a
hospital and today it still serves our community well.
1555
Those parliaments did great things. Likewise this parliament
can also do great things as we distance ourselves from the
financial doom and gloom of the past number of years.
I was delighted to see that a member of the 26th Parliament,
namely our prime minister, has asked a member of the 25th
Parliament, namely the deputy prime minister to initiate the
organizational process required to appropriately mark our entry
into the millennium.
[Translation]
The government will help strike partnerships between
governments, communities and people in celebration of the new
millennium. Many Canadians have original ideas and suggestions for
millennium projects. Parliamentarians of all parties will be given
the opportunity to suggest activities to mark the millennium.
[English]
He has invited members of Parliament to mark the millennium in
ways that will celebrate our great nation. We will be able to go
into our communities and ask our citizens for their input. It is
a wonderful opportunity for the House to make submissions to the
government.
It has always been a source of disappointment to me that so few
Canadians seem to appreciate or are aware of their history. I
had a number of rather salutary experiences this summer which
made me aware of that.
I attended Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in the valley of the forts
and I was instructed about the history of that area. I as an
speaking Canadian was not aware of the significance of the role
played by the valley of the forts in the preservation of our
nation. There was basically guerrilla theatre between the
Mohawks, the English, the Americans and the French.
I had occasion to attend a University of Ottawa conference on
the constitution. What struck me forcefully was a presentation
by aboriginal peoples and the dates of points of significance to
those people of which I was not aware.
I was interviewing a candidate in my office, a Tamil woman. I
asked her how and why she came to Canada. Little did I know that
her answer would touch us both in such a profound way. She was
married in a traditional Muslim ceremony and her husband
thereafter immediately left for Canada. Her next communication
was from her husband's family to indicate that he had died. She
came to Canada for his funeral. She then was able to stay in
Canada and by one means or another gain her citizenship. She
returned home and her passport was lost. A Tamil woman in Sri
Lanka is a vulnerable person. When the Canadian embassy was able
to intervene and secure her, she at that point felt like she was
a Canadian. She spoke with such tremendous conviction that I was
absolutely astounded.
It brings me to the point that we do not speak to each other. We
speak past each other, we speak around each other, but we do not
speak to each other. I would offer to the Deputy Prime Minister
the suggestion that we use means, both electronic and written to
start the process of communicating to each other, that our
history be recognized that there are at least four groups,
aboriginal people, French people, English people and immigrant
people who experience Canada in their own way. I ask that the
Deputy Prime Minister explore ways in which that can be done.
I would suggest that we need to assemble stories and pictures
from across our land so that we will be able to communicate to
each other what is historically and personally important to us so
that we can make our communities even stronger. I would suggest
that is a fitting way to mark our millennium.
As well, Canada needs to develop its symbols of nationhood. I
believe that one way to celebrate our millennium would be for our
government to strike a millennium medal. That medal would be set
out so that individuals in our country who have contributed to
our nationhood would be recognized by the government and by
Parliament. Similarly, a millennial stamp could be issued which
again would mark the build-up of our nationhood.
1600
Those Parliaments were great and those parliamentarians were
great because they encouraged their citizens to do great things.
I am hopeful that this Parliament will similarly encourage its
citizens to do great things.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I may,
I will start with a reply to each of the hon. members who have
shared their time.
The first speaker referred to the deficit left behind by the
Conservatives, which the government succeeded in cutting by
$42 billion. I would remind the hon. member that the Conservative
reign was preceded by 21 years of Mr. Trudeau in this House, which
makes the Liberal government primarily responsible for the debt.
The government is right to be concerned about the deficit.
The Bloc Quebecois will do everything in its power to help the
government reduce its deficit.
As we have been saying since our arrival in this House in
1993, we do not want to reduce the government's deficit by cutting
assistance to the least well-off and hardest-hit members of our
society, including the unemployed. It is, of course, easy to
reduce the deficit by $42 billion when the government does so, as
I have said, by cutting benefits to the most disadvantaged and to
the unemployed, and by such actions as helping itself to $5 billion
from the employment insurance fund.
The present government is increasingly concerned with other
people's business, and less and less with its own. And how did it
manage to reduce the deficit by $42 billion? By pulling out of
regional economic development, as I will explain. We know that the
present government has pulled out of wharf operations.
The federal government has pulled out of the wharves belonging to
Transport Canada, Harbours and Ports Canada, Fisheries and Oceans,
and Parks Canada. Why? To privatize its infrastructures and
transfer them to provincial or regional authorities so as to avoid
running a deficit.
Similarly, as part of its policy to hand over the operation of
airports, the government is withdrawing from regional airport
development. Charlevoix has struggled to maintain the Charlevoix
airport, but the government refuses to refurbish this airport,
which has been neglected for a number of years. No money has been
spent on it, and today they want to transfer it to Charlevoix.
The federal government boasts of reducing the deficit by $42
billion, but it did so by cutting employment insurance, by closing
regional offices and especially by cutting transfer payments to the
provinces. This forces provinces like Quebec to make financial
adjustments by cutting in the sectors of health, education and
social assistance.
I would like to ask a question in closing. Do members agree
that we can reduce the deficit without cutting aid to the most
disadvantaged and that we should continue to eliminate waste?
Allow me to cite only two examples, since I have only five minutes.
I could list several hours worth of examples of government waste,
but I will mention only two: promoting Canadian unity and promoting
the Canadian flag, which has been recognized for over 100 years.
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I think I saw that movie last
week. It was not very good. I am seeing the movie again this
week. It has not improved. I expect that I will see the movie
again next week. The hon. member needs to know that as we enter
into the millennium we can do it together.
1605
We have been celebrating as a nation Canada's hockey victory
over the Soviets 25 years ago. I would ask the member to think
of a subsequent Canada-Russian series in which there was an
absolutely sublime pass from the boy from Brantford to Super
Mario and Super Mario deked the goalie and tucked it in upstairs.
To me that is a metaphor for what we are as a nation, what we
have been as a nation and what we can be as a nation.
I am sincerely hopeful that Quebec will be part of this nation.
But the year 2000 will come and we will do it together in a
stronger fashion.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I must make a comment regarding the order of
speakers today. We are going to change this order immediately because
members taking part in the debate must be in the House and must rise
when the Speaker announces resumption of debate. There were some who
were not here and I would like to change the order so as to enable them
to take part.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my
colleague, the member for Charlesbourg.
I want congratulate you on your appointment as an officer of the
House. I assure you of my complete co-operation in the proceedings of
this parliamentary institution, in which I intend to behave with dignity
and respect. And might I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues to
use your experience and your authority to make this House a place in
which the debate will be as vigorous as it is courteous, but also a
forum that the public will hold in esteem rather than contempt.
I would also like to take the opportunity of my maiden speech to
pay tribute to the citizens of Beauharnois—Salaberry.
This riding in the southwest corner of Quebec is graced by a majestic
river, a seaway, vast lakes and fertile banks, and is proud home to the
county town of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield and the cities and
municipalities of Beauharnois, Huntingdon and Napierville.
Those who put their trust in me and voted for me last June I thank
from the bottom of my heart. I give my word to those who elected me,
and to all those I represent here in Parliament, that I will carry out
my public duties with deep and sincere respect for my new office.
I take this opportunity to pay my respects to my Bloc Quebecois
predecessor, Laurent Lavigne, to whom I wish a well deserved rest before
another referendum on Quebec's political future is called and he is
again called upon to help build a country, a plan that he must not have
lost sight of in his retreat in Saint-Stanislas-de-Kostka.
The Speech from the Throne was disappointing. As I listened to it
in the Senate, last Tuesday, I could not help but be disappointed by a
government program with so little vision, by a speech lacking
consistency, apparently designed to lead us into the next century. It is
a collection of empty words, cautious commitments and artful dodges.
My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois has already brought to
light the weaknesses in this speech and they will continue to do
so all week long. The proposed initiatives to promote Canada's
economic, social and cultural development are far from innovative
and unlikely to give hope and create the momentum required to get
the men, women and children of this country excited about the
21th century.
1610
The same goes for foreign affairs. Considering that our country
paid tribute to the memory of Lester B. Pearson by mentioning the 100th
anniversary of his birthday in the September 23 speech, the throne
speech definitely did not put enough emphasis on foreign affairs.
The current foreign affairs minister, who may succeed Lester B.
Pearson as a Nobel peace prize recipient, did not manage to convince his
government to give foreign affairs the importance they deserve in its
agenda. Merely listing a few measures will not provide a vision to our
foreign policy.
Canada's initiatives to ban antipersonnel land mines, promote human
rights and protect the environment are definitely good measures and will
get the Bloc Quebecois' support when, as in the previous Parliament, we
feel they are compatible with Quebec's interests and those of the
international community as a whole.
However, the Bloc Quebecois will not hesitate to condemn the
positions of a government that constantly reduces its official
development assistance, or whose approach is inconsistent as
regards the linkage of human rights and international trade.
The Bloc Quebecois will also condemn the fact that Canada is slow
to ratify a treaty as important as the American convention on human
rights and seems too reserved regarding the inclusion of cultural
exemptions in international trade agreements.
You can also count on me, as the new Bloc Quebecois critic on
foreign affairs, to expose a government that puts its foreign policy at
the service of national unity. I will display unprecedented vigilance in
this regard, and I will not miss any opportunity to respond to those who
seek to jeopardize Quebec's autonomy at the international level, to take
away the voice Quebec has gained, after an endless struggle, with
various states and international institutions.
Those who would try to keep the Bloc Quebecois and its
spokespersons from speaking to foreign officials in Ottawa and around
the world about the political project of the Quebec government, a
project shared by both the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois, will
not succeed in preventing us from doing so.
You are probably not surprised to hear me say that the throne
speech has very little to inspire those who seek to put an end to
the constitutional deadlock. I respect those who promote Canadian
unity, who find some degree of comfort in the Calgary declaration
and who believe in its potential to produce a reform satisfactory
to Quebecers.
Like the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, in my opinion
the Calgary declaration does not contain the elements which would
allow Quebecers to live with a Canadian federalism based on the
equality of provinces and individuals rather than on the
recognition and freedom of peoples.
I have less respect, however, for those who support Plan B,
those who are anticipating the failure of Plan A. To the
ministers and members of this House who wish to insure unity
through basically undemocratic pronouncements and measures and
who are setting us all on a collision course, my response is that
the people of Quebec is sovereign and will, when the time is
ripe, reject any plan intended to restrict its freedom to be
master of its own destiny.
[English]
It is now time to acknowledge the diverging views of the peoples
of Quebec and Canada on the nature and structure of the
federation. It is time to reconcile Canada and Quebec in a new
kind of partnership, a novel form of union between genuine
sovereign states.
Why not consider calling it a Canadian union, just like René
Lévesque did in 1967, an entity that could foster the possibility
of going beyond the unsuitable and inappropriate federal
structure that has bound the peoples of Canada and Quebec for the
past 130 years. The challenges of Quebeckers and Canadians will
then be nation building, affirming the unique personalities of
their two countries, and union building that is defining their
common destiny within a novel body politic.
1615
These new challenges will replace the old divisions, allowing
both Canada and Quebec to understand and appreciate each other.
This avenue might be chosen with great reluctance, but I cite the
words of a poet, Robert Frost:
My answer, my answer to my Canadian friends, lies in a poem of
Gilles Vigneault who in his Balises wrote, and so I
conclude in French:
[Translation]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am greatly interested in my colleague's words.
Could the hon. member tell me if we must cut ties with the
monarchy to renew Canada?
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, for us Quebecers, for those who
share the idea that Quebec ought to become a sovereign country, it
is the people who will be sovereign. The people will determine the
head of State. Discussions will be held on who this should be.
What I can tell you is that there are many sovereignists who
wish to see Quebec remain in the Commonwealth, like other nations
which have remained in the Commonwealth but do not necessarily have
the Queen as their head of State. Quebec's anglophones will no
doubt do a fine job of representing a sovereign Quebec within the
Commonwealth's institutions, and we will be proud to have them
representing all Quebecers there.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member
that his brilliant reputation as student and teacher has followed
him here.
He quoted a poem by Robert Frost. I can quote another poem
called The Road Not Taken. The poet indicated of the two options that life
always offers. Dare I hope that, during his parliamentary career
here, the member may consider the other path, that of renewed federalism,
adapted to the needs of the modern world?
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary
secretary and I hope my behaviour in this House may be as dignified
as his own.
As you know, Quebecers have long debated the two roads, and
continue to do so. With the Bélanger-Campeau commission, they once
again agreed to debate renewed federalism. Since 1990, this road
of renewed federalism has seemed to be a dead end.
When we hear, as we did again this weekend, major political
personages from the rest of Canada saying that the Calgary
declaration is unacceptable to the rest of Canada, the implication
is that, yet again, the road of renewed federalism is a dead end.
1620
In this context, the road to sovereignty and partnership is
the most credible alternative. It the most valid one for Quebecers
and the one that will make Quebec a country that is open to the
realities of the world and a player in the international community,
desirous, to a large extent, of maintaining the economic and
monetary union that the people and sovereign states of Europe, for
example, have maintained while retaining their sovereignty.
To quote an internationalist you know very well, Emmerich De
Vattel:
[English]
“Of all the rights that can belong to a nation sovereignty is
doubtless the most precious”.
[Translation]
If sovereignty is precious to Canada, admit it—it is
important to—so it is for Quebec.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, does the
hon. member of the Bloc understand that when the country was
founded the aboriginal people were here and that when the
francophone people arrived the aboriginal people said to them
“come on to the land and we will continue to build Canada?”
Then the anglophone people arrived and the francophone people and
the aboriginal people shook hands and said “come, we will build
Canada”.
We are all the same. We are all one and we form Canada. I say
to you, sir, that we have to realize that. I ask you and your
party to look at that. We formed Canada, we built it, and I am
asking you to be part of it.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I must remind all hon.
members that it is necessary to address the Chair in questions or
comments.
[Translation]
If the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry wishes to say
something, he has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
of the hon. member. I appreciate her concern and her will to
make Quebec part of Canada. However there are differences. There
are things that have not functioned well. There are solutions
other than federalism to bind the futures of people together.
I believe we have exhausted constitutional remedies in Quebec.
There will be evidence shortly that the Calgary declaration shows
once again that the views of other Canadians and Quebeckers are
irreconcilable. We will see once again that those constitutional
remedies have been exhausted. Then we will have to find a
solution. We will have to find a solution to bind the future of
people living on the same land together.
For me and for many Quebeckers of all generations that solution
is sovereignty accompanied by an offer of partnership which will
be made and will continue to be made in good faith by Quebeckers
like myself.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
some emotion, and understandably so, that I address this House for the
very first time. After ten years of militant action in favour of
sovereignty, I finally have a chance to pursue my action as an elected
representative.
First of all, I would like to thank the voters in the great and
beautiful riding of Charlesbourg who have chosen me to represent them.
I was born and raised in Charlesbourg and I still live there. It is a
privilege for me to work for the people of Charlesbourg.
Great people have spoken in this House. One who comes to mind is a
man who was first elected to this place and, later in his political
career, went on to become the premier of Quebec.
I am referring to Honoré Mercier.
1625
Honoré Mercier went down in Quebec history as a man who asked
Quebecers to set their partisan divisions aside. People rallied around
him and his national party with the deepest conviction.
At the unveiling of the Cartier-Brébeuf monument in Quebec City, in
1889, he made a famous utterance: “Let us stop fighting among brothers
and unite”.
A century later, the Bloc Quebecois has answered his call.
While advocating a sovereign Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is asking all
Quebecers, whether they are federalists or sovereignists, Socialists,
Liberals, Conservatives, ADQ or PQ supporters, to rally around and join
forces to fight for the democratic rights of Quebeckers as well as for
their institutions and their freedom to decide their future.
In the early 19th century, Louis-Joseph Papineau and the Patriot
movement fought for democracy and for the rights of those who were
called Canadians at the time and are now known as Quebeckers. Papineau
fought to ensure that his people, and not some unelected individuals,
decide the future.
It is sad, a shame really, to see this struggle we thought was over
resurface today.
Once again, attempts are being made to take away from Quebeckers the
right to democratically decide their future and ask an unelected body,
namely the Supreme Court of Canada in this instance, to decide for them.
[English]
The point of view that the future of a nation should be decided
by the people and not by elected officials was shared by Thomas
Jefferson. Jefferson said “I can think of no safer depository
for the ultimate powers of society than in the people
themselves”.
I expect my colleagues from the Reform Party to agree with this
statement as it is written in the conference room at their
party's headquarters in Calgary.
We the sovereignists are the defenders of democracy in Quebec.
Our goal is to ensure that Quebeckers have the right to decide
their own future. That future is one that we are confident will
be as a sovereign and proud country, dealing as an equal with its
friend and neighbour, Canada.
The Bloc is back.
[Translation]
Now, let ask ourselves if it is possible to reconcile justice and
escalation. Let me use a practical example.
Imagine you have a dispute with a neighbour and that neighbour
wants to have a third party settle the issue. It goes without saying
that you would never accept that third party to be someone appointed and
paid by your neighbour. Moreover, should the decision be based on a
contract which you have always refused to sign, you would have another
reason to object.
Yet, this is precisely what this government is attempting to do.
Supreme Court judges are appointed by the federal government. They are
paid by the federal government and, moreover, they will interpret a
document that every Quebec government has refused to sign.
Is this what they call justice, Mr. Speaker? Not I. Justice will be
done when Quebeckers are free to decide, and they will.
The carelessness of the current federal government is obvious in
the throne speech. There is nothing good in it for Quebec. The
unemployment level for my generation is tragic. Some even refer to us as
generation x. Still, there is absolutely nothing in the throne speech to
solve this most urgent problem.
The fight against the deficit was conducted at the expense of the
poor, including young people, and they will not forget, believe me.
As for the part of the speech entitled “Building Safer
Communities”, it hides another attempt by the federal government to
encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Once again, the federal
government is acting like a bull in a china shop. But there is more.
The $30 million program to fight crime is a rehash. It was already
public news on December 12, 1996, when the Globe and Mail published an
article on it, on page A16 for those who want to go back and read it.
There is nothing new. This is further evidence of this government's
total lack of imagination.
1630
Still in that same part of the speech, I am pleased to see that
the government decided to develop alternatives to imprisonment
for non-violent, low-risk offenders. The government has finally
listened to the Bloc Quebecois, which has always stressed the
importance of rehabilitation. The Liberal government is once
again proving the Bloc Quebecois right.
Let me conclude by saying it is an honour for me to be here. I am
convinced that this 36th Parliament will go down in history. Indeed, I
will be able to tell my children that I was part of the last group of
Quebec MPs elected to the House of Commons.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the hon. member.
Is it true that the term “Canadian” is inclusive and the term
“Quebecer” exclusive, and that, accordingly, Canadians are a people and
Quebecers a society?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, had I rewritten the question to
please myself, I would not have written it differently.
I believe that there are some things that must be made very clear.
We are now speaking about the people of Quebec, a very inclusive concept
that includes francophones, anglophones, allophones and the first
nations. The advocates of partition are the ones who are using
exclusive terms and who are dangerous.
We have long accepted that all
Quebec's anglophones and allophones form part of the people of Quebec.
Partitioners are the ones who have decided to equate national or ethnic
boundaries with political boundaries. The Quebec we dream of and want
to build will be inclusive and will include the people of all nations
and all the immigrants who come here in search of freedom.
You may rely on the Bloc Quebecois to make of Quebec a people who
are open-minded, tolerant and generous, and not an ethnic group, as
certain people would have us believe.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
begin by congratulating the hon. member for Charlesbourg on his
first speech in the House of Commons. I listened carefully to
what he had to say. I also listened carefully to some of the
questions his colleagues asked of colleagues of mine earlier
today with respect to the understanding of the existence or
non-existence of the Quebecois people.
I acknowledge the history of that notion. It is fair for the
member to notice the NDP, going back to its formation in 1961,
has always been ready to acknowledge that dimension of the
collective existence of the Quebec people. We continue to argue
that can be achieved, recognized and enhanced within the context
of a continuing Canadian federalism.
One of the reasons we invite members of the Bloc and other
Quebeckers to do that is that the minute we begin to give up on
this notion and entertain notions of separation, we come up
against the hard political and philosophical reality that it is
not just the Quebecois and the Quebecoises who consider
themselves a people but, for instance, the aboriginal people of
Quebec are also a people. It seems to me that we invite an
infinite reductionism of self-determination the minute we get
into the question of separation.
1635
Has the member not considered the difficulty that would be posed
for Canada and for Quebec in the event of a separation and in the
event the Cree people of Quebec decided that they, in their own
democratic self-determining way, did not want to continue to be a
member of Quebec as it is now understood but rather a member of
what would be left of Canada after such a separation? How does
he regard their democratic rights understood in that context?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. The Government of Quebec was the first government
in Canada to recognize the existence of the aboriginal nations.
We are proud to have done so. We continue to extend our
friendship to the aboriginal people.
My dream of a sovereign Quebec is a Quebec nation working in
partnership with the Canadian nation and in a partnership with
the aboriginal nations of Quebec. Dealing with the Canadian
people, Quebec people and the aboriginal peoples equally in that
triangle is the key to the future of Quebec, Canada and the
aboriginal people.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
I, like other members, congratulate you on your appointment to
the Chair. On behalf of the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River
I wish you a very successful term.
I am honoured and privileged to be in the House of Commons
representing the people of Dauphin—Swan River. I thank the
people of Dauphin—Swan River for the honour. I pledge to them
that as I take my seat on their behalf it is my responsibility to
be accountable to them first and foremost.
I would like to describe to the House the make-up of
Dauphin—Swan River. It is as unique as the country itself.
Dauphin—Swan River is located in west central Manitoba, the
second largest settled area riding. It is a land of lakes,
mountains and prairies. It is multilingual and multicultural.
The people speak English, French, Ukrainian and Saulteaux.
Culturally it is predominantly English, Ukrainian, French and
aboriginal. The people of Dauphin—Swan River celebrate this
diversity with enthusiasm throughout the year. We are all proud
of our ethnic heritage but we are prouder to be Canadians first.
[Translation]
On a more personal note, I am a third generation Canadian. My
Chinese grandfather came to Canada to help build the railway in the
late 1800s. My wife Lynda, nee Burelle, is ninth generation. Her
roots go back to 1660, to the arrival in Quebec of Étienne Burelle
and Marie Tellier from the parish of Saint-Séverin in Paris. They
settled near Varennes, in Quebec. The Quebec Burelles moved west to
Manitoba only in the 1900s. We both still have relatives in Quebec.
I am sure that many Canadians are in the same position. Quebec
is as important to us as any other province in which we have
family members.
[English]
The people of Dauphin—Swan River sent me to the House to make
sure their concerns are heard. They are not happy about the lack
of jobs, the rising cost of post-secondary education, the
dismantling of the health care system, the price of grain as
announced recently by the Canadian Wheat Board, the cost of
transporting farm products to market, the political manipulation
of the grain transportation system over the last 40 years, an
ineffective Young Offenders Act, and the lack of justice in that
criminals appear to have more rights than law-abiding citizens.
1640
In Dauphin—Swan River the issue of gun control implemented by
the former justice minister is unacceptable to the people. This
bill has been very divisive for Canada. It has put Canadians in
two camps, those living in large urban centres and those living
in rural settings. The gun control of the government will no
doubt make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding
Canadians across the land.
As the deputy critic for national unity my role is to ensure
that the grassroots at the municipal level are listened to and
that they have a pivotal role to play in the future of Canada. I
believe that we have failed over the last 40 years in the unity
debate because we have used the wrong process.
Canada's vision was seen through the eyes of the Right Hon.
Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s. In the 1980s the vision was through
the eyes of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. In the 1990s there
has been a struggle between the old school and the new school.
The old school wants to stick with a closed door, top down
approach to solving Canada's challenges and problems on unity and
on most other issues as well. The new school wants to throw open
the windows and let in the fresh air, open the doors and let the
people bring their ideas to the table and have a real part in
making the decisions. Sadly the old school is so far barely
letting the windows and doors crack open.
[Translation]
I believe that the next millennium belongs to the people of
Canada, without a doubt. During the last forty years, the
politicians have failed miserably with their top-down approach to
unifying the country. Now is it the citizens' turn to address the
issues of the day.
In my opinion, Canadians are interested in their day to day
needs—jobs, health care, housing—and not in constitutional
disputes between parties and governments. My constituents have
indicated to me that we must start by solving problems, and must
treat all citizens of this marvellous country on an equal footing.
[English]
In past weeks I wrote to the provincial premiers suggesting the
process of consultation be open and transcend political loyalties
and partisan politics. I also asked the premiers to encourage
the municipal leaders to participate in holding town hall style
meetings in each community open to the residents. The community
meetings would be assisted by facilitators, information provided
by provincial governments, input from experts and include the
participation of local MLAs and MPPs. In short it would put the
town back in the unity town halls.
In closing, the key to this process is open discussion. Only
then would the people of Canada have an opportunity to discuss
and debate the issues on the future of their country. The House
belongs to the people as so does the future of the country.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to be making my maiden speech before the
House today. I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to make
my debut appearance earlier last week during question period. I
am a little overwhelmed at the idea of participating so directly
in one of Canada's most important institution.
The transition from the old Strathcona coffee guru to
parliamentarian is no small adjustment. I only hope that I am
part of a parliament that will begin to reshape Canada and that I
may in some modest capacity be a part on that process.
Before I become too involved in my speech I would like to
congratulate you on your election to the Speaker's Chair. I am
confident that you will uphold the integrity and the proud
tradition of this position.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my
constituents of Edmonton—Strathcona. It is a great honour to be
entrusted with the responsibility of representing a constituency
that includes the prestigious University of Alberta, an academic
institution poised to become one of the finest in the world.
1645
I am proud also to represent the area of Old Strathcona, a
wonderfully unique Bohemian community of small business, artists
and students. I represent a large number of senior citizens and
am proud that now I may serve these people who have spent a
lifetime building this great nation.
I want to thank all my constituents for having the courage to
place their trust in a man of only 25 years of age who belongs to
a party only 10 years old. I will take my election mandate to
mean that it is a change that the people of Strathcona desire and
I will work tirelessly to ensure that change occurs in this
House.
I would like to thank my parents for their unconditional love
and support. It has not been easy for them to take the sole
responsibility of running our family owned business in my
absence. While their eldest son is engrossed in the adventure of
his life, they are carrying the burden of running the daily
operations of our family owned coffee shop.
I think my parents were a little skeptical when I first threw my
hat into the political arena, but despite their skepticism they
supported and encouraged me over many long months of campaigning
and are truly the unsung heroes of my political success. I would
like to thank my parents also for teaching me the values I now
bring to political life.
My family arrived in Canada in 1972. They were penniless
refugees who fled Uganda and the brutal regime of Idi Amin. They
came to Canada to rebuild their lives. They came to escape
tyranny and embrace Liberty. They came to find a haven from
racial prejudice in a country renowned for its tolerance and
equality. With a belief in hard work and with a commitment to
meritocracy, they began to rebuild their lives.
Like all children do, I learned from their words and their
deeds. I saw that with hard work comes success. That was the
opportunity Canada offered.
I saw that my parents were allowed to pursue business
opportunities and were allowed to keep the fruits of their
labour. There was no dictator who could confiscate our property
because he did not like the colour of our skin. That was the
freedom Canada offered.
I saw that my parents, even though they were small business
owners, were treated with the same respect as other Canadians.
That was the equality Canada offered.
Opportunity, freedom and equality. These are the values I have
come to cherish and these are the values I bring to this House.
Canada is the best place in the world to live. We do not need
the United Nations to tell us that, but we risk being complacent
if we continue to pat ourselves on the back.
Canada does have problems. Canadian families and small business
suffer under a heavy tax burden. Young people, normally full of
hope, fear the future holds nothing but disappointment, chronic
unemployment and debt.
Canadians every day face the uncertainty of whether or not their
country will remain united. This uncertainty weighs heavy on all
Canadians and is the cause of so many political problems. It is
this issue that I would like to address today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have a message I would like to send through you
to the very proud people of Quebec. Quebecers are justifiably
proud of their history and culture. It is my belief that this
culture will continue so long as there are people—sovereignists
or federalists—wanting to keep it flowering.
I fear, however, that Quebecers will once again in the near
future be asked to decide whether they wish to remain in Canada.
Separatist leaders will ask them if they want to retain their
cultural identity or be swallowed up by an all encompassing federal
government. Given this choice, I too would vote sovereignist.
These, however, are not the only choices available to
Quebecers. There is a third choice, that of a renewed Canadian
federation. This choice will change totally and utterly the
relationship between the federal and provincial governments. It
will give the provinces the latitude they need to develop the
cultural and economic institutions that best reflect their
particular values.
[English]
The third choice is embodied in the political movement calling
for renewed federalism. While it is a movement that began in the
west with the Reform Party it is fueled by frustration shared by
people all across this country.
1650
Our first ministers are among those who share this frustration.
They have given us the framework from which to begin a nationwide
discussion on Canada's constitutional future. This should be an
exciting time for the people of Quebec and all across Canada who
are looking for fundamental changes to our federation. We should
all look with hope at the possibilities that lie within the
Calgary declaration. Our premiers have learned a lesson from
both Meech Lake and Charlottetown and are going to the people of
Canada to hear what they have to say about their country.
I would ask that the people of Quebec insist that their voices
be joined with the millions of other Canadians who will soon be
discussing Canada's constitutional future.
[Translation]
I would also ask Quebecers, who are so proud of their culture,
to look at this way of remaining within a renewed Canada, which
will respect the cultural and economic diversity of its provincial
partners.
Although the idea of a renewed federalism holds out promise
and a future for Quebec, there are those who will oppose it because
they do not believe that Quebec can or should be an equal partner
in the Canadian federation. Some believe that, without
inequalities enshrined in the Constitution, Quebec will never be an
important component of Canada.
[English]
There are people who told me that I would never make it in the
Reform Party, a party without official racial preferences for its
candidates. There are people who told me that a young minority
would never make it on his own in a political world dominated by
the old boys club, and yet I stand here today, the proud
representative of Edmonton—Strathcona.
I think that what my personal experience helps to illustrate is
that in a truly free country merit is the only requirement for
success. Equality is no threat to individuals of merit. Equality
is no threat to the rich and unique culture of Quebec.
I hope the province of Quebec will demand to be an equal and
vital member of the Canadian confederacy and will reject the
false promises of separation.
It is said that Canada finds strength in diversity. If this is
true, a renewed federalist system may bring this country together
as a strong unified country as never before seen, a nation ready
to face the challenges of the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
want to congratulate the new member from the Reform Party on his maiden
speech in this House.
I understand where the hon. member is coming from. He is a member
of a federalist party, the Reform Party, and the Calgary meeting took
place in his province. Fine, but the history of Quebec's plans for
sovereignty goes back much further.
First, as we mentioned, the proposed Constitution was never signed
by any Quebec government, whether federalist or sovereignist.
Robert Bourassa, a Liberal, was not a sovereignist but a
federalist, yet he never agreed to sign the Constitution. Claude
Ryan never agreed to sign it either. More recently, a former
Liberal provincial minister, Claude Ryan, recognized Quebec's
special rights.
I represent a riding that once had a former Prime Minister as a
member of Parliament. I am referring to Brian Mulroney, who was the
member for Charlevoix and Prime Minister of Canada. He too made an
attempt with the Meech Lake accord, the Charlottetown accord and other
formulas. In the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, English Canada
voted no because they felt it gave too much to Quebec, while Quebec
voted no because we felt it was not enough.
I believe, as the hon. member will find out, that therein lies the
constitutional problem and that, no matter what you offer, it will be
too little, too late.
Quebec sends $28 billion to Ottawa and is not getting its money's worth
in return. Quebec wants to manage its own services, eliminate overlap
and duplication, take control of its destiny and become a country by the
year 2000.
1655
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I too share the frustration of
the hon. member who just commented. That is the whole point of
what has been happening in this federation to date.
The premiers of the various provinces have said it is time to
consult the rest of Canada in order to have real change in the
federation. We have seen that frustration in every region of
this country.
With the premiers making the effort to make the change, now is
the time for us to come together and build for the future. We
have come a long way as a united country. I hope there is still
a long way to go. The only way we can do it is to come together
as one people of one nation, through equality in order to make
the changes required for the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by telling the member for Edmonton—Strathcona how much I,
and I am sure, my colleagues appreciate his speaking French in this
House and speaking it very well.
I would like to ask him whether the citizens of
Edmonton—Strathcona, whom he represents, feel that Quebecers are
a people and whether they feel that this people has the freedom
to determine its future and to have its own country.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, one of the things the
people of Edmonton—Strathcona sent me here to try to accomplish
is to recognize the view that, regardless of where people come
from, regardless of their background, whether they are Quebecois
or an Ismaili Muslim like myself, we are all equal. The way to
build a strong country is not to recognize that each individual
group makes a people, but to recognize that through our diversity
we are equal. That will give us the base on which to build a
strong country.
It does not matter what the people of Edmonton—Strathcona think
in the sense of their recognizing any specific group as a people.
They put equality first and that is what they have sent me here
to do on their behalf. That is what they believe will build this
country and lead us into the 21st century.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.
It is with great pleasure that I take part in the debate on the
Speech from the Throne, a speech which confidently outlines our
government's ongoing commitment to fiscal responsibility and
social fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to you on
your appointment as acting speaker. I would also like to thank
the residents of Sault Ste. Marie for giving me the honour of
representing them in the House of Commons.
It is with a great deal of humility that I stand here as their
member of Parliament. I sincerely hope that through hard work,
honest conduct and devotion to constituency matters that I can
repay Saultites for the confidence they have shown in me.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the previous
member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie, Ron Irwin, who is now
a special advisor to the prime minister. I have known Ron Irwin
for a long time. He is a fair and honest man who, as an MP,
served Sault Ste. Marie extremely well and as minister of Indian
affairs also served Canadians extremely well.
Ron left some mighty big shoes for me to fill, workboots in
fact. I thank him for his counsel, past and present, as I try to
grow into those boots.
Returning to the matter at hand, I would like to focus my
remarks on a few key issues raised in the throne speech, namely
youth unemployment, the importance of exports to the Canadian
economy and the need for a forward thinking approach to national
unity.
1700
Youth unemployment has become a serious problem in Canada and
particularly in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Too many well
educated young people are having a tough time finding that
all-important first job. Still others are finding post-secondary
education to be prohibitively expensive. It is for these reasons
that the government is taking decisive action to help young
people.
The Speech from the Throne reaffirms and in many cases expands
the government's commitment to improved job creation, training
and education for young people. The strengthening of federal
internship programs will provide participants with real job
experience, the lack of which too often prevents young people
from finding meaningful work.
The establishment of the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund
will help thousands of young Canadians access the education
necessary to succeed in the knowledge-based society of the 21st
century. I was especially pleased to hear that the millennium
fund will be directed primarily at low and modest income
students. This is welcome news indeed to a predominantly working
class city like Sault Ste. Marie.
I have always believed that by investing in the future of our
young people we invest in the future of Canada. Simply put, the
Speech from the Throne is an example of this belief in action. Of
course we will be in a position to do more in terms of social
spending as our commitment to sound fiscal management yields
larger and larger dividends. One particular area of interest to
me is the creation of greater opportunities for physically and
mentally challenged Canadians through wage subsidies and job
creation initiatives.
The federal government now operates a $30 million a year
opportunities fund to this end, but it is my sincere hope that in
the years to come more attention and more money will be directed
at this often overlooked group of Canadians.
There are aspects of the speech that provide hope for unemployed
Saultites. The emphasis on exports as a source of one in three
Canadian jobs bodes well for residents in my riding. Sault Ste.
Marie is a vibrant border city with a significant export economy.
Sault Ste. Marie is a leading exporter of steel, wood and paper
products. The city's exporting capabilities are second to none
thanks in large part to its proximity to the United States and
its strategic location along the St. Mary's River.
Tourism is another precious commodity in Sault Ste. Marie.
Thousands of visitors come every year to enjoy the natural beauty
of northern Ontario. They come to fish, hunt, ski and
snowmobile. In Sault Ste. Marie they ride the Algoma Central
Railway to the Agawa Canyon, tour the Sault locks and visit the
magnificent displays at the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre.
It is for those reasons that Saultites should be pleased with
the throne speech's recognition of tourism and exports as key
economic generators. This recognition is not simply based on
rhetoric. The government was quick to condemn a new American
entry law which would seriously inconvenience Canadians crossing
into the United States. The government will continue to fight
this insulting legislation and it is my belief that it will soon
win Canadians a well deserved exemption.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the sacrifices
Canadians have made the past few years. Like government they
have learned to do more with less. However, now that there is
light at the end of the deficit tunnel, we are, as the Speech
from the Throne explained, in a position to make strategic
investments. We will not, as some opposition members have
charged, abandon the attitude of fiscal responsibility that got
this nation's finances back on track.
1705
On the other hand, we will not neglect to make the necessary
social investments such as the ones outlined in the speech. We
will stay the course of balancing the nation's financial and
social priorities. This is what Canadians elected us to do in
1993 and it is what they re-elected us to do this spring.
Finally, I would like to offer my colleagues in the House these
thoughts on national unity. There is an old expression that says
“Don't look back unless that is where you want to go”.
Are there many Canadians who wish to go back to where we have
been on the whole question of national unity? I do not think so.
I believe my fellow Canadians are prepared to look straight
ahead. I believe they are prepared to be flexible and
open-minded in finding a lasting solution to the national unity
problem.
I exhort all of my colleagues in the House to fix not on the
past but on the future, to be fully receptive to new ideas and
proposals regardless of the source so that we may bring lasting
closure to this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to my colleague's entire speech, but even more carefully to
the latter part of it. Our colleague speaks to us about national unity.
He tells us not to look back to the past, but ahead to the future.
I would point out to him, and it is to this comment that I would
like his reaction, that the Canada of today is operating under rules
from the last century, when we are now on the eve of the next century.
There is not an enterprise in this country, or in the rest of the
world, that is operating according to rules from the last century. Such
an undertaking would be doomed to failure.
When will Canada finally understand that the Constitution, which
was drawn up in the last century, no longer meets, if it ever did, the
needs we now have and will continue to have in the next century?
Sovereignty, with a proposal for partnership, is a forward looking plan
that assures Quebecers and Canadians of prosperity in the century to
come.
I ask him whether he is looking to the future or to the past.
[English]
Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed I look
forward to a solution to national unity issues which have had a
very checkered history. It is my hope that Canadians will be
forward-looking. I pledge to do what I indicated in my speech. I
am prepared to be very flexible and to take the lead from
wherever it may come in order to find some kind of a solution to
this problem.
I do not think that the federation is so broken that it cannot
be fixed.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member's comments with interest.
Although there is great hope for our country and for this global
trade that is moving toward us, we have social problems in this
country that parallel third world countries. We have aboriginal
people living on reserves.
The minister of Indian affairs has a fiduciary responsibility
which encompasses the whole of the cabinet and the government to
ensure that the funds that are directed to the chiefs and
councils of those reserves reach the grassroots people.
1710
We are hearing directly more and more from a growing number of
grassroots people on a number of reserves across the country that
they are living in poverty conditions which are leading to an
enormous degree of violence, alcohol and drug abuse. On the
Stoney Reserve we heard that an aboriginal woman is living in a
van because she protested against the chief and council and
mysteriously her house burned down. These kinds of stories are
shocking and alarming. Yet the government is saying that all is
well and has resisted for the longest time any examination of
what was happening on the Stoney reserve. Finally Judge Reilly
demanded that something be done to look into the societal
conditions that were bringing so many people into his court room.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are out of time. I
would ask the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for a brief reply.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns
of the member opposite. I have a confident belief that we have
the resources, human and material, to bring to bear on these
problems and I am hoping that we can find a solution. Those
conditions should not prevail in any civilized society. We must
direct our attention to them and find solutions.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
June 2 of this year I received a mandate from the people of
Erie—Lincoln to represent their concerns in the House. I am
honoured to have been given this responsibility by my
constituents and I am proud to be the first member of Parliament
for the riding of Erie—Lincoln.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people in the
areas of the Niagara peninsula that supported me in 1993 and then
became parts of new ridings due to redistribution. I enjoyed
working with the warm people and progressive municipalities of
the town of Pelham and Welland South. It was an honour to serve
you. I have many fond memories of events I attended and
friendships made.
The new riding of Erie—Lincoln brings in two fine new areas,
the town of Dunnville and the town of Lincoln. The town of
Dunnville is located on the Lake Erie shore and is dissected by
the friendly Grand River. It is a picturesque community of
greenhouses, mixed farming, light industry and most importantly,
great people.
The town of Lincoln is located on the southerly shore of Lake
Ontario in an area renowned for its tender fruit and vineyards
and yes, great people as well. The excellent wines that are
produced in the town of Lincoln are a testament to the unique
micro climate found in the peninsula.
During my travels to the new areas of the riding I have been
impressed by the number of small businesses that are actively
exporting their products around the world. I welcome both
communities to the Erie—Lincoln riding and look forward to
representing them to the best of my ability.
The riding of Erie—Lincoln truly runs from lake to lake to
river. It runs from the Niagara River and the American border at
Fort Erie down the shore of Lake Erie to Port Colborne and
Wainfleet and on to Dunnville, then up into West Lincoln to the
heart of the peninsula and on to Lincoln on the shores of Lake
Ontario. It is a wonderfully diverse and unique riding, a
virtual microcosm of Canada. I look forward very much to working
for my constituents in the upcoming mandate.
I would also like to take this opportunity, as I did in my
maiden speech in January 1994 to thank my family, Sherrie, Megan,
Patrick, Alanna, Andrew and Sarah, my parents and my siblings for
their ongoing support and understanding. All those present in the
House know of the sacrifices that an elected official must make
and the toll that an election campaign and representation in
Ottawa can take. My family cannot be thanked enough.
During the spring campaign and throughout the summer months the
constituents of Erie—Lincoln delivered a very clear message that
something must be done about unemployment. I was pleased to hear
in the speech from the throne that “Stimulating job creation and
economic growth has been, remains and will continue to be a major
objective of the Government of Canada.” I applaud this
initiative.
While the job creation figures are impressive, 947,000 jobs
since October 1993, and while many of these jobs are well paying,
full time jobs, in my riding where unemployment remains too high,
this is little consolation. The government must continue to seek
out the opportunities that will put Canadians back to work and
which will put many young Canadians to work for the first time in
productive and fulfilling jobs.
1715
We must continue to look abroad to market our excellent
competitive Canadian products. We must investigate partnerships
with the private sector. We must break down interprovincial
trade barriers. We must continue to cut the red tape for small
businesses and entrepreneurs. Most of all we must continue to
see the unemployment situation for what it is, a battle, a war
that must be fought until every Canadian who wishes to work and
can work is afforded that opportunity.
The fiscal course is set. The budget is to be balanced in
1998-99, a truly remarkable achievement that has earned the
admiration of the world community.
I fully support the direction the government has pursued. As
difficult as it was we implemented many necessary cuts, all the
while keeping in mind the values Canadians hold dear, those
values that set us apart from other nations. The government's
values are clear: responsibility, compassion, fairness and
respect.
I caution the government with the words written by a
constituent. My constituent wrote “Canada is a country, not a
corporation”.
We cannot be driven by the bottom line at the expense of the
livelihood, dignity and welfare of Canadians. Unemployment
strikes at the very essence of an individual, leaving him or her
unable to provide for self or family. Families can be
traumatized by joblessness whose lives are seriously affected,
sometimes irreparably.
No level of unemployment is acceptable. I will continue to
examine ways in which Erie—Lincoln can seize the opportunities
available to it and shall have the same access to services and
programs as large urban centres.
Many Canadians and Erie—Lincoln residents are concerned about
the unity of our fine country. The large French Canadian
population in my riding has close ties to Quebec. We believe
that la belle province is a fundamental part of our Canadian
heritage.
In the address the right hon. prime minister spoke of a
disturbing study showing that Canadians knew very little about
one another. I am convinced that an increased knowledge of the
other would bring greater understanding to those who are
ambivalent about Canadian unity. Despite language, race or
religion the day to day concerns of Canadians are the same from
coast to coast to coast: family, employment and the economy. We
are all more alike than we may realize.
I embrace the desire to be innovative as we look at national
unity. I commend the premiers and territorial leaders on the
recent Calgary initiative. Oftentimes a fresh approach is
required. At all times an open mind is required.
Children are our most precious resource. Some say they are our
future, and I agree. I would also point out they are very much a
part of our present. Throughout the past year as a member of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I was part of a
group committed to studying the youth justice system. The
message in what we heard rang loud and clear. The most effective
way to stem youth crime is not always tougher sentencing,
corporal or capital punishment, but by preventing young people
from falling into a life riddled with criminal activity.
Moneys carefully spent on programs dealing with children from
their prenatal period through their elementary school years is
crucial to preventing young people from committing that first
petty crime, a first crime that can lead very often to a lifetime
of criminal behaviour and incarceration at enormous cost to
Canada and Canadians.
There is little doubt in my mind after visiting with young
offenders, police, judges and youth workers from coast to coast
to coast that child poverty proves to be a major setback for many
young children that may lead to learning difficulties, adaptation
problems and potential criminal activity.
The government has acted by increasing the contribution for the
Canada child tax benefit by $850 million per year with higher
payments to begin July 1 of next year. It is a step toward the
very necessary eradication of child poverty.
I was pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the
government is committed to working with provincial and
territorial governments to develop a broader agenda for children
including clear outcomes in measuring their success. Our
children ask little of us. They want only to have strong support
of families and safe communities in which to develop. This is
the very least we owe them.
In my riding of Erie—Lincoln it was announced that all four
hospitals would be either closed or their services downgraded
substantially. This is unacceptable. Many of my constituents
have very real concerns about the present state and future of our
medicare system. They are worried the high quality of health
care they have come to expect and deserve will not be there for
them when they most need it.
We have responded to these concerns and will continue to respond
as we must. The government is committed to providing a minimum
transfer of $12.5 billion to the provinces and territories for
health care. This increase will see the cash payment
entitlements to the provinces and territories rise by $700
million in 1998-99 and $1.4 billion the year after.
With the nation's finances in good shape we will soon be in a
position to make choices and investments that support this
Canadian priority.
1720
Also being examined are innovative ways to provide health care
to an aging population that is on the whole healthier than the
last generation and much more able to live at home for longer
periods of time.
We are expanding home and community care, providing Canadians
with better access to medically necessary drugs, and examining
the quality and effectiveness of health care across the country
through the health transition fund.
The government is also working hard to prevent the many diseases
and illnesses that are very costly to treat once diagnosed.
Funding for initiatives such as breast cancer, HIV and AIDS and
tobacco reduction are key elements in the prevention strategy. We
must work with the provinces to ensure universal and accessible
health care is available for all Canadians, rural or urban.
It is no longer possible for an economically viable nation to
live in isolation of world affairs and events. Canada has been
renowned over the years for its contribution to peacekeeping
efforts. As a country we believe in the values of collective
responsibility as seen through our public pension system,
publicly funded health care system and equalization payments.
As one of the have nations of the world we have a responsibility
to the have nots to help them through conflict and struggle by
providing some security for the innocent civilians and to help
provide safe havens for refugees, hopefully contributing to a
resolution that will see them return home.
These are all part of our responsibilities to our friends and
neighbours around the world who through no fault of their own are
not fortunate enough to have the stability and prosperity we find
in Canada.
Canada is not only a peacekeeper. It is a peacemaker and a
leader. From Lester B. Pearson in the 1950s to my hon.
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his humanitarian
efforts to rid the globe of the hideous and maiming land mines,
Canada has shown itself to be an independent leader in this arena.
December's conference in Ottawa will demonstrate again to the
world the honesty and tenacity with which we tackle these
controversial issues.
In conclusion, too often it is easy to talk about the negative
or the work to be done, but I cannot help but to think that we as
Canadians get too wrapped up in it. Canada is the best nation in
the world to call home and we have that privilege.
Admittedly there will always be work to be done and the best can
always get better. I am committed to working to make Canada a
better place to live. My constituents and family provide much of
the enthusiasm that fuels my efforts.
I welcome the new members of the House of Commons to this
institution. To serve the public is perhaps a calling,
definitely a right, and truly a responsibility we all have. I
look forward to working with all my colleagues in a constructive
fashion that will build on our successes as a country and will
make Canada stronger than ever as it enters the new millennium.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague across the way for a very good speech. I might
mention that we shared chairs on the justice committee and
travelled all across the country looking at the Young Offenders
Act. I was always appreciative of his practicality and his
common sense when it came to addressing the issue.
It is nice to hear from him today and I have a question for him.
Inasmuch as the throne speech stated that the government would
“develop alternatives to incarceration for low risk non-violent
offenders”, would the hon. member be prepared to support an
amendment to the Criminal Code that would exempt violent
offenders from conditional sentencing?
The former justice minister agreed that convicted rapists should
not walk the streets, that they should be doing time. Because
the benefits of conditional sentencing have not been exempted
from violent offenders, would he consider supporting an amendment
to the Criminal Code that would do that very thing and bring the
law into line with the promise made in the throne speech that
they would develop alternatives to incarceration only for low
risk and non-violent offenders and allow violent offenders,
particularly those who commit acts of rape, to do time in jail
for no other purpose perhaps than the deterrent effect it might
have?
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to publicly acknowledge your appointment to the
Chair. It certainly will be enlightening to have you there. I
am sorry we have lost you as a member of the opposition to
comment on our debates. You always had a very practical
approach. We are very glad to see you as perhaps the first
non-member of the government sitting in that position.
It is a welcome and refreshing step.
1725
In response to the member for Crowfoot, I agree there is too
much violence in society, domestic violence and violent criminal
activities. While I support the removal of conditional
sentencing for violent offenders, I think it certainly has merit.
We would have to examine it very closely, but I am inclined to
agree with the member that a message has to be sent to the
citizens of country that violence cannot be tolerated in any way,
shape or form.
A tap on the wrist is insufficient for that type of behaviour. I
would like to see the private member's bill I am sure the member
will propose.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the sober speech made by the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.
The member showed some foresight in dealing with many of the issues
at stake. However, as you know, I am more interested in certain points
than in others. Sometimes, that foresight was lacking or not so sharp.
I am referring in particular to his statement that Quebec is part of the
so-called Canadian heritage.
Let me quickly go back in time and remind you that Quebec City was
founded some 400 years ago.
Canada, on the other hand, is 130 years old. Quebec City helped promote
a nascent culture that blossomed through its contacts with many
aboriginal nations. To be sure, the Conquest, 150 years later, enriched
the culture of the people who were already there and who were already
considering themselves a people.
I will conclude by saying that the anglophone ocean now surrounding
us continues to try to assimilate us, not realizing that we are a real
people. There are 7 million people in Quebec, 85 percent of whom are
francophones. Ours is a pluralistic society. What does the hon. member
think of this?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
his time has expired. The hon. member for Erie—Lincoln can give a very
brief reply if he wishes to do so.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a fine province
that we are proud to have as part of Canada. It is unique. It
is different. We enjoy going there. We all have relatives
there. In my area of Erie—Lincoln there are many French
Canadian people who have family in Quebec.
However Quebec does not have the monopoly on the French culture.
My area is one. St. Boniface is another and the Acadians in New
Brunswick are another. There are areas throughout Canada. We
respect the French factor in Canada, but Quebec is not the sole
governance of that.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate you on your appointment. I will be splitting my
time with the member for North Vancouver.
As this is my maiden speech I would like to take the opportunity
to let my constituents know I am truly honoured to be in the
House of Commons representing them as the newly elected member of
Parliament for Edmonton East. I would also like to inform the
people who are listening to this debate today that we are
debating the Speech from the Throne.
1730
Many of the members of this assembly can trace their heritage to
a common path. We share ancestors that sailed by the shadow of
the Quebec citadel, some stopping, most going onward to Montreal
or beyond.
My ancestors came to Canada in the 1850s. They, like many
immigrants before and since, followed this route to Upper Canada.
Like the French before who enjoined the land of the aboriginals,
so too did the British. My wife's ancestors who came from
Ukraine in 1910 travelled this conduit to settlement, as did many
others who followed. The first impressions of this new country
for most of Canada's immigrants was the impressive heights of the
Quebec citadel and the wharfs of Montreal.
Canada by this time had embraced the railroads and more than
anything else developed the interior territories by threads of
rails emanating from its rapidly growing cities of Montreal and
Toronto. Montreal was the hub of the dynamic business region and
largest city in Canada up until the 1960s.
Business dynamics of cities have changed since then. Toronto
now replaces Montreal in size and Vancouver may in turn in the
future given its present growth rate. What Montreal retains is
the true essence of Canada's multicultural make-up. Its cultural
mosiac is a product of 350 years of enlightened immigration.
This cultural diversity is shared by many cities and towns in
Canada.
Edmonton East is just one of those cosmopolitan communities.
Encompassing city hall and the Alberta legislature, Edmonton East
also has a variety of cultural communities, Ukrainian, Italian,
Chinese and others. Cultural diversity is a treasured part of
our community. A large and popular cultural event is the Edmonton
heritage day festival. Our community celebrates its individuals'
heritage as well as enjoying the celebration of others.
Edmontonians truly do enjoy multiculturalism. Some groups display
great pride in cultural accomplishment without federal funding.
More groups should. Multiculturalism should not be about money.
It should be about community involvement and community
participation.
As a father of two teenage daughters, one in high school, the
other in university, I am proud to say that they view, as I do,
race and colour as transparencies. They simply do not exist in
our lives.
In the global community of the next millennium discrimination
will be a non-starter for those who will want to be equal
partners in world affairs. Canada has become a major global
trading country because of its diversity of cultures and the
insightfulness it brings.
Canada Day is a product of evolution from the French-aboriginal
encounter, to the early British stewardship, to the birth of a
nation in 1867, already growing with immigrants from all corners
of the earth, less than 500 years since Europeans set foot in
Newfoundland.
What concerns me deeply is the very reason that brings me to
this Chamber, Canadian unity. I truly believe in Canada's
diversity. I have had a long and memorable relationship with a
very significant part of our country. Since 1962 I have
sometimes lived in, worked in and often visited Quebec. The most
important visit was to Quebec City during the 1995 referendum. To
be in Quebec City for the vote was important to me, to my past.
On October 31, like many thousands of Canadians, I was in shock
and disbelief that our country could be lost for want of
100,000 votes. It was not a simple consultative referendum as we
were told. It was a serious well orchestrated campaign for
separation.
Thousands of Canadians reacted as I did. Dozens of unity groups
sprang up. I organized a group in Edmonton. While several
projects were completed I realized that to make a serious
impression I could better serve Canadian unity from within a
political party that truly supports Canadian unity. Ultimately
it will be the government that makes constitutional changes, but
we encourage suggestions from all Canadians that want to foster
Canadian unity.
I will bring forward concerns of people and groups in my role as
deputy critic of intergovernmental affairs.
1735
I stand here as a product of the 1995 referendum. I am not here
pretending to have answers but I am here to try to help. Canadian
unity is not just Quebec and the rest of Canada. Unity is
successfully dialoguing concerns of all Canadians. It is
renewing federalism. It is emphasizing the equality of the
people of Canada as well as the equality of its partners, the
provinces.
If Canadians have the will and determination we can resolve
federal-provincial concerns, we can resolve aboriginal concerns
and we can resolve linguistic concerns. The people of Edmonton
East are just like the people of Gaspé and people from all across
Canada.
What can and will work to bring this country together is to give
Canadians everywhere the feeling that they have a government that
cares, a government that will bring about real jobs by reducing
taxes, not just floating statistics, a government that will
support fair reduced taxes after it has begun a debt reduction
program, a government that will make families a priority, a
government that will work to make our streets safer by
recognizing and correcting the misguided Young Offenders Act, a
government that will repair the damage done by the past
governments to the all important social safety net and pensions,
a government that will view taxpayers for who they are, our
employers, not simply as walking wallets.
Then all Canadians will feel better about themselves, about
their families, about their well-being in senior years, about
their justice system, about their government. Then we will have
something to wave a flag about. Then we will have something to
be proud enough about to even buy a flag ourselves. Then we
might have unity.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate our new colleague on his election and I am surprised,
as well as happy, to learn that he is here because of the 1995
referendum. As a result, unlike certain members of the preceding
Parliament, he understands that the Bloc Quebecois members who are
here today are not an anachronism and are not completely out of
touch with Quebec realities. In Quebec, 49.4 percent of the people voted
yes, and the member was sufficiently impressed by that percentage
that he decided to come to the House to debate the question, just
like us.
I would like to ask a question to our new colleague, a
question that comes from the conclusions of the previous speaker,
who said that Quebec did not have the monopoly on French culture in
Canada since there are francophones outside Quebec. There is an
important semantic distinction to be made, here. The culture of
Quebecers is not French, but “Québécoise”, just like the culture of
Acadians is Acadian. There are also other French language cultures
elsewhere, authentic French cultures.
Did our colleague, who did come to Quebec, realize how
authentic la culture québécoise is, since it is found nowhere else
in the world and since it is characteristic of the way our people
has evolved over the past 400 years?
I would like to hear his comments. He is in a position to
know. He has lived through the referendum. I will listen closely to
what he has to say.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I
do recognize the uniqueness of the language and culture of
Quebec, but I also recognize the uniqueness of other parts of
Canada.
1740
When I attended the referendum my distinct impression was that I
was there because of a failure of our government in Ottawa to
perform.
It is not only Quebec which is looking for changes in the
federation. Many other parts of the country are also looking for
change. We are looking forward to a renewal of the Canadian
federation with a consideration for equality, not only equality
of the citizens but equality of the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if it is possible to be a people within a province like the
province of Quebec, it is most certainly possible to be a people
within the province of Alberta.
But is it true, I ask my colleague, if he wants one people for
one country, that it must be a nation like Canada. A people
perhaps for the province of Quebec, but a Canadian people for the
nation.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of
the hon. member. I believe, as I stated in my speech, that
Canada is comprised of peoples from all over the world, gathered
together in the country of Canada. People who come from
different cultural backgrounds and mosaics make Canada a great
country. Canada is great because of the diversity of all of its
cultures collected together.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member will agree with me that the throne speech is an empty
shell, that it contains nothing to reassure Quebecers, that it has
brought little hope to our young people and no hope to our seniors.
Seniors tell us “The more things change, the more they stay the
same”.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether, when he came to
Montreal during the 1995 referendum campaign, it was really in
order to save Canada, or was it because of the attraction of a
reduced $95 flight from Vancouver to Montreal?
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his comments. However, I will have to correct him.
I was very specific in my speech. I said that I was in Quebec
City during the referendum. To the best of my knowledge, nobody
paid for my airline flight. I booked it long before that time.
I was there as a concerned Canadian. Going through August and
September I watched the polls changing. With Parizeau it looked
like 60:40. With Bouchard it looked like 50:50. I was concerned
about the dramatic change which occurred over the period of a
couple of weeks because another person had taken control.
I was there as a Canadian wishing to experience this vote in
Quebec City. I had visited Quebec City several times before. My
wife and I have had very fond experiences there.
I wanted to see why people who were my age, 50 years old, with
two teenage daughters, who were established in life, would risk
going down the road with the uncertainties which separation would
bring.
I was there out of concern for my country. I was not there on a
cheap flight.
1745
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations on your appointment to your position as Deputy
Speaker, an exciting, stimulating position during these speeches.
I would like to take this discussion in the direction of
parliamentary reform and the lack of mention of it in the throne
speech. I would first like to lead into that with a little
story.
On the evening of June 2 this year when it was clear that I had
won my riding with an 11 per cent increase in support, I stood in front
of my supporters and I thanked them very much for their
assistance. One other thing I said to them was that I could not
wait to get back to the House so that I could stand here and look
at the prime minister and say “I'm back”. And here I am, his
worst nightmare.
Before I get right into the nitty-gritty of my first speech—
An hon. member: Don't flatter yourself.
Mr. Ted White: It amuses the members opposite as much as
it thrilled my supporters on the night of the election.
I would like to repeat my sincere thanks to my constituents for
acknowledging and supporting the style and type of representation
that I gave them in the 35th Parliament. I will certainly try to
do even better in the 36th.
The victory was sweet because apart from the Liberal campaign
that was run in the riding of York South—Weston in an attempt to
unseat the sitting member there, I would say that the campaign
run by the Liberals in my riding was probably one of the dirtiest
and sleaziest in recent history. I do have to mention this to
lead into my attack on the parliamentary system if we can call it
that.
The Liberal candidate was personally endorsed by the prime
minister and he launched into a litany of vicious personal
attacks, innuendoes and mud slinging which detracted completely
from the issues. The entire campaign turned into a personality
thing distressing a lot of people.
My wife and many of the emotionally sensitive people in my
campaign were in tears on a daily basis. If any other members
were subject to that sort of abuse in a campaign they will
appreciate that it is not a very nice way to go. My mother who
is 84 years old had come from New Zealand thinking that it was
going to be a joyous, happy campaign and she was reduced to
sobbing her heart out on the first night that she was here.
As a public figure I am used to the criticism from political
opponents. However it has often struck me that those who claim
to have the monopoly on tolerance, compassion and understanding
turn out to be the least tolerant, compassionate and
understanding as they attempt to force through their agenda. The
voters of North Vancouver could see through that and they gave
the prime minister exactly what he deserves, a Reform
representative from North Vancouver and a loyal official
opposition from the rest of Canada.
One other thing. He can no longer call us the third party. Some
of my constituents are waiting to see if he will use that label
for the Bloc. I just have to mention that.
Election campaigns are about power. They are not really about
democracy. They are about power for political parties at any
cost. As new members in the House will soon learn, this House is
not a place for the most part where we carry out the will of the
people.
It is unfortunately the place where government members almost
always obediently vote the will of the prime minister. And that
is not because they always support what is being put in front of
them, but because the consequences of voting against the
government are so serious. Whether to stick to a principle or to
represent constituents, the member for York South—Weston whose
achievement in being re-elected to the House as an independent I
admire, certainly knows the consequences of standing up for a
principle. Sadly what happened to him I believe will act as a
strong disincentive for government members to defy or even mildly
depart from the instructions of their whip.
Nevertheless we do desperately need some reforms to the workings
of this place, reforms that will make it a place of the people
rather than a place of the parties. If each and everyone of us
perhaps being guided by the general principles and polices of the
party had been elected as independents with a mandate to vote the
majority will of the constituents, this place could actually turn
out to be useful to the average Canadian instead of being an
overtaxing, overregulating, overinterfering hindrance to their
lives. In fact some of my constituents have made the comment
that they think the country runs better when we are not in
session.
An hon. member: I have heard that.
Mr. Ted White: One of the PC members mentioned that she
has heard the same thing.
1750
The public perception of politicians as people who will say
anything to get elected and then do whatever they like would
disappear if we were truly representing them. Cynicism would be
replaced by respect and we would be doing the job that the
majority of voters thinks we should be doing. If we ask them
they think we should be representing them, not ourselves or a
hard party line.
During the summer I collected a folder full of issues brought up
in letters and later some phone calls from my constituents. I
tend to do this throughout the year. I pick up the issues and
bring them to this place so that I can express them on behalf of
my constituents.
Unfortunately I will not have time to go through the whole
folder today but I can promise members they will hear about it
all over the coming weeks. They are issues that I really should
not even need to talk about in this place and there would be no
need to talk about them if as I mentioned earlier we were truly
representing our constituents.
If we had citizens rights to initiative and referendum at the
federal level it would make a major difference. For those who
always claim that citizens rights to initiative and referendum
are not compatible with our style of parliamentary democracy, I
say bunkum.
New Zealand which has a similar parliamentary system introduced
citizens rights to initiative and referendum in 1990. The Ontario
government is in the process of introducing those same rights for
Ontario voters. All it takes is the political will. Members will
have the chance to see how it can be done at the federal level
when I reintroduce my private member's bill on initiative and
referendum hopefully next week.
The city of Rossland in B.C. which is just a small city actually
stands as an excellent example of how initiative and referendum
can work for citizens. It really cleans up the politics. Prior
to the introduction of citizens initiative in Rossland in 1991,
four mayors had been tossed out of office in consecutive
elections and councillors were being replaced all the time. It
was very chaotic.
Since citizens initiative and referendum power was introduced
not a single council member or mayor has been voted out of office
because the constituents have been able to concentrate on the
issues and the council and mayor carried out the wishes of the
constituents. They voted themselves some tax increases for
repairs to the community as well as voted against some other
things.
In the absence of the tools of direct democracy in this place we
really remain captive to the will of the prime minister.
Unfortunately that means Canadians will have virtually no input
to this place over the next few years.
Canadian voters will probably be stuck with the same inadequate
justice system which has degenerated under the old line parties
into little more than a legal system incapable of protecting them
from criminals. Canadian voters will probably be stuck with an
immigration system incapable of preventing the entry of hundreds
of bogus and criminal refugees every day, also incapable of
deporting the offenders after years of taxpayer funded appeals. I
wonder how many members know that there are more than 30,000
illegals under deportation order in this country right now.
Canadian voters will probably be stuck with the Liberals
embarking on a special interest group spending spree wasting
money on the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
while they claw back seniors pensions and increase the CPP
premiums for workers. Canadian voters will probably be stuck
with higher and ever increasing taxes that eat away at their
disposable income and kill jobs. Canadian voters will probably
be stuck with record levels of political patronage using their
tax dollars and borrowing against their children's futures.
They will probably be stuck with the ongoing Liberal social
engineering programs which assign rights, privileges and money
based on race or gender instead of on achievement or equal
opportunity; state sanctioned racism and sexism completely out of
touch with the realities of the marketplace.
In a way it is depressing. But in a way it is also invigorating
because it will give me the opportunity over the next few years
along with my colleagues to speak about these problems in this
place. In my role as the direct democracy critic for Reform I
will continue to apply pressure for change in this place, changes
which would make it more effective and deliver real value for
those who pay our salaries.
A strong sense of the need for change was reflected in the
results of a vote held here last Monday. I hope there is
sufficient resolve to carry that feeling through into meaningful
changes as the business of this House progresses.
1755
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a brief comment because I know that many Canadians
do watch the House. I want to defend members of Parliament who
may be affronted by the member's comment about voting the way
that somebody tells them.
As a member of the government party, I ran in the last election
on a government platform which laid out the commitments that the
Liberal Party was making to go into a new parliament.
I want constituents of my riding and of my colleagues' ridings
to know that when we come to this place we will vote in favour of
measures and bills which support a platform on which we ran. That
is the mandate, that is the democracy and the accountability in
this place.
My question for the member has to do with the issue of being an
independent member and voting the will of the people, as the
member would put it. I am afraid that the member is actually
serious about this. The member continues to refer to New Zealand
as a model. New Zealand may be able to do referendums but the
population of New Zealand at some three million is the same as
taking a referendum in the city of Toronto.
I would like to ask the member a very direct question. When one
considers that in the last session of parliament, just half of
the 35th Parliament, we had over 400 votes in this House, how is
it that he expects to consult and get fair questions to all of
the constituents, to get them back and to process them to find
out how his constituents feel and still do it with the resources
that are available? This is going to cost a phenomenal amount of
money.
I would point out to the member that if he truly believes in
referendums, then he should not be here because he only got 49
per cent of the vote. More than half of the people said no to that
member.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the member brought up really
good questions and I thank him very much for that. He knows very
well that most of us, except for one, ran on a platform
associated with a party. So the people who voted for us
supported the general principles of that party platform.
He also knows very well that his constituents do not support
every single plank of that platform. He is far too arrogant to
suggest that therefore he has permission to vote a certain way on
every single issue that comes up in this House.
There is another problem because, as he also well knows having
been here before, there are many issues that come before this
House that were never in a party platform and were never part of
any policy material. Those especially are the types of issues
where he should be very sensitive to the will of those who are
paying his salary I remind him.
He says he is actually afraid that I may be serious. I
certainly am serious. He is also very concerned that I am using
the example of New Zealand for referendums. Of course he
completely ignored the fact that the Harris government in Ontario
is introducing similar legislation.
In addition to that, we have as a very good example the country
of Switzerland which conducts most of its business, at what we
would call the equivalent of the federal level, through citizens
initiated referendum. Nobody could say that the Swiss are not
smart, that their country does not have a high standard of living
and that they do not conduct themselves in a civilized manner,
but the difference there is that those people who want input to
the government truly have input.
Finally I would like to mention that of course many of the
issues that come before this House are not issues that all of the
constituents are interested in. Many of them are housekeeping
items and minor changes and amendments that affect very few
people. It is unrealistic to expect people to take part in a
referendum process for such issues.
Nevertheless there are many major things, like the Young
Offenders Act, capital punishment and various bills that came
through here last year on sentencing reforms on which the public
should have had more meaningful input. If the committees of this
House genuinely reflected the will of the people instead of the
political agenda, most of those bills never would have gone
through last year.
All I can say again to the member is to please open his eyes and
begin reflecting the will of the constituents because the writing
is on the wall: the times they are a changing.
1800
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 6 o'clock, it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
[English]
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the
amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1830
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hayes
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 77
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 168
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Caccia
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
|
Finestone
| Fournier
| Gagliano
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Karygiannis
| Lavigne
| Lincoln
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Steckle
|
The Speaker: I declare the subamendment lost.
1835
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1845
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hayes
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 99
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Caccia
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
|
Finestone
| Fournier
| Gagliano
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Karygiannis
| Lavigne
| Lincoln
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Steckle
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
It being 6.45 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)