36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 22
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CIDA
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| TEAM CANADA 1972
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1405
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| NUCLEAR WASTE
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| FILMMAKER PIERRE PERRAULT
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1410
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| LEBANON
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WEEK
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1415
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1435
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1440
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1445
| PLUTONIUM IMPORTS
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| KOSOVO
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1450
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1455
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Hon. John Manley |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1500
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-319. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1510
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-320. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-321. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-322. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1515
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Community Television
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Telephone Services
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Water Exports
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Cambodia
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1520
| World Health Organization
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Rights of Children
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Gasoline Products
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| The Snowbirds
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Herbal Alternatives
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1525
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-3—Notice of time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1545
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1550
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1555
1600
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1605
1610
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1615
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1620
1625
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1630
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1635
1640
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1645
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1650
1655
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1700
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1705
1710
| Mr. André Harvey |
1715
| Mr. René Canuel |
1720
| Mr. John Harvard |
1725
1730
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1735
1740
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1745
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1750
1755
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1800
1805
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1810
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1815
1845
(Division 53)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1850
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1855
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
1900
| Tobacco
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1905
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 22
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Perth—Middlesex.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CIDA
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week in Ottawa, as part of the International Co-operation
Days, the Canadian International Development Agency is meeting
with over 1,200 representatives from all sectors involved in
international development.
The meetings will enable the minister responsible to outline her
priorities and to hear from Canadians and overseas partners about
their work in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Through CIDA and its partners, Canadians can be proud of our
contribution to creating a more secure and prosperous world for
us all.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre, organizations such as the
Mennonite Central Committee have worked with CIDA and have been
able to assist individuals who are in need and living in
devastated areas such as Kosovo.
I am pleased to represent a community that has a long and
distinguished tradition of helping the citizens in the world in
times of crisis.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated that we
will do more. For example, CIDA will support programs that
educate young girls in Africa, assist women in Asia to start—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, five self-proclaimed skinheads, convicted in the
murder of Sikh Temple caretaker Nirmal Singh Gill, were given
prison sentences of 15 to 18 years.
These prison terms were already reduced by three years and will
probably be further reduced in the Liberal's soft criminal
justice system. Life should mean life, but criminal penalties
are routinely watered down.
Canadians want tougher penalties for violent crime. Racism has
no place in our society. Our diversity is our strength and a
valuable asset.
The people of Surrey have shown tolerance throughout this entire
episode. We can also commend our local community leaders for
keeping things calm. Our media treated this matter fairly.
Finally, we can commend the work of our RCMP despite limited
resources for successfully bringing this matter to justice.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the Minister of Labour for her efforts to come to grips
with the diverse problems of homelessness. I commend the
government for its support of regional forums and research
projects designed to identify the real local problems in places
like Toronto and Peterborough. The federal government must get a
good handle on these matters across the nation before allocating
resources.
The time has now come to act. In provinces like Ontario there
is no one but the federal government that can make a real impact
on homelessness. Where provincial governments are not willing,
we must work directly with municipal governments and NGOs to make
real changes. Federal resources and know how, in partnership
with local groups, can make a huge difference.
Let us act now to help the homeless and those in fear of
becoming homeless.
* * *
[Translation]
TEAM CANADA 1972
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Team Canada 1972 is the Canadian team of the century according
to a Canadian Press poll.
Several generations of Canadians have indelible memories of that
day in Moscow. The Canadian hockey team, with the passionate
support of an entire nation, emerged as champions of the series
of the century, as the result of a last-minute 6-5 win over the
Soviet Union's elite team.
At the 19 minutes 26 seconds mark in the third period of the
eighth game in Moscow, a goal by Paul Henderson carried Canada
to victory.
In picking his team, coach Harry Sinden chose a group that would
end up in the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Thank you, Yvan Cournoyer, Rodrigue Gilbert, Guy Lapointe,
Gilbert Perreault, Jean Ratelle, Ken Dryden, Brad Park, Stan
Mikita, Phil Esposito, Frank Mahovlich and Serge Savard.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is failing farmers and misleading
Canadians.
It is failing farm families on the edge of bankruptcy. Farms
that have been in families for generations will soon belong to
the bank.
1405
The government's AIDA program is not delivering. Only 28% of
prairie farmers who have applied for AIDA have received a cheque.
What about the other 72%? What kind of Christmas will those
families have?
The government is not content with ignoring farmers. It is also
trying to mislead Canadians into believing that there is no
problem on the farm.
The Prime Minister claims that he has given farmers $1.5 billion
through the AIDA program. This is just not true. Only 15% of
the AIDA money has been delivered.
When the Prime Minister is faced with premiers from western
Canada, he invents new statistics to hide the crisis. Why can he
not fix the problem instead of trying to sweep farmers under the
rug?
It is clear that the Liberals do not care about the farm income
crisis and farm families will be left out in the cold this
winter.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take a moment to call to the attention
of the House that November is more or less health month.
November is osteoporosis month, Crohn's and colitis awareness
month, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation awareness month, and
diabetes month.
What is more, November 15 to 21 is national addiction awareness
week, and the week of the 22nd to the 29th is national AIDS
awareness week.
I would like to propose to the members of this House that they
join with me in paying tribute to the staff and volunteers
involved in health-related endeavours during this month of
November and throughout the year.
* * *
LUMBER
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
agreement between the States and Canada on lumber limits
increases in exports by the four provinces it covers.
The agreement expires on March 31, 2001, and the federal
government will have to define its position in the coming
months. It must support the Conseil pour le libre-échange pour
le bois d'oeuvre and demand the restoration of free trade for
lumber.
For the good of the regions whose economy relies on forestry,
the federal government has no choice but to inform the U.S.
government that it wants a return to free trade.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the Quebec lumber manufacturers
association and the Conseil pour le libre-échange pour le bois
d'oeuvre so the industry in Quebec may be given back the
opportunity to assume its rightful place in the North American
lumber market.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, health care is of primary importance
to all Canadians. It certainly behooves the health sector to
have a strong vibrant leadership.
In my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, we are
saying goodbye to an ardent, accomplished, admirable
administrator. The departure of Sheila Schultz as chief
administrative officer for the Pembroke General Hospital is
bittersweet. My riding has lost a person who is a paragon of
proficiency in the field of health care. But the community
gained immeasurably because with Sheila Schultz at the helm, all
patients at the hospital could rest assured that compassionate
care was rendered and delivered by her capable team.
It may interest members to know that my colleague the member for
Leeds—Grenville was born at the General Hospital.
Of course, Sheila Schultz, in her own modest manner, would say
that she had a great teacher in the previous administrator,
Sister St. Mark, who taught her everything she knew.
I congratulate Sheila and wish her a happy retirement and good
health for years to come.
* * *
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps it is time the Prime Minister needs takes a reality
check. He is forging ahead with his swords into ploughshares
plutonium test burn program despite the fact that Canadians do
not want to be involved.
Communities along the test route, such as Windsor, Sarnia,
Cornwall, Sudbury, Thessalon and Nepean, have all condemned the
plutonium shipment. Neither the province of Ontario nor Ontario
Hydro wants any part of the plan. Mohawk leaders have made it
clear that the shipment of plutonium will not occur on their
land. The United States has pulled out and instead has chosen to
burn plutonium at home. Even the Liberal dominated foreign
affairs committee recommended against the plan.
If the federal government does forge ahead, ignoring almost
unanimous opposition to the program, it will not eliminate one
nuclear warhead. What we are talking about here is surplus
plutonium not the dismantling of nuclear warheads.
The fire has gone out of this test burn scheme and it is time
the Prime Minister worked up the moxy to cancel the MOx plan.
* * *
[Translation]
FILMMAKER PIERRE PERRAULT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, filmmaker Pierre Perrault, who passed away last June,
was paid posthumous tribute yesterday for his writing talents
with the unveiling of the governor general's awards for
literature.
His book, Le mal du nord, describing his trip on the icebreaker
Pierre Radisson, was honoured in the studies and essays
category.
1410
Yolande Simard, the widow of Pierre Perrault, in accepting the
award, stressed the vital importance of literacy. She decided
to share her prize with the Montreal and Hull literacy centres.
Pierre Perrault had already won the governor general's award on
two other occasions, in 1964, for theatre, and in 1975, for
poetry.
I would like to congratulate all winners of these awards
recognizing or rather honouring their work, which will influence
generations to come.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today hundreds of people returned to Parliament Hill calling for
immediate action to deal with poverty and homelessness. Is
pepper spray the government's only response?
We are facing another winter of misery, hopelessness, sickness
and death, but the federal government refuses to recognize
housing as a human right.
Blame lies with the Liberal government for abandoning social
housing. Blame lies with the Liberal government for passing the
buck and abandoning its own promises made in 1999 to build
affordable housing.
Right across the country, people are fighting for basic rights
for housing, shelter and a living income. We say shame on the
federal government for ignoring the plight of the most vulnerable
people in our society. Shame on the federal government for
stalling, delaying, shuffling and ignoring this critical issue.
The federal NDP has joined the campaign for 1% for housing and a
national housing strategy. We will keep up our struggle in
solidarity with homeless people and all Canadians in need of
adequate housing until the injustice of homelessness is ended.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a magnificent
booklet entitled Canadians on the Hill: a continuing tradition
published recently by the inaptly named National Capital
Commission is curiously silent about historic events and
politicians of the last three decades.
In this publication, history comes to a dead stop in 1967.
There is therefore no mention of the official signing ceremony
marking the much-hated patriation of the Constitution in 1982.
Through omission, this booklet rewrites history.
However, members will recall seeing the Queen, Mr. Trudeau and
the current Prime Minister at this distressing historic signing
ceremony.
Now, the incriminating event has simply been swept under the
carpet. In fact, if we are to believe this booklet, since 1967
Parliament Hill has been little more than a festival venue and
sightseeing attraction.
Quite some propaganda to gloss over the risks, and the lessons
of the past with respect to the Canadian federal system.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, this morning
the supreme court dismissed the motion by the West Nova
Fishermen's Coalition asking the court to rehear the September 17
ruling in the Donald Marshall Jr. case.
Despite this ruling, the court finally provided clarification on
the extent by which natives can exercise their rights to fishing,
hunting and gathering.
The court makes it clear that the Marshall ruling does not
provide natives with access to logging or mineral rights as was
suggested by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
The West Nova Fishermen's Coalition deserves a lot of credit for
asking the supreme court for clarification on this issue. It is
shameful as to why the federal government did not take it upon
itself to seek its own clarification.
We knew that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had failed to
protect the east coast fishery, however, now we discovered that
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been
acting upon his own personal interpretation of the Marshall
ruling, one that today's supreme court decision has said is
totally wrong.
Canadians have lost faith in these two ministers and it is for
this reason that we ask for their immediate resignations.
* * *
LEBANON
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November
22 marks the independence day of Lebanon.
On behalf of my colleagues, I call on his Excellency Dr. Assem
Jaber, the Lebanese Ambassador to Canada and Minister Issam
Naaman to communicate to the people of Lebanon our warmest
congratulations.
It is our hope that the year 2000 will bring for the people of
Lebanon law and order, prosperity, happiness, full independence
and territorial integrity and a comprehensive, complete and
lasting peace.
Long live the friendship that exists between Canada and Lebanon.
* * *
[Translation]
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WEEK
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week, the Correctional Service of Canada and communities
throughout the country are celebrating Restorative Justice Week.
Restorative justice focuses on victims, the accountability of
offenders, and the involvement of citizens in creating
healthier, safer communities.
This year, the Correctional Service of Canada established the
Restorative Justice Award in memory of Ron Wiebe, most recently
the warden of the Elbow Lake and Ferndale correctional
institutions. Mr. Wiebe passed away in July after a tough battle
with cancer.
1415
Yesterday, at Ferndale Institution, CSC Commissioner Ole
Ingstrup presented the first Ron Wiebe restorative justice
award.
The first award went to the Church Council on Justice and
Corrections, which is celebrating 25 years of educating and
advocating for restorative justice. The second is being awarded
posthumously to Eleanor Brown, a senior citizen volunteer who
was very involved in this field.
I urge all members to join with me in congratulating the
recipients of the first Ron Wiebe award for restorative justice.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: We have a number of distinguished guests
today and I wish to introduce two of them at this time.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in our
gallery of His Excellence Dr. Issam Naaman, Minister of Post and
Telecommunications of Lebanon.
I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in our
gallery of the Honourable Glenn Hagel, Minister of Post-Secondary
Education and Skills Training of the province of Saskatchewan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is time to play who wants to be a millionaire, and our contestant
today is the human resources development minister who knows how
to play.
She used the transitional jobs fund minister's reserve to drop
half a million dollars in her own riding. The fund of course is
supposed to be used for areas with at least 12% unemployment and
hers had only 6.5%.
Here is the question for our contestant: Why did the human
resources minister break the rules? She does not need briefing
notes for that.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the departmental resources are
there for stated priorities where there are not funds available.
We have used those for a number of priorities such as youth
services projects in British Columbia and in the riding of West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the riding of a Reform member, for the
west coast railway heritage project.
These funds are there to focus in areas of high unemployment, or
where we need a focus on youth services, to ensure that the
programming is there for Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps she has her funds mixed up. I do not think that is the
case. The minister seems to have trouble grasping the format
here.
We asked a question. She is supposed to answer with an answer.
Maybe she would like to, on this one, call a friend or ask the
audience.
Here is the question. The transitional jobs fund minister's
reserve is (a) a multimillion dollar ministerial slush fund, (b)
a way for ministers to get around the rules, (c) a way for
ministers to scratch each other's backs, or (d) a special brand
of cognac. Which would it be?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the transitional jobs fund was there for
areas of high unemployment, to help get Canadians back to work.
In my own riding there were real challenges. If the hon. member
would like to look at it, the region of Brantford was decimated
by the closure of plants like White Farms and Massey Ferguson.
We had an unemployment level that was extraordinarily high and
not coming down.
As is the case in all regions where the transitional jobs fund
has been used, Canadians are working. The unemployment levels
are coming down, and the government is working with communities
together to make sure that this happens.
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know we all want to hear
both the questions and the answers today.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
was that her final answer? The unemployment was at 6.5%, as far
as I know. That answer is wrong, I am afraid. She should have
used a life line, maybe, when she had the chance.
Cabinet ministers do not need to play by the rules so maybe we
could give her another chance.
She got a half million dollars from the minister's special
reserve. That needed more than 12% unemployment, and she knows
that hers was 6.5%.
1420
Let us ask her one more time. Here are the options: (a) she
broke the rules, (b) she fudged the numbers, (c) who cares, it is
other people's money, or (d)—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely none of the above.
What we find in this circumstance, as well as in other
circumstances across the country including in Reform ridings, is
that there are pockets of very high unemployment in particular
areas.
The transitional jobs fund is precisely for those areas of high
unemployment. Indeed, our unemployment levels are coming down in
Brant and in other ridings where the transitional jobs funds have
been used.
That is because of the approach of the government to work in
partnership at the community level to focus on the issues that
will make a difference for citizens in those ridings to use their
skills and abilities to diversify the economy. That is what it
is about and that is what is happening.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a multimillion dollar annual fund within the
Department of Human Resources Development called the minister's
reserve. There are $5 million in this reserve. In other words,
the minister has been handed her very own multimillion dollar
slush fund to spend any way she wants.
This fund really is not about creating jobs, is it? Is it not
really about creating special privileges for certain highly
placed Liberal ministers and their friends?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. That is why, as I said
earlier, we invested in the riding of the member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast with moneys from the minister's
reserve.
In fact that is why we invested $250,000 of reserve funding in
the area of British Columbia where there was a strong need for
youth employment programs.
If the hon. member would just talk to some of her own caucus
members, she would find that money is in their regions and
helping the citizens of those communities: young people and
people who have not been able to find employment. That is what
it is all about. It is a way of managing funds so that we can—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government is
spending millions by overtaxing Canadian workers on EI on the
so-called jobs fund.
For months now we have seen misuse and abuse of these public
moneys for political purposes in the Prime Minister's riding, and
now we find the HRD minister had a cool half million given to her
riding even though she could not meet the criteria.
Are Canadians just supposed to accept that a minister of the
government does not have to play by the rules?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, do you know what Canadians accept? They
accept the fact that the government invested $300 million in the
transitional jobs fund and turned it into $1.2 billion.
They accept the fact that for every dollar we put into it we
leveraged $9 to create work in ridings of high unemployment
across the country.
They accept that this money does not just go into the ridings of
Liberal members of parliament but into ridings of members of the
NDP, the Tory party, and even of the Reform Party.
What Canadians accept is the fact that our unemployment levels
have continued to come down. They are now at the lowest—
[Translation]
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
policies of the Minister of Finance are choking the provinces,
which are suffering from a flagrant lack of resources to meet
their responsibilities. The Minister of Finance prefers to
initiate new programs rather than re-establish, in health care
and education, essential services which the public has been
denied since 1994.
Will the minister acknowledge once and for all that the priority
is to re-establish transfer payments at the 1994 level, as all of
the provinces have in fact asked him to do?
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
very clearly recognized the priority of Canadians in our latest
budgets.
The member referred to health, for example. I have said it
repeatedly in the House, there has been an increase of $11.5
billion over five years to the provinces for health.
I am convinced that we will be discussing this when the
ministers of finance meet in ten days' time.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat yet again, he has not given an additional $11 billion.
He cut $33 billion instead of $44 billion. This is a fact of
his own budgets. It is time he read them.
In the latest throne speech, we got a shopping list of ways to
spend the surpluses he accumulated on the backs of the
unemployed and the provinces. The provincial finance ministers
have clear priorities, as does the public.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us today what his own
priorities are?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
priorities are those of the government, which are those of
Canadians.
It is clear in the speech from the throne that the provinces are
in agreement as well. They endorsed the 50-50 formula. They
endorsed the Government of Canada's red book. The throne speech
spoke of the infrastructure program. Even the provinces spoke
of it in their meeting two days ago.
They also spoke of tax cuts, a reduction in the debt, reflected
in the throne speech, reflected—
The Speaker: The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
some months now, the alarm bells have been sounding to warn us
of an imminent crisis in the health sector.
Yesterday, all of the country's ministers of finance sent a
clear message to the government: We want our money back.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that, in making drastic
cuts to transfer payments to the provinces for health care, he
has created a situation that is about to explode? Is he waiting
to see victims before finally consenting to listen to us?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again I repeat, at the request of the provinces, we have
restored transfer payments as far as health is concerned. We
did so in last year's budget.
But the question is this: Do the provinces intend to restore to
the municipalities what they have cut from them?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
comes a time when enough is enough.
Since 1994, this Minister of Finance has cut $21 billion from
health care and social services. That is a fact. And he is
going to cut another $12 billion by the year 2003. That too is
a fact.
Will this minister, who has accumulated $8 billion in surplus in
the first six months, bow to the arguments of the provinces and
give back $3.7 billion to fund health and education? That is
what he is being asked, nothing else.
alternative?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just said that within ten days I intend to discuss all this
with my provincial counterparts.
Now, when the hon. member speaks of cuts, if they are so busy
tearing their hair out over this, at least it is saving them
money in hair cuts.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
now one week away from the 10th anniversary of the Broadbent
resolution to eliminate child poverty, a resolution supported by
every member of the House including the member for
LaSalle—Émard. Here is what the Liberals said at the time:
I never hear the finance minister talk about the real deficit in
the country—one million kids in poverty.
Will this finance minister rise in his place and resolve today,
in his now famous phrase, to eliminate child poverty, come hell
or high water?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we talked about this yesterday, but I was
reminded that there is probably no one who spoke more eloquently
on the issue of children than our Prime Minister in his
responses.
In other venues the Prime Minister talks about wanting to do in
the early part of the 21st century for Canada's children what we
have been able to do as a country for our seniors. I cannot
imagine a more strong commitment to Canada's children than the
words of our Prime Minister.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was
the finance minister who was in the House. It was the finance
minister who made the solemn pledge, and where is he now on this?
Last year the finance minister was prepared to say:
We should establish the elimination of child poverty as a great
national objective, not unlike what we did...with the deficit.
Why will the finance minister not now commit to targets and
timetables to eliminate child poverty, come hell or high water?
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made it clear on numerous occasions
the terrible tragedy of child poverty and the terrible cost it is
going to inflict upon this country in the future. That is why we
have brought forth the number of programs we have. We have
brought forth the increase in the child tax benefit, the increase
in the child care expense deduction and the basic revolution that
was represented by Head Start, all of which are initiatives that
have been pushed very strongly by the government.
If the NDP is sincere in what it is saying, then it will join
the government as we battle to eliminate child poverty against
those who do not care.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general says that he does not
micromanage CSIS and he hides behind a technicality that he is
under no obligation to contact the head of SIRC when a breach of
national security occurs. CSIS director Ward Elcock obviously
has no respect for SIRC at all or for any parliamentarians or
even for the minister. The director, aided by the minister, has
undermined the role of SIRC and it appears that he deliberately
covered up the theft of the CSIS plan.
When will the solicitor general advise us of whether he or the
director of CSIS informed the adviser of security and
intelligence review for the PCO of this breach of national
security?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times in
the House, this is a very serious matter and when the director of
CSIS informed me he indicated that the inspector general was
conducting an investigation, that CSIS was conducting an
investigation and that SIRC, which has access to CSIS files, with
a mandate from this House, would be conducting a review. That is
exactly what is happening.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we know it is a serious matter, but when will the
minister get smart? He refuses to take any responsibility for
what has taken place, for himself or his employees. The CSIS
board has had vacancies since this summer and the inspector
general's role was only filled days before this fiasco at the
Leaf's game.
Has the solicitor general given any instructions to the director
to remedy this complete breakdown in communication within his
department?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough does not understand about this
process. I heard him on CBC Radio yesterday morning when he
indicated that SIRC was an independent body and could do the job.
I just wish the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough would
quit playing politics and trying to score cheap political points
in this House.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered the Marshall
decision last September, the minister of Indian affairs sent
shock waves through resource industries in this country by
suggesting that the judgment gave natives treaty access to
forest, mineral and natural gas resources. This morning the
court clearly stated that these other resources were simply not
addressed by the Marshall decision.
Given the court's clarification, is the minister prepared to
withdraw his irresponsible and inaccurate statement?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality of it is that
the courts did say very clearly that we should be negotiating
with first nations people. That is the position of the
government, not the position of the opposition, and we will
continue to negotiate.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, regardless of what the minister says, the Marshall
decision applies only to a Mi'kmaq treaty right to carry on a
small scale commercial eel fishery. Most importantly, it
acknowledges non-aboriginals' right to fish. Will the minister
of fisheries acknowledge the right of all Canadians to fish and
develop one set of regulations for all Canadians?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the court ruled today it
totally rejected the position of the Reform Party, which asks for
a hearing. Second, the court has reaffirmed the government's
position, the government's strategy and the way the government
has handled this.
1435
Let me read the quote from the courts:
As this and other courts have pointed out on many occasions, the
process of accommodation of the treaty right may be best resolved
by consultation and negotiation of a modern agreement for
participation in specified resources by the Mi'kmaq rather than
by litigation.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian federation is chronically dysfunctional—those with the
money are not providing any services, and those providing the
services have no money.
In the meantime, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is
worrying about the referendum practices of the Government of
Quebec rather than devoting his energy to resolving this
fundamental problem that has been identified by all premiers.
Would the minister not be better advised to do what he was
appointed to do and speak to his colleague, the Minister of
Finance, so that action is taken to right this fiscal imbalance?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important that our federation be in good
economic health. It is extremely heartening to note that we are
having some very healthy discussions on how to use surpluses.
I want to point out to the member that the former leader of the
Bloc Quebecois once said that it was necessary to leave the
federation because it was on the brink of bankruptcy. Well,
this federation is one of the healthiest countries in the world
economically and together we are talking about ways to use the
surpluses.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
former leader of the Bloc Quebecois is also a premier who, along
with nine other premiers, has harsh words for the government's
use of the surpluses.
Instead of retreating to his ivory tower and dreaming up plans
to limit the powers of Quebec's National Assembly, would the
minister not be better advised to have a word with the Minister
of Finance so that the next federal-provincial conference focuses
on the real problem: getting the money to those who provide the
services?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, credit is due many of the provincial governments for
making it back to a surplus position before the Government of
Canada did, for beginning to lower their taxes ahead of us, and
for having a financial health that is comparable to ours.
If it has taken certain governments, and one of them in
particular, longer to achieve this, perhaps a few years of
referendum madness are responsible.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it seems that all of the departments under the solicitor general
have serious problems hanging on to their briefcases. We have
now learned that the RCMP had information stolen from one of its
cars, which put the lives of informants and their sources in
grave danger.
It is clear that the minister did not do anything about the CSIS
briefcase. Did the minister and his department consider the RCMP
stolen briefcase a serious threat to the lives of the informants
and what action did he take?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to the
case that was stolen in 1995, the commissioner assured me that an
investigation into this did take place. He also assured me that
the necessary steps were taken.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the question then is, if serious steps were taken and this is yet
another event in the life of this minister in the departments of
the solicitor general, why is it that we have yet another case
missing from another car? I do not really understand.
The people who put their lives on the line for the minister and
his ministries want to know why it is that his ministry acts like
a sieve. Why are their names in danger, in public, as a result
of his department and his department's inaction?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and the
government takes this matter very seriously. That is why when
the director informed me he told me that the inspector general
was conducting an investigation and CSIS was conducting an
investigation. And SIRC, which has a mandate from this place to
conduct a review, is doing that very thing.
Why will my hon. colleague not just let the process work?
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today we learned that not only were documents stolen from the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but that lists of
informants were also stolen from the RCMP.
1440
How does the minister explain the fact that the RCMP has lost
sensitive documents, some of which could endanger the lives of
people who co-operate with the police, without the government
even being informed of such an incident?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe if my hon. colleague was
listening, if she was talking about the brief case that
disappeared in 1995, I just responded to that question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister not realize that his cavalier attitude
regarding such a serious issue has everybody concerned about his
understanding of his role and of the security component that is
involved?
To show that he clearly understands his role, could the minister
tell us when he intends to demand the resignation of the heads
of these agencies?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the commissioner of the
RCMP indicated to me that there was an investigation. He also
indicated to me that the documents in the case were not project
specific and they did not involve national security.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister opened a new $15 million armoury in his
riding, claiming it was a military necessity, that the regiment
there had been expanding since 1936.
The fact of the matter is that the membership in that regiment
has actually dropped from 236 to 176. The number of privates has
gone from 106 to a mere 31.
Why did this shrinking regiment require a state of the art $15
million armoury just before the 1997 election?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member has not provided
all of the information about this armoury. He is talking about
one regiment, one unit. However, there are six units that occupy
that armoury.
If a family goes from one person to six people it obviously
needs more room; so it is in the case of the armoury. The
previous armoury was built in 1950. They have outgrown it. Yes,
there are some fluctuations, but there are four cadet corps there
with some 150 over and above the number that he is talking about.
Furthermore, this was first approved in April 1993.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the truth of the matter is that the defence minister is not
giving out all of the information. The project was terminated by
the Department of National Defence in 1996. According to the
department, it was suggested that there be no change in this
armoury until the year 2015.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary
Northeast may again begin his question if he would like.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is
that the defence minister is not portraying the whole picture
either. The project was terminated by DND in 1996. It suggested
that the existing armoury was viable until the year 2015.
The Prime Minister insisted that the new armoury was necessary
in 1997 when he was facing a tough election campaign. He knew
our troops were desperately needing new combat clothing and new
equipment.
How can the defence minister call this a military necessity?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this was first approved
during the days of the Mulroney government in 1993, when the
current Prime Minister was not even the member for Shawinigan.
Second, it was not terminated in 1996. It was put on hold at
that time because of budget cuts. In 1997 it was put back on,
not politically, it was put back on by the army which said it
needed it because of the six units.
There is one other thing I think members should know. The hon.
member talks about the $15 million for the Shawinigan armoury
which is very much needed. What about the contract for $164
million awarded to Harris Energy Control Systems Canada Inc. in
the riding of Calgary Northeast?
* * *
1445
[Translation]
PLUTONIUM IMPORTS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Transport Canada released a report in which it gives
the green light to the importation of plutonium-based fuel into
Canada.
The government keeps repeating that the public's short and long
term safety are not at risk. However, the public's strong
opposition to this project clearly shows that Canadians do not
support it.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Will the minister recognize that the Seaborn panel, which spent
nine years reviewing the nuclear issue, concluded that any
solution must have strong public support, and will the minister
finally allow a public debate on plutonium imports?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately I think the hon. member is confusing two
quite different things.
She referred to the report of the Seaborn panel, which of course
refers to the management of nuclear fuel waste over the long
term, to which the government has responded and further action
will be forthcoming reasonably shortly.
As for MOx fuel, that is fully covered under the provisions of
the Atomic Energy Control Act and the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods Act. We have made absolutely certain that every provision
of that legislation is in force and will be respected in order to
protect public health and safety.
* * *
KOSOVO
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Co-operation.
It has been months since Canada deployed troops in Kosovo to
bring peace and security to that region. However, there is still
much work to be done by the international community. Could the
minister tell us what Canada is doing to help in that rebuilding
effort?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada recently announced $100 million in
new funding for rehabilitation of Kosovo and the Balkans. Of
that money, $11.2 million is being used for health, education,
shelter and associated demining programs.
Today a further $3.7 million is being announced by the
government to be used in the areas of health, education and
social services. One example is that $1 million will go to the
United Nations for fuel for heating systems in Pristina which
will provide about 40% of the city's heat, including hospitals
and schools.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, an
elections act should be politically neutral, supported by the
public, the chief electoral officer and all the parties in this
House. But the government House leader's new elections act is
politically biased, opposed by the official opposition and
criticized by the chief electoral officer as unfit for a third
world country.
Why is the government not modernizing the elections act, making
it more democratic, instead of persisting with a patronage
ridden, gag law contaminated piece of yesterday's legislation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member was not
paying attention to the answers yesterday, so let me try it
again.
First, the Lortie commission in 1991 did not recommend changing
from the present formula of appointing electoral officers in
ridings. Second, this is the same formula utilized in six
provinces in addition to the one used by the House of Commons at
the present time. Third, the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario
has indicated that it would take an additional 19 bureaucrats in
Ontario alone, probably 50 at the national level, to administer
that which he—
The Speaker: The hon. member for North Vancouver.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister was not paying attention to the questions yesterday.
Bill C-2 slaps a gag law on voters, prevents the Chief Electoral
Officer from testing new voting technologies, reinstates an
illogical 50 candidate rule, perpetuates an offensive system of
patronage appointments by the Prime Minister and cannot prevent
cats and dogs from being registered as voters and candidates.
The bill fails every reasonable test for political neutrality
and fairness. Why does the minister not just throw the bill away
and start again from scratch?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way
can make accusations where he likes in his usual partisan way,
but for him to accuse all returning officers in Canada of putting
cats and dogs on the voters list is an unjustified and
unwarranted attack against hundreds of civil servants who are
doing a great job for Canadians.
* * *
1450
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last evening Premier Klein went on TV to tell Albertans
that he will openly defy the principles of medicare by allowing
the development of a private, for profit hospital system. He said
he intends to allow public tax dollars to be siphoned off
directly into the pockets of private health corporations.
Surely that was not the intention of the architects of medicare.
Surely this is not Canadians' interpretation of the Canada Health
Act.
I want to ask the health minister, does he believe that for
profit private hospitals are consistent with the principles of
the Canada Health Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the premier spoke last night and today we received a policy
statement which we are looking at right now.
Let me make something crystal clear so that I can remove any
doubt from the member's mind. We will protect the Canada Health
Act. We will protect the Canadian system of medicare. We will
protect its letter and we will protect its spirit. Neither this
government nor this Minister of Health will ever permit the
development of a private parallel system of health care in this
country.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, whenever the minister answers a question on health care
I am always tempted to ask, is that all there is? There is lots
of talk but no action.
Canadians are depending upon the government to protect public
health care. The health minister has options. If he is really
serious about protecting health care he could and he should use
the process set out by the social union agreement to challenge
that kind of approach. He can do that now. Will he do it? Will
he use the social union agreement to fight for public health
care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
fighting for public health care is my full time job. I do little
else. I will continue to do that.
The proposals that came from Alberta arrived today. We are
looking at them. We will examine them. Our perspective is very
simple. We will not allow the development of a private parallel
system of health care in this country, not in Alberta and not in
any province. This government is committed to public medicare in
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CSIS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
matter of the stolen documents, the solicitor general is, you
know, rather like the stolen documents. He sits in a back seat.
He does not move. He waits for someone to collect him and
deliver him safely.
I would like to ask the solicitor general, sitting in a back
seat and not attending to the matter, whether he will finally
take some disciplinary action and suspend the agent and the
director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should be aware that I
have no role in internal disciplinary actions within CSIS.
I understand this is a very serious matter and it is being
addressed by the appropriate bodies.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general says he looked after it and that he cannot
intervene in internal matters. But he did not inform the PMO
and he did not inform the president of the Privy Council so the
matter would be known and the whole thing examined.
I would ask the solicitor general, if he is incapable of looking
after the matter, why he does not make like the documents and
disappear?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that this is a very
serious matter. The government is fully aware that this is a
very serious matter. That is why the director of CSIS came to me
and indicated that the inspector general was conducting an
investigation and CSIS was conducting an investigation.
My hon. colleague is also well aware that SIRC has access to
CSIS files and will be conducting a review. That is what is
happening and that is what should be happening.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Will the minister tell the House to what extent will the lesser
developed countries be considered in the launch of the Seattle
round of the World Trade Organization negotiations?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, trade does lead to development and that
is what history is teaching us.
Canada and the world know that development will be at the heart
of the next round of negotiations. We will work to fight the
exclusion and promote development of those countries through
trade.
With my colleague the Minister for International Co-operation,
we will work at capacity building so that developing countries
can indeed participate fully in a rules based international trade
system.
Canada will also promote at Seattle better coherence between the
WTO and the other international organizations in favour of
developing countries.
* * *
1455
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago the member for Stoney Creek, who is also
chair of the Liberal's economic development committee, publicly
called on the government to remove Nick Mulder from the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency's Red Hill Creek review panel. In
a November 4 letter he wrote “It appears Mr. Mulder is
simultaneously serving as a lobbyist to CEAA and performing
contract services for the same agency”.
Why has the government not taken any action in response to
serious allegations made by one of its own senior members?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. Based on the information
provided, there is no conflict of interest.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
The closure of the pulp and paper mill in Chandler and the
cessation of mining activities at Mines Gaspé have hit the Gaspé
particularly hard. The Government of Quebec is doing everything
it can to ensure that a previously signed investment agreement
is honoured, which would prevent the mill from having to be shut
down definitively.
Is the minister prepared to come up with funding for the
operation of the “Baie des Chaleurs” railway, as the Chandler
municipal council is requesting, and thus provide transitional
support while the Chandler mill is being converted?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would point out to the member that, on November 10, the
Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec visited the Gaspé and
met with concerned citizens.
On that date, we undertook to provide concrete support, such as
feasibility studies for potential projects, in order to help
identify new job creation avenues.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
communique from a Saskatchewan resident for the agriculture
minister. Saskatoon resident Dennis Gruending notes that
agriculture was the number one issue in Monday's byelection in
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Given the particularly dismal results of the Liberal candidate
in that byelection, Dennis Gruending asks the minister of
agriculture whether he will now change his government's
disastrous policies and introduce a transitional payment and
provide some real assistance for prairie farmers.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that
he demonstrate, and he can very easily, the changes that the
government has already made and continues to make to the program.
More changes have been made in response to the requests of the
safety nets advisory committee and the industry earlier this
month. If the province of Saskatchewan would match it as it has
all the time, this would put over $100 million more into the
support of those in Saskatchewan who need the help.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
what we know. Highly classified CSIS documents were stolen at a
Leaf's hockey game. We also know that the CSIS employee
responsible has not been disciplined and is still being paid by
the Canadian taxpayer. CSIS director Ward Alcock, who
unilaterally chose not to advise SIRC, is still being paid by the
Canadian taxpayer. In addition, Alcock chose to run and leave
the country the day the story broke.
Will the minister finally demonstrate that incompetence will not
be tolerated at CSIS and that the next papers the CSIS employee
and Alcock take out of the CSIS offices will be their termination
papers?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. I wish a
lot of my colleagues would quit playing politics with this issue.
When the director of CSIS came to me, he took appropriate action.
He conducted an investigation. The inspector general conducted an
investigation. As I have said many times, all the appropriate
action has been taken.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
The recent economic and fiscal update has highlighted the great
importance of knowledge and innovation.
Can the minister give us an overview of the amounts currently
invested by the Canada Foundation for Innovation and their
impact on Canadian universities?
1500
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the
House that the Canada Foundation for Innovation recently
invested $350 million in support of infrastructure projects in
Canadian universities, in order to assist researchers in
undertaking new projects in all sectors.
Recently as well, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council announced plans
to establish a Canadian digital library project linking all
Canadian universities on the Internet.
Innovation is in good shape in Canada, which is why a congress
on innovation will be held here in Ottawa on November 30 and
December 1 and 2.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Today we have a very special group of
Canadians with us.
I draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the
gallery of a group of Canadians of extraordinary talent and
accomplishment in the field of Canadian literature. They have
devoted their energies toward enriching the cultural life of
Canada.
[Translation]
They are the recipients of the Governor General's Literary
Award, that most prestigious of awards to Canada's great writers.
[English]
I will call out the names of the 11 recipients who are with us
today. I know many members know them personally, but I would
like you to hold your applause until all of them are standing in
the gallery.
The recipients are: Lise Tremblay, Jan Zwicky, Herménégilde
Chiasson, Michael Healey, Jean Marc Dalpé, Marq de Villiers,
Rachna Gilmore, Charlotte Gingras, Gary Clement, Stéphane Jorisch
and Patricia Claxton.
These are our writers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I invite you to a reception in
my chambers, Room 222-N, for our recipients in about 15 or 20
minutes.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I
have the honour to present to the House a report from the
Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association concerning a
visit to London in the United Kingdom in July 1999.
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House
in both official languages, the first report of the Canada-Europe
Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the
meeting of the Council of Europe's commission on the
environment, land use and local authorities, held in Paris on
May 21, 1999.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I also have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the second report of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. The association
represented Canada at meetings of the Council of Europe
parliamentary assembly's economic affairs and development
committee, at the Paris headquarters of the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on 18 June, and in
the parliamentary assembly's plenary session in Strasbourg from
June 21 to June 25, 1999.
[English]
Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have
the honour to present to the House, in both official languages,
the third report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association
which represented Canada at the Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly's plenary session in Strasbourg from September 20 to 25,
1999.
* * *
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-319, an act to amend the Food and Drugs
Act (nutrition information on foods).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill requires that all packaged foods,
bulk foods and fruits and vegetables sold at retail to have to
indicate the amount of certain nutrients that are in them, in
particular calories, fats, transfats, cholesterol and the like.
The purpose for this is that there is currently no law requiring
this information to be given to consumers and without a law
manufacturers and packagers have been slow to educate consumers
about their products. Consumers armed with this knowledge of the
nutritional value of the foods they consume can make far more
educated choices, helping them to improve their diets, their
health and helping them to reduce serious illness.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(offence committed outside Canada).
He said: Mr. Speaker, currently section 6.2 of the criminal code
specifies that persons are not to be convicted of offences
committed outside of Canada. There are a few exceptions, such as
war crimes, hostage-taking and the like.
My bill would amend section 7 to provide that everyone who
commits an act outside Canada that if committed in Canada would
constitute an offence under the criminal code, shall be deemed to
have committed the act in Canada if he or she is a Canadian
citizen, a permanent resident or present in Canada after the
commission of the act.
The tragic inspiration for the bill was the true case of a
husband and wife vacationing on a Caribbean island where the
husband assaulted the wife. They were both Canadians living in
Canada. They returned to Canada and the husband was not brought
to justice for the violent act against his wife because it
occurred outside Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code to provide
for the forfeiture of property relating to child pornography
crimes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise today
to retable my private member's bill on behalf of the people of
Lethbridge and indeed all the children of Canada. I thank those
in the House for supporting it and also those in southern Alberta
who have sent me notes and cards of appreciation.
My bill is an amendment to the criminal code that will allow the
courts to convict a person of an offence under the child
pornography provisions of the criminal code to order the
forfeiture of anything used in the commission of an offence under
this provision.
In the last parliament, this bill received widespread support
and garnered praise from many different sectors. It has been
mentioned on a continent-wide syndicated radio program. It has
been endorsed by the Canadian Police Association and has the
support of the Ontario Provincial Police child pornography unit,
Project P.
I am hopeful that as I continue to canvass my colleagues in the
House that this support may be recognized and reflected.
Before closing, I would like to recognize the heroic efforts of
all those law enforcement officers who fight the spread of child
pornography and who have been instrumental in developing this
bill. I especially recognize Detective Inspector Bob Matthews of
the Ontario Provincial Police, Project P, the child pornography
unit.
These are turbulent times for those fighting child pornography.
So to all those who continue this fight, keep up the good work.
We are with you.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
and the National Defence Act (rental of a residence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill comes from the men and women
who work at MARPAC in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Indeed, it is for defence workers all across the country.
Although the government has given the military men and women
a raise, it has not rolled back their rents
and is making their accommodation assistance allowance less than
what it was before.
The bill will enable the government to give the men and women up
to a $400 tax deduction on the rents that they pay and will also
roll back the rents on the private-married quarters to what they
were in January 1995.
The bill will give some badly needed economic help to the men
and women in our defence department who are suffering right now
in so many ways. It is a way for the government to get the
resources without necessarily asking for more money. It will put
money in the pockets of these people who are giving their lives
and putting their lives on the line so we can live in peace and
security in our country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been discussions among the House leaders and I think you
would find unanimous consent for the adoption of the following
motion:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized
to travel to Miramichi, New Brunswick, on Friday, November 26,
1999, for the purpose of its study on the implications of the
September 17 Marshall ruling of the Supreme Court on the
management of the fisheries in the Atlantic region.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
COMMUNITY TELEVISION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House to present a petition containing
1,151 names to save independent community television.
The petition points out that the role of community channels
should be to provide accessible and open use by the community and
not at the favour of corporations.
The petition calls upon parliament to provide a legal definition
of community television to ensure access to funds and full
accessibility for community use and expression.
TELEPHONE SERVICES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
again to speak to the matter of a lack of telephones in a part of
Peterborough County.
It is extraordinary in the modern age that a location in
southern Ontario, close to the city of Peterborough, has
telephone poles but has never had telephones. This affects
families in situations of emergency or their children accessing
the Internet, as so many other children are doing, and so on.
This is in a country which pioneered telephones and telephone
service, and which prides itself on being the most connected
country in the world.
The petitioners call upon parliament to intervene on behalf of
these people through relevant federal departments, the CRTC and
Bell Canada.
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from citizens of Peterborough who are concerned about
the export of bulk water.
They point out that there are corporations which already have
plans to export 50 billion litres of Canadian lake water per
year. Trade rules dictate that once Canada begins to export its
lake water no limit can be placed on the amount exported.
The petitioners say this water belongs to the people of Canada,
not to private corporations. Exports of such water bring
environmental devastation. Therefore they call upon parliament
to enact legislation which prohibits large scale water exports.
CAMBODIA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of Mrs. Sanrin Son and 157 other Canadians, I
present a petition that calls for the genocidal dictator of
Cambodia, Mr. Hun Sen, who has committed human rights abuses, war
crimes, genocide, and is implicated in the murder of Mrs. Piseth
Pilika of Cambodia, to be tried for war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide.
This brings to the attention of the House the egregious
situation taking place in Cambodia today and calls for justice to
be served.
TAXATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour to present the following petitions signed by 26 concerned
individuals.
Revenue Canada does not allow members of a tradesmen union to
deduct employment expenses if they have to work out of town
because the contractor is considered local. Therefore, the
petitioners pray and call upon parliament to amend subparagraphs
8(1)(h) and 8(1)(h)(i) of the Income Tax Act to read:
(a) employer's place of business or in different places, or
(b) where the taxpayer is a member of a trade union and through
placement is employed by an employer outside the area of the
union local.
1520
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present this afternoon pursuant
to Standing Order 36.
The first one is from petitioners from Saskatoon, my riding of
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Colonsay, Dalmeny and a number of
other communities in Saskatchewan. It is signed by almost 1,000
citizens.
They say that the constitution of the World Health Organization
provides for membership to be open to all states. They are
asking that the goal of the citizens of the world to be healthy
should not be blocked by politics and that the people of Taiwan
hope to advance forward in public health and medical treatment
along with the rest of the people of the world.
They are therefore calling upon the Government of Canada and the
Parliament of Canada to support Taiwan's membership in the World
Health Organization.
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition is signed by over 2,000 petitioners
from my constituency in Regina as well as by petitioners from
Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Grenfell, Edenwold, Odessa, Weyburn,
Lumsden and a number of other places.
They are very concerned about the children of Canada. They
believe the children of Canada should have the right to be
parented by both parents. They maintain that mandatory equal
shared parenting should be the starting point after divorce,
replacing the current custody and access regime.
They also believe there is no reason for the Minister of Justice
to further study this issue, least of all until May 2002, and
that the prolonging of this only abuses children and they suffer
further.
They are asking parliament to pass legislation immediately to
incorporate these rights of children and principles. They are
demanding as well the resignation of the Minister of Justice.
GASOLINE PRODUCTS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by residents of Ottawa, Nepean, Kanata and
Manotick.
They urge the government to support the auto industry in its
clean fuel program and to implement new fuel standards for
gasoline with zero MMT.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in addition to earlier petitions I have delivered on
this subject, I have a petition signed by 75 individuals from my
riding.
The petitioners are asking parliament to enact immediate changes
to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees to allow for the
deportation without delay of obvious and blatant abuses of the
system.
THE SNOWBIRDS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, several
hundred petitioners have signed petitions in regard to the
Snowbirds.
They come largely from Moose Jaw but I also note Caronport,
Southey, Mossbank, Mortlach, as well as communities out of
province like Winnipeg, Keswick and Barry, Ontario.
They are calling on parliament to take the action necessary to
ensure that stable funding for the 431 air demonstration squadron
continues for the foreseeable future.
HERBAL ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again I stand in the House to
present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on one of the
finest pieces of legislation to hit the House, Bill C-233. It
happens to be one of my own bills.
People from Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton, Toronto, the
lovely city of Halifax et cetera, basically state what they would
like to see government do.
They would like to have an income tax deduction for any people
who are allergic or highly sensitive to prescription medical
drugs. If a medical practitioner prescribes them an herbal
alternative they should be able to claim that herbal alternative
as a tax deduction as a proper medical expense in lieu of a
prescription drug.
It is a great honour for me to rise in the House to present this
valuable petition on such a worthy bill.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am
pleased to present three petitions today.
In the first one the petitioners oppose any amendments to the
charter of rights and freedoms or any other federal legislation
which would provide for the exclusion of reference to the
supremacy of God.
1525
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a request for
parliament to amend the Immigration Act, the justice system and
the constitution so that individuals who have come to Canada as
immigrants or refugees can have their temporary Canadian status
revoked and be deported should they be convicted of terrorist
acts or illegal drug taking.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, constituents of mine are calling for
parliament to amend the federal tax code to ensure equitable
treatment for all families and children.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 15,794 Canadians.
The petition calls for the government to scrap the tape tax.
As we already know Canadians are overtaxed. This tape tax will
cost consumers an additional $65 million and will add between a
72% to 200% increase on the rental of a single video. The
petitioners call on the government to remove this very
unnecessary tape tax.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-3 in the name
of the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is acceptable to the
government with the reservations stated in the reply, and the
documents are tabled immediately.
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency
praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies
of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos and
correspondence between the Minister of Agriculture and the United
States Agriculture Secretary during the period of October 1,
1997, to October 5, 1998.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr Speaker, I ask that all other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
BILL C-3—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of
Standing Order 78(1) or Standing Order 78(2) with respect to the
second reading stage of Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal
justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I now give notice
that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
* * *
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion
for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada
in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this
debate and to express my pride in the contribution that the
Canadian forces is making to the principles outlined in the
Speech from the Throne.
The Canadian forces have an important role to play in that
agenda. It contributes both to our prosperity and to our
security. It plays a vital role in the lives of thousands of
young Canadians and it spurs innovation in our economy.
Time and time again the Canadian forces have responded admirably
to domestic emergencies from the ice storm to major floods and
search and rescue missions. Canadians have been able to count on
the men and women of the Canadian forces when disaster and
suffering have struck closest to home.
The Speech from the Throne also reaffirms Canada's position in
the world as a nation committed to enhancing human security, and
no arm of government makes a greater contribution to advancing
those goals than the Canadian forces.
[Translation]
The challenge for us is to have the means necessary to sustain
our efforts, that is to ensure that our actions accurately
reflect our commitments.
[English]
While the end of the cold war has reduced the threat of global
war, the demand for assistance in building peace and human
security has increased dramatically. There are more democracies,
it is true, but many are fragile and require nurturing. The
world is changing rapidly. It is changing fundamentally and
profoundly. Power is more diffuse. Consensus is more difficult.
Threats to human security are numerous.
1530
In such an environment Canada has a responsibility and indeed a
desire to play a part.
We will make the greatest contribution to peace and human rights
abroad by making sure that we have a co-ordinated approach right
here at home. For example, we need the efforts of organizations
such as CIDA to build the foundations for stability and
development around the world. We need the involvement of human
rights organizations to ensure that basic values are recognized
and basic standards are preserved. We need the diplomatic and
trade efforts of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade to open markets, to extend the benefits of
liberalized trade and to bring Canada's unique perspective of
security, peace and human rights.
We need strong Canadian forces. History teaches us that we
cannot hope to maintain peace and security without the ability to
back up our commitments, if necessary with military strength. It
is vital that we strike the right balance as a country between
the soft power initiatives needed to advance human security and
the hard military capabilities needed to back up this commitment,
with action when necessary. It is not a question of either/or;
Canada must have both.
We were reminded of this reality most recently in Kosovo. This
was an important engagement, not only for the objectives that
were realized, but also for the message that was sent. Our
actions declared in no uncertain terms that mass murder and mass
expulsion of citizens are acts of moral repugnance, not the
prerogative of a sovereign state.
[Translation]
Our words condemn such action, but it is military force that
puts a stop to it.
[English]
It was the Canadian forces, in partnership with our NATO allies,
using the tools and training we have given them, who risked their
lives to defend the values that we as Canadians espouse. It is
the Canadian forces, along with many other countries and aid
organizations, which are now working to restore stability and
rebuild peace and a civil society in Kosovo.
Let me be clear. Those who would advance human security must be
able to fight to protect the human rights and values we espouse,
where necessary, keep the peace once it is attained, help rebuild
societies on the ground, and lay the seeds of democracy and the
rule of law on what are often very fragile democracies.
That is why we must renew the Canadian forces on two fronts: in
our ability to fight when necessary and in our ability to build
peace. Let me touch on both of these.
The nature of military operations has changed fundamentally in
recent years, as we saw in the gulf war and more recently in
Kosovo. Rapid technological change is having a dramatic impact
on the kinds of weapons that are used, the equipment, the
communications and the principles that guide our operations, our
military doctrine as it is known. The instruments we employ are
much more sophisticated and the training of our people is much
more complex than ever before.
One of our greatest challenges is to improve our ability to get
personnel and equipment to trouble spots more quickly and
efficiently anywhere on the globe. Fighting alongside our allies
now requires the highest level of training and sophistication.
The military calls this being interoperable. It simply means
that we must mesh our personnel and our equipment. We must work
together seamlessly. This in turn is leading to more sharing of
resources and more strategic partnerships among our allies,
particularly in the NATO alliance.
These changes are having a dramatic effect on how we train, how
we plan and what we procure in the way of equipment.
If we are to maintain our combat capability, we have to adapt to
these new realities.
1535
Our traditional military role in peacekeeping operations has
changed dramatically. Peacekeeping no longer simply involves
patrolling ceasefire zones. It means becoming involved in what
are really combat zones, combat zones such as Bosnia, Kosovo and
East Timor.
When our forces land in these kinds of situations they have to
have the equipment and support they need to make a difference on
the ground, unencumbered by concerns over the quality of the
equipment they have. They must have the training they need to
work not only with other armed forces, that interoperability, but
they also have to work with local officials, civil police, the
media, non-government organizations and a slew of organizations
such as Doctors Without Borders.
Increasingly the men and women of the Canadian forces find
themselves at the centre of a large network of players trying to
co-ordinate peace enforcement, law and order, emergency relief
and aid, and all this while seeking to build peace.
Lastly, our men and women in uniform must have the support they
need back home for their families. They should not have to worry
about their children or spouses or how they are coping while they
are away. Put simply, they must operate in a more complex
environment than has been the case in the past.
The nature of our role in peacekeeping and peacemaking is
changing. We must prepare ourselves and the men and women of the
forces to be able to meet these new challenges. Ironically, all
of these changes have occurred during a period when defence
spending has been declining, and yet since the end of the cold
war the number of Canadian operations has increased dramatically.
In the 40 years, ending in 1989, of the cold war era our forces
were involved in 25 missions. Since 1989, the last 10 years, we
have been involved in 65 operations. Quite simply, our forces
are being asked to do more with less and to do far different
types of activities and far more complex activities than ever
before. I can assure the House that the Canadian forces will
continue to change to meet the new demands of a new time.
As a government we have already taken action to reinvest in
their quality of life. The good work of the Standing Committee
of National Defence and Veterans Affairs has led to a series of
recommendations to help ensure that. The government is committed
to that kind of reinvestment in our people, our greatest
resource.
In addition to that, more than 300 institutional reforms are
being implemented to strengthen leadership, recruitment,
accountability and openness, and to change the military justice
system. These reforms represent the most sweeping program of
change ever undertaken by the Canadian military. Defence is
making these changes while meeting its commitments to protect
Canada, to contribute to the defence of North America and to
support international peace and security. That is a lot to do.
Meeting these commitments day in and day out at home and abroad
should never be underestimated. These people should never be
underestimated for the good work they do. It is a significant
undertaking.
It is important to recognize that we have begun the process of
upgrading our equipment in recent years. Every piece of
equipment is being replaced, modernized or upgraded. We have a
plan. The government has a plan to do that. We recently
purchased new submarines. We have new frigates and new coastal
defence vessels. Our new search and rescue helicopters are on
order, and we have new light armoured vehicles. The addition of
this state of the art equipment and the upgrading of other
equipment will serve us well as we move forward.
We are looking ahead to the decisions we need to make to
continue to strengthen the Canadian forces for the future. To
prepare for the 21st century, defence has developed a long term
strategy called “Strategy 2020”. Its intent is to position, as
our vision statement says, the Canadian forces as a modern,
combat capable, task tailored and rapidly deployable force that
can respond to emergencies either at home or abroad.
1540
As we saw in Kosovo and after the earthquake in Turkey last
August, when human suffering is at issue, time is of the essence.
We must be able to get the Canadian forces to where they are
needed and get them there fast.
[Translation]
The world is evolving and DND must adjust accordingly.
[English]
We must find ways to strengthen our ability to rapidly deploy
the Canadian forces to where they are needed. We must make the
investments in the equipment needed to ensure that the Canadian
forces will continue to be interoperable with our allies, and we
must continue to reinvest in the men and women who are the
lifeblood of the Canadian forces.
Simply put, no credible Canadian contribution to the human
security agenda, as it is described in the Speech from the
Throne, can be made without forces that are able to meet the
challenges of the next century.
The bottom line, and the government has recognized this in the
Speech from the Throne, is that we will continue to ensure that
the Canadian forces have the capacity to support Canada's role in
building a more secure world.
As we enter the next century the Canadian forces will continue
to play a vital role as an instrument of our resolve, the resolve
of Canadians and of our values. They will continue to work for
peace around the world. They will continue to make a vital
contribution to the national life of Canada.
This will take resources. This will take commitment. It will
take leadership based on a clear vision of the future. That is
the commitment that comes from the Speech from the Throne. That
is the commitment of the government, and that is the commitment
that I will honour as the Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
very pleased to hear the minister's comments this afternoon, in
particular his comments concerning human security and the role of
the Canadian forces in ensuring human security right across the
globe.
The minister mentioned, in particular, that acts of mass murder
are morally repugnant. They are things that we should all be
concerned about and our Canadian forces play a very important
role in dealing with them.
One of the worst instances I can think of involving mass murder
was the recent slaughter of 800,000 people in Rwanda. This was
certainly of moral repugnance to all of us. When we find that
kind of situation taking place, certainly we want to do what we
can to prevent it from taking place in the future.
I want to ask the minister whether what was recently
reported—and he can comment as to whether the report is
correct—would support our troops as they attempt to combat these
morally repugnant deeds.
It seems that there was a conference being held, which finished
yesterday, to deal with the genocide in Rwanda and to look at
means of trying to prevent this from happening in the future. It
has been reported that Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire was due
to speak at this conference. However, according to the report,
he was called out or not allowed to speak, reportedly on
instructions from the minister and/or the justice department.
I want to ask the minister how that kind of action, if it did
take place, is supporting our troops, because the minister said
that our troops must have the support of people back home and
their families. I would say that the troops also need the
support of the political leaders of our country if they are going
to make a meaningful impact in dealing with these issues. We
need to have the truth come out in instances such as this. We
need to have those instances examined in the fullest so that we
can prevent those kinds of disasters in the future.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the
hon. member that Rwanda was a terrible tragedy. I think the
international community failed to come to the support of the
people of that country at a time when it was necessary.
This country, Canada, did its utmost to help. General Dallaire
was the commander who was there.
He was putting forth the best effort he could with very little
resources and very little support from the United Nations in New
York. He cared a great deal about what was happening in Rwanda,
so much so that it has affected him and his health very
significantly. A fine officer, a man who is dedicated to this
country has paid a fair price in terms of his health as a result
of this.
1545
It was he who decided not to attend this conference. He did
consult the department. He did not consult me personally, but he
did consult. He has gone in other cases for example, to the
United Nations and to other tribunals of a more legal nature and
has testified about Rwanda. This is not an easy thing to do for
a man with the memories that he has of Rwanda. However, he has
made every effort to be helpful.
I think his initial instinct when he was asked about this
conference was to do it because he wants to be helpful. That is
the nature of the man. However, on further reflection he decided
that it perhaps was not advisable to do. That was a decision he
had to make, but please remember that what happened and what he
saw in Rwanda has had a very profound effect on him.
This country wants to do everything that is possible, whether it
is Rwanda, or Kosovo, or East Timor to try to prevent that kind
of human suffering, to try to help people get respect for their
human rights, to make sure that their human security is looked
after. Canada will continue to play a major role in doing that.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I think it is a lot of bravado that the defence minister is
bringing to this debate. It is quite astounding because it has
been consecutive Liberal governments that have cut and cut and
cut the national defence budget. Now he tells us that everything
is fine. Now he tells us that we have his personal commitment
that everything is going to be fine, that there are going to be
the resources for our very brave men and women.
It is his Prime Minister who said that Canadians really like
getting involved in different peace operations because as
Canadians we see ourselves as Boy Scouts. Our armed forces need a
whole lot more than the equipment of Boy Scouts. In fact, if we
look at the shameful way in which this government and its
cutbacks have robbed our proud, sincere, dedicated men and women
of the resources to get the job done, it is an absolute shame.
I would suggest with as much respect as I can possibly muster to
the defence minister that indeed his promises and the promises of
his government are exceptionally shallow. His government should
be ashamed of itself for the way in which it continues to
underfund and under-resource the brave people in the armed
forces.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, in talking about
empty rhetoric, I think we just got a bit of that.
The member seems to have forgotten that the cuts first of all
started back in the years of the Progressive Conservative
government. We did take further amounts from all budgets. I
understood what the hon. member's party wanted us to do and what
we of course wanted to do and promised to do was to eliminate the
deficit. We had to cut costs to do that, so yes, we did that.
We organized the budget in a way that makes it as efficient and
as effective as it possibly can be. We have got great value for
the taxpayers' dollars out of what we are doing. We are meeting
our commitments. There is no doubt that we are squeezed for
funds, that we need additional funds.
The Reform Party would not be giving us any additional funds if
we followed what it suggested and promised in the last election.
I take it the Reform Party stands by its promises from the last
election. It said it would put a freeze on any additional
expenditure for three years and that all of the money in
surpluses would go for debt and tax reduction. On the formula
that it promised in the last election campaign, not one penny
would come from the Reform Party to help defence.
This year this government increased the defence budget. The
Minister of Finance stood in the House in February, and he
received a standing ovation, when he indicated that for the first
time in a dozen years additional money was being provided for our
troops.
1550
Let me also give one other illustration of where we have
improved and we have made it more efficient and more effective.
We played a major front line role in the Kosovo air campaign. No
one likes to talk about bombing and about the need to attack, but
when it came to putting our resources and our people on the line,
we were able to do that. We could not even do it to that extent
in the gulf war because we did not have the equipment that was
necessary to play that kind of a front line role. However, we did
it in the Kosovo air campaign. I think that quite clearly
indicates, as the chief of defence staff has clearly indicated,
we are more combat capable. Our troops are more combat capable
today than they were in the early nineties.
We have managed to get the deficit eliminated. We have managed
to buy new equipment. We have managed to change many parts of
the Canadian forces with over 300 changes and reforms. We have
managed to make our troops more combat capable so that they can
operate in defence of peace and in the building of peace. I
think that is greatly to the credit of the government. It is
certainly not a position we would be in if the Reform Party were
managing the budget.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary
to the rhetoric that has been coming from the Reform Party for
the last six years the United Nations has declared Canada as the
best country in the world in which to live.
The Speech from the Throne outlined the government's commitment
to achieve an even better quality of life for all Canadians. This
includes increased resources for early childhood development and
targeted assistance for low income families with children.
Can the minister outline and expand a little on what is being
done to improve the quality of life of members of Canada's armed
forces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for that question. Of paramount importance to us is the
quality of life of our men and women who serve this country. They
put their lives on the line. They have what is called unlimited
liability. They do get injured and they do lose their lives in
many circumstances. We have had over 100 peacekeepers in the
time that we have been involved in peacekeeping who have lost
their lives.
We owe it to them to make sure we do the best we can to improve
their quality of life and that we support them and their
families. That is an absolute number one priority.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and respond to the
Speech from the Throne.
Let us look at what the Speech from the Throne said. “The
government will work with Canadians to ensure that our
communities continue to be safe”. Another point was, “The
government will combat drug trafficking”. We looked at that and
we thought perhaps an amendment might be in order. The amendment
we proposed was “That this government has failed to seriously
deal with the problem of drug trafficking, youth crime and child
pornography”, which in our judgment is a statement of fact.
While the throne speech was generally imprecise, with fluffy
generalities signifying little or nothing, in the case of
criminal justice, the government outlined inaccuracies and total
distortions of truth.
Let us examine the Liberals' rhetoric against their record. They
say, “The government will strengthen the capacity of the RCMP
and other agencies to address the threats to public security in
Canada and work with enforcement agencies in other countries”.
So say the Liberals. That is their rhetoric. Here is their
record.
The lead story in the Vancouver Sun two weeks ago puts a
lie to their statement. It said, “RCMP halt fraud
investigations blaming lack of money and staff. A Kamloops
couple complained that they had been duped out of $450,000 U.S.
in a stock scheme. Call your MP, the Mounties say”. They did
not have to call me and certainly they did not have to call any
of the Reform MPs because that is precisely what we have been
shouting at the Liberals about for years.
This is a further quote from an RCMP officer in that article,
“It is not a message we want to send, but we don't want to give
the public a false belief that we will pursue their complaint if
we don't have the resources”. That, as I say, was from the head
of the RCMP commercial crime section in Vancouver.
It is not just B.C. I have been following a case in Edmonton
where investors have been ripped off for $3 million in a stock
swindle. They have been waiting three years for the RCMP to
complete their investigation and for charges to be brought
against the perpetrators of the swindle.
The police have evidence coming out of their ears but they simply
do not have the resources to get on with their job.
1555
Mr. Speaker, I failed to mention that I will be sharing my time
with the member for Calgary Northeast. My apologies.
Jason Cowan and Barb Trosin had an inventive product they wanted
to bring to market but as with most entrepreneurs, they required
capital. Unfortunately for them as with the case in Kamloops,
they fell into the clutches of unscrupulous stock swindlers.
Their case also has a Vancouver component where some of their
stock was deceptively and fraudulently passed to another
unsuspecting investor in a switch which took its inspiration from
the Paul Newman movie The Sting. The offices used for the
switch involved a well-known Canadian investment firm without the
firm having any knowledge of the scam that occurred right at the
front desk in its office. Like in the Kamloops story, the RCMP do
not have the resources to pursue this obvious criminal fraud.
What about Bre-X, the $6 billion ripped out of investors'
pockets and the RCMP already shutting down the investigation? I
have a couple of questions.
Why did the RCMP give approval for unsupervised destruction of
documents in the Bre-X office in the days immediately following
the confirmation of the fraud? The answer seems to be lack of
resources.
Why has there been no investigation into the responsibility that
Nesbitt Burns had in dispatching their geologist on multiple
trips to the mine site in Indonesia? He consistently reported no
problems while the firm raked off millions of dollars in
brokerage fees, yet within five minutes of an Australian
geologist arriving at the mine, he detected serious problems.
The obvious answer is gross under-resourcing of Canada's
national police force. Yet the Liberals have the gall to make
statements in the throne speech as if they really cared about
protecting Canadians. The bottom line is Canadian and
international investors can be fleeced by swindlers and due to
the government's intentional under-resourcing of the RCMP, our
national police force can do nothing about it. The drastic result
is that investment capital in Canada is becoming scarce.
I intend to ask the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights to have the commissioner of the RCMP appear and explain
his force's actions on the Bre-X file.
Speaking of international concerns and commitments, let me talk
about organized crime. This is what the Liberals say. “The
government will also continue to work closely with the U.S. to
modernize our shared border for the 21st century”. That is what
the Liberals say; that is their rhetoric. Here are the results.
It is as if they have not had the responsibility of running
Canada for the last six years. Wake up and smell the coffee. The
government has no vision to lead Canada safely into the 21st
century.
In 1998 the United Nations declared transnational crime as its
highest priority. Members of the G-8 affirmed that it is one of
the major challenges facing the world on the threshold of the
21st century. Organized crime has emerged as the number one
threat to Canada's overall security, yet the government has cut
the legs out from under Canada's security committee. How? This
is how.
Last weekend it was revealed that a top secret planning document
was stolen. It was a planning document for next year and to all
accounts should never have been removed from CSIS property.
Unbelievably, it was in a briefcase in the back of a car in a
parking lot in Toronto. The bright light from CSIS was at the
Toronto Maple Leafs game. She left the briefcase in the back of
her car. Druggies smashed the window, took the case and we were
told it was thrown into a dumpster, but we are not sure. If we
think a smash and grab drug addict is a reliable source for
information, then perhaps we will have no trouble also believing
in the tooth fairy.
We also know there has been a serious breach of security in
Canada's Hong Kong trade office. What happened? There was a
cover-up. When the RCMP officer revealed documents that clearly
showed a cover-up, he was suspended. Meanwhile, we have also
learned that a special operation to get intelligence about Asian
gangs called operation Sidewinder was suspended in 1996.
1600
It was not only suspended but all of the data was removed from
electronic storage, including e-mails, and all hard copy was
shredded. Why? As a matter of fact, the members of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, who are civilians and who oversee
Canada's spy agency, learned about the shredding and the turning
down of the Sidewinder operation as a result of picking up the
newspaper a couple of Fridays ago. They were never told by the
solicitor general and never informed by the agents at CSIS.
With that report, we would have information on the people
smuggling gangs that hit Canada's west coast this summer. At
least we would have a starting point to understand the
infiltration into Canadian businesses by organized crime. But, I
repeat, the report was shredded. My question is: Why?
Does it have anything to do with the other big story this
weekend? That story revolves around the fact that the RCMP and
CSIS are having a turf war. They do not share vital information.
They investigate each other. There is constant bad blood that
inhibits their ability to protect Canadians.
The government delayed and delayed the appointment of civilian
oversight for CSIS. For years the spy service of Canada has run
without the checks and balances set out in legislation. It has
led to an unhealthy culture in CSIS. CSIS exhibited that culture
through the director of CSIS when he came before the
parliamentary standing committee on justice last May 25.
I fault the Liberal government, the government elected in 1993.
The SIRC positions were vacant for years, that is years. There
was no proper oversight of Canada's spy agency as a result of a
deliberate omission by the Liberal government. All law
enforcement and national security agents must, at the very least,
be able to maintain the ability to target threats to national
security, and the Liberals are badly failing the test.
There has been no strengthening of RCMP resources. Each year
the RCMP face more and more challenges as the potential for
technological crime increases. Its equipment and resources are
rusted while organized crime goes on a buying spree of new
technology.
We have just had a very tiny glimpse at the difference between
the Liberals' rhetoric and the Liberals' reality. Canadians
deserve better from the government. They want the government to
resource our people who are charged with the responsibility of
maintaining our national police force and our national security.
Canadians deserve better than this government.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to be able to speak today on a defence matter as it
relates to the Speech from the Throne.
It has been a long and very busy year for national defence as
DND has had to defend itself against one scandal after another.
There have been various gaffs and a steady decline in resources
and equipment. I by no means want to pick on the military itself
because ultimately it all comes back to a political answer, which
is with the defence minister himself and the Liberal government.
Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne referred directly to
the Canadian forces only once and in very vague terms. Even
worse, and with rare exception, the Minister of National Defence
has been unavailable, unaware and unseen through this summer's
military meltdown.
Instead, we have had to view the repeated and unwarranted sight
of military officers facing interrogation by the national media
demanding answers to the glaring problems in Canada's military.
These problems are political in nature and should be addressed by
their creator, namely the defence minister and ultimately the
Prime Minister who appointed him.
1605
I will offer just a brief recapitulation of those problems that
have plagued his department over the last four months because it
is important to analyze these issues separately as each indicates
severe systemic rot within the department.
The summer began with the discovery, via an access to
information request, that unknown numbers of Canadian
peacekeepers had probably been exposed to toxic soil in Croatia.
Hundreds were experiencing severe health problems, ranging from
the loss of eyesight to stomach afflictions. Though the issue of
exposure was unsettling enough, what was even more disturbing
were the measures taken to cover up the exposure back in Canada.
We learned that a medical document attesting to the exposure had
first been altered and then shredded. We learned that despite
the blustering from the minister that the matter would be
thoroughly investigated, a ministerial briefing note had
mentioned the issue in 1995. The board of enquiry established to
investigate the scandal was itself marked by conflict of interest
and the first chairman and one legal advisor quickly resigned
amid criticism.
The toxic soil controversy has highlighted two disturbing
elements of military culture in Canada supported by the
government, namely, dirty tricks and appalling health care for
military personnel.
The hierarchy within DND, no doubt driven by the minister's
office and his powerful civilian mandarins who have effectively
controlled the day by day decision making of the Canadian forces
for 25 years, is more interested in denying scandal than exposing
it and cleaning it up. It would much rather bury the truth than
expose it. It seems unwilling or unable to admit that mistakes
have been made, but will go to extraordinary lengths to change
the facts. Individuals who attempt to fight for full disclosure
are often harassed, intimidated and ultimately driven from the
military ranks. This perverse and destructive atmosphere of
character assassination must be purged from our military culture.
Whatever happened to military leadership? In a Canadian
military culture now long forgotten, generals and admirals
possessed a military bearing that outshone the brass on their
uniforms. They did not seek to anticipate the political
direction of the day. They did seek to maintain discipline and
honour in the profession of arms. There has to be a clear
distinction between the bureaucrats and the military decision
makers.
The Croatian scandal also gave Canadians some insight into the
deplorable quality of health care in the military. Where else
could confidential medical files simply disappear from a person's
medical history, yet document tampering has occurred at other
times and dozens of former and serving military personnel have
written to my office describing examples of it in their careers?
Rank and file military personnel cannot see a doctor when they
so desire, unlike all other Canadians. They are often
administered drugs contrary to their desires. Their illnesses
are often misdiagnosed and mistreated.
I think of the radar technician aboard the HMCS Vancouver,
Petty Officer Kevin Simon, who suffered from lung cancer for six
months and was told that he had a lingering cough and cold.
Then there was retired Sergeant Mike Kipling whom DND persecuted
and in a supreme example of vindictiveness initiated court
martial proceedings against him because he refused a mouldy
anthrax vaccine.
This, too, is a scandal. It is scandalous that our serving sons
and daughters must first accept third rate health care and then
be subjected to wilful desecration of their medical histories.
I would also ask the minister to allow military members to have
full access to civilian health care facilities where available,
that their medical files are viewed and approved by military
members on an annual basis and that the role of military doctors
be focused on deployments rather than on domestic medicine. The
current system is quite clearly not working. It is leaving the
Canadian forces open to abuse.
1610
We have also witnessed over the past three months what I call a
military meltdown within the Canadian forces. Quite simply, our
military is imploding, rotting from the inside due to a lack of
funding and genuine government neglect.
The air force talks about phasing out the Snowbird aerobatic
team in a weird attempt to shock Canadians into economic reality.
Here is some food for thought. If the military needs $30 million
required to run the Snowbirds every year, why not examine the
bona fide white elephant, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre? This
school of academic pretension was established as a rest home for
recycled DND and Liberal cronies, proving that the public trough
is always replenished for some.
Why are we sending military officers who have already been
deployed on peacekeeping missions, to a school that requires four
to six weeks to teach the obvious, how to keep the peace? Maybe
then we can leave the Snowbirds in peace.
Though the Snowbird threat may either be a hard bargaining
position or fancy, the air force is preparing to sell off its
Tutors and T-33s, both of which have just received upgrades.
Squadrons are being disbanded.
More dangerously, we are told that the maintenance to the new
Cormorant helicopters will be contracted out, or in the catch
phrase of the new DND, provided for by alternative service
delivery, ASD.
Though we support the notion of contracting out where cost
savings can definitely be realized and the impact on combat
capability is unaffected, hard operational support services must
be deployed on military missions and should remain as military
trades.
Naturally, the increasing broad application of alternate service
delivery has been unsettling to hundreds of maintenance
technicians who have proven that they can provide maintenance at
a cheaper cost than any civilian contractor. They know the
nature of the work. They can be deployed with a squadron in an
hour's notice and they certainly do have the capability of
fulfilling that trade requirement because of their dedication.
Now they are being betrayed and told that their expertise is
unwanted.
We can either ignore reality or accept the need to find
solutions. I would hope that the minister could see beyond his
lack of interest in defence and his need to play politics with
the Canadians forces to acknowledge this fact. I would pose the
following questions to him and demand answers on behalf of
hundreds of military personnel who write to my office insisting
that the government is not doing enough.
Will the minister commit himself to a full disclosure of the
Sharp board of inquiry into the toxic soil? Will the minister
examine the military health care system so that they too can
receive the treatment that they so richly deserve by serving the
country?
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a quick question for my colleague for Calgary Northeast who
arrived in this place at the same time I did back in 1993.
Not fully understanding how serious it is in terms of the
democratic processes that take place in this particular place, I
am wondering if the member could tell me if I am wrong or if I am
right, and what we can do about it.
We have had many debates in the House with regard to our
military placements. For example, I remember the debate on
whether we should we send troops to Bosnia. At different times,
we have had different debates on what we were going to do in
regard to the use of our military.
I am thoroughly convinced that decisions are made before they
are ever brought to the House and that the debate is absolutely a
futile waste of time just simply because the decisions have
already been made by the government. We are simply going through
the motions. We do not have a democratic discussion about the
placement of our troops throughout the world.
It is simply run by the front line people on that side of the
House. Then there are the little puppets who jump up and vote
according to what they are told. They are called the rest of the
Liberals. Is my analysis all wet, or how close to being accurate
am I?
1615
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member
for Wild Rose for his question. It is a very positive question.
It reflects the reality of what happens in the House with the
government and how it expands beyond into the departments that
are represented by ministers in the House.
Yes, we have a problem when it comes to top down government, and
everyone in the House should be involved in addressing that
particular issue.
I have seen bills come from the government that go to a
committee, where they are subject to scrutiny with substantial
debate. However, there really is no opportunity to change what
exists in the top down process. The decision has been made.
The idea is born somewhere, maybe in the bureaucracy, or in the
minds of the various departments, or in some minister's office.
Then it goes through a process within the bureaucracy or within
the minister's office. It is very much confined to that realm.
There is no consultation in the broader context. Then it is
tossed out for the opposition to look at, to discuss and debate
without any opportunity for real honest debate to change what
proposals may have been made. In fact, before it even hits the
committee room or the opposition has a chance to scrutinize it,
it is already decided.
Is that a democratic process? No, it is far from democratic. If
we were looking for honest and true debate in the House to
formulate law and policy, it would be from the bottom up, with
broad consultation. Then it would be formulated in a final sense
in the various departments. That does not happen. Unfortunately
we have more of a dictatorship in that regard than a democratic
process.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I pointed out earlier today to the defence minister that it has
been successive cutbacks, first by the Trudeau government, then
by the Conservatives and now by the Liberals, which have created
the tremendously desperate situation with respect to resources
for the armed forces. He implied that the Reform Party would
have cut further and would have done even more damage.
I wonder if my colleague, who is the defence critic, would care
to comment on the minister's statement.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and
one worthy of a good clear answer as far as the position of the
Reform Party, the official opposition.
We have made it very clear that the defence budget has been cut
to the bone. In fact, it has almost destroyed the military
completely because of a lack of good proper funding and moneys
directed to the proper areas.
The Reform Party has clearly advocated that there should be a $2
billion infusion into the military budget so that it can meet the
very basic of needs of looking after our troops, buying the
necessary equipment, and looking after the operational end so
that proper training can be conducted. One of the most urgent
issues right now is supplying our forces with good combat
clothes. That program is long, long overdue.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time
with the member for Mississauga South.
As the Prime Minister said in his response to the throne speech:
We Canadians have proven to be a very determined people. We have
established a distinct Canadian model. Accommodation of
cultures....a partnership between citizens and state. A balance
that promotes individual freedom and economic prosperity while,
at the same time, sharing risks and benefits. An understanding
that government can be an instrument of collective action—a
means of serving the broader public interest.
1620
As an instrument of collective action government has a crucial
role in the lives of the people of our nation. As members of
this place we have a heavy responsibility to ensure that we make
decisions and laws that serve the public interest. As Liberals
we take a balanced, sensible approach, one that understands that
not only must risk be shared, but benefits as well.
There are some in this House who do not believe that government
can be a positive force in society. They cling to a dogma of
less government, not good government, a dogma which ignores the
public interest in favour of narrow self-interest.
We can never forget our role. We must continue to work
diligently to advance the health and well-being of Canadians,
particularly our children and youth, to preserve and restore the
health of our natural heritage, to build stronger communities, to
foster a sustainable and viable economy, to continue as prudent
fiscal managers of the nation's financial assets and to advance
our outward looking vision as a country by continuing our
contributions to world security.
A society that respects and honours its children has its
fundamentals right. These fundamentals are a society with strong
environmental laws and regulations that are enforced; a society
with strong progressive social and economic values that allow for
such things as income support measures to ensure that all of its
citizens have access to nutritious food, safe shelter and human
dignity; a society that respects human rights and opportunities
for education for all Canadians. This is the kind of society
that Canadians want.
As an active member of the Liberal children's caucus since its
inception in 1995, I am very pleased to see such a child centred
throne speech. Extending parental benefits from six months to
one year is crucial in providing support for young families. No
more will new families have to make a choice between a job and
the personal care of their young baby. I am also pleased to see
the federal government take leadership in making federal and
federally regulated workplaces family friendly.
I am also hopeful that the government's plan to negotiate early
childhood development programs with the provinces will be
fruitful. I think that as a first step in these negotiations
this must be reflected in a commitment for funding in the federal
budget to be delivered next February.
A focus on the zero to six years is crucial for the healthy
development of our children. A fund to provide for early
childhood development programs is an initiative proposed by the
national Liberal children's caucus.
Our commitment to children clearly includes initiatives to
protect and restore the natural environment. The throne speech
points out that a clean and healthy environment is important to
our long term economic and social well-being. It is central to
our quality of life. Our ability to adopt innovative
environmental practices and technologies will increasingly be
part of Canada's strength in the 21st century. I could not agree
more.
Colin Isaac in the Gallon Environment Letter found that
the 1999 throne speech contained more mention of the environment
than almost any previous throne speech. Sixteen per cent of the
speech referenced the environment and it also identified 21
environment related commitments, such as cleaning up contaminated
sites on federal lands, strengthening the government's science
capacity for environmental research, extending Canada's national
parks system, addressing the structural weaknesses that have been
identified in the management of toxic substances, and protecting
species at risk and the critical habitat. These commitments make
up some of the more significant ones. The government has also
restated its commitment under the Kyoto protocol to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The throne speech also goes on to emphasize the need for tough
pollution standards to better protect the health of children,
seniors and residents of the north. These initiatives are
necessary to address the nation's fundamental environmental
problems. Our desire to act on these commitments and our ability
to successfully implement them will be the yardstick against
which future generations will measure us.
1625
My riding of York North is historically important in the
development of democratic government in Canada. It is the riding
of Baldwin and Lafontaine, fathers of responsible government for
Upper and Lower Canada and the unification of the two Canadas.
The rebellion of 1837 began in York North, in Holland Landing,
not far from my home village of Mount Albert. Small business
owners and farmers marched down Younge Street, rejecting the
tyranny and elitist exclusive policies of the Tory government in
Toronto.
York North is a vibrant, diverse riding with many small business
owners. The agri-food sector is still very important to the
economic health of the area. We have a first nations community,
the Chippewas of Georgina Island, which is working very
successfully on achieving self-government.
The people of York North have told me that they want a balanced,
sensible approach to government. They also understand that both
risks and benefits of nation building must be shared. They want
tax cuts and they want us to pay down the country's debt. More
than anything, they want to ensure that their children and
grandchildren are safe, secure and healthy, that opportunities
for our nation's children are many and that our children achieve
their full potential.
The people of York North want to strengthen health care for
Canadians and ensure that the health of our natural environment
is restored. They want us to foster a dynamic economy and to
help build stronger communities. They want Canada to advance
world security. They want the government to continue its prudent
fiscal management.
Most of all, the people of York North believe, as I do, that
Canada is the place to be in the 21st century.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
very pleased to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to a
healthy and clean environment. We know this is very important
for the future of our society and, as has been mentioned, for our
children and our children's children.
I wonder if the hon. member could give me her views with respect
to her government's decision to move ahead with the
transportation and burning of nuclear waste in Canada when there
has been clear indication that many citizens in Canada are
opposed to it. The U.S. has indicated it is no longer
interested. Yet, the government seems to want to persist with
this potentially dangerous environmental action in our country.
Could the member please give her comments on that matter?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
respond to this question. I am going to give a response which
might surprise the hon. member, but my answer is indicative of a
healthy democracy and the ability of members in the House to
speak their minds and speak on behalf of their constituents and
the people of Canada.
I do not agree with that decision.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
always smile a bit when I hear some of the comments that come out
of the mouths of Liberals. First, there is the strong statement
of how the Liberals respect and honour their children. I ask the
member how this respect is being shown by a court decision in
British Columbia, which will reach the supreme court, and Lord
only knows when it will reach a decision, that allows child
pornography to exist to the extent that it does.
Why would the hon. member dare to say that we respect and honour
our children and not have a government that will stand up for
these kids, bring in the notwithstanding clause and put an end to
this nonsense? Why is this going on?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member
had listened to my speech he would know that I said a society
which respects and honours children.
I believe that this government has taken firm action on behalf
of children in Canada. The options that the hon. member has
suggested are not workable options and the process that is in
place to deal with such a deplorable act as child pornography is
the appropriate way to go.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is a totally
unacceptable answer, but we will try again on another question.
1630
In the throne speech, there was an obvious absence of any words
to address the dire needs of our reserves throughout the country.
The United Nations has declared them to be worse than some third
world countries. The conditions are deplorable.
The cry of the aboriginal people, the ordinary grassroots
people, is loud and clear across the land. Thousands of them are
crying out for help from the government in terms of bringing some
accountability to the reserves to address the serious issues that
exist in their lives.
Why did the throne speech fail to address the accountability on
the reserves? It totally ignored it. Do not tell me there was
something in there about it, because I looked at it over and over
again and it was not there. Why?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I purposely
mentioned the first nations community, the Chippewas of Georgina
Island and their successful work toward achieving self-government
because they were one of the 13 communities across the country
who were the sponsors, creators and promoters of Bill C-49, which
the Reform Party opposed and delayed for a number of years.
As I rose in the House on numerous occasions to debate the bill,
I felt a great deal of shame at the comments that came from the
other side. Members of my constituency, people that I represent
here in the House of Commons, including the chief, his band
council and other people from his community that I worked very
hard with on this particular issue had to sit and listen to the
comments from the members opposite. It was with a great deal of
shame that I had to listen to these things and know that those
people heard those comments.
The second point I would like to make is with respect to
children. Why is it that members of the Reform Party want us to
repeal our ratification of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child which clearly protects the fundamental human
rights of children, including protection from child pornography.
Answer that question.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the throne speech provided Canadians with a framework for
government initiatives for the second session of the 36th
Parliament. Rarely does a throne speech articulate specifics of
any initiative, but rather the objectives and directions that the
government plans to pursue.
In this throne speech there was a specific commitment to extend
parental leave to a full year for new or adopted children, and to
implement it no later than January 1, 2001. This is no small item
in itself. It is, however, a small item with regard to the
children's agenda. It is an important signal with regard to the
evolution of our child and family policy. I would like to spend
my time elaborating on why this specific initiative is so
important to all Canadians.
The 1996 Statistics Canada national longitudinal survey on
children and youth found that 25% of Canadian children enter
adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or
social problems. In the words of Dr. Paul Steinhauer of Voices
for Children, “With one in four children entering adult life
significantly handicapped, we can look forward to a society that
will be less able to generate the economic base required to
supply the economic supports and services needed by one in four
adults unable to carry their own weight”. In that context,
investing in children particularly in the early years is an
imperative, not an option.
According to Dr. Fraser Mustard, childhood outcomes are not a
question of being rich or poor, but rather of other factors
related to the quality of care during the formative years. This
view was supported by Statistics Canada research presented in
November 1998 which found that the quality of care during the
early years can overcome the damaging impacts related to family
poverty.
In 1994 the Carnegie task force on meeting the needs of young
children published a report entitled “Starting Points”. Its
research observed that good physical and mental health, the
ability to learn, to cope with stress, to relate well with
others, and to have a positive outlook, were all rooted in the
earliest experiences of life.
The task force concluded that where, how and with whom children
spend their early years of life are the most significant
determinants of lifelong physical, mental and social health.
1635
In 1997 there was a conference at the White House on early
childhood development. One of the principal findings announced
was that the neurological foundations for rational thinking,
problem solving and general reasoning appear to be established by
age one.
In June 1998 Dr. Mustard appeared before the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development and described the health impact of
the rapid development during the first year as being dynamite.
At birth the human brain is far from fully formed. In the days
and weeks that follow, vital neural connections are formed that
create pathways along which learning will take place.
It is estimated that 80% of the lifetime development of the
human brain occurs during the first three years of life. These
connections do not however form automatically. The quality of
nutrition, caregiving and stimulation determines not only the
number of these healthy connections but how well they are wired
for both cognitive and emotional intelligence.
In April 1998 the Canadian Institute of Child Health announced
its concurrence. It reported that at birth the parts of the
human brain that handle thinking and remembering as well as
emotional and social behaviour are remarkably undeveloped. The
fact that the brain matures in the world and not in the womb
means that children are deeply affected by their early
experiences, that relationships with caregivers, the sights, the
sounds, the smells and the feelings they experience actually
determine brain structure and thus shape the way we learn, think
and behave for the rest of our lives.
The report also deals extensively with the importance of
responsive care which addresses the child's needs when the child
signals us rather than when the caregiver can provide for those
needs.
In November 1997 the report of the National Forum on Health also
concluded that there was an urgent need to invest in children. It
reported that deprivation during early childhood can impair brain
development and permanently hinder the development of cognition
and speech. It further stated that the impact on children's
physical and mental health is very significant and can only be
partially offset by interventions later in life. It concluded
that the failure to invest in the early years of life increases
the remedial cost to our health, education, social services and
criminal justice systems.
No family should have to choose between the job it needs and the
child it loves. Attempting to balance the responsibilities of
work and family is difficult and may compromise the quality of
child care. For many parents their children come first and they
seek more flexibility, options and choices to allow them to put
the interests of their children ahead of their own.
Social policy should presume that parents and not governments
should be making decisions affecting the caregiving of their
children. They are in the best position to choose what
constitutes the best possible care arrangement for their
children. We should therefore seek to provide as much
flexibility and as many options and choices to parents in the
best interests of children.
I will turn now to the importance of breast feeding. In April
1998 Dr. Christopher Ruhm of the University of North Carolina
published a research paper entitled “Parental Leave and Child
Health”. This researcher studied 25 years of population data in
nine European countries. He found up to a 29% reduction in
infant mortality where parental leave of at least 50 weeks was
taken. That is very significant.
The research also highlighted the significant benefits of breast
feeding and found a lower incidence of sudden infant death
syndrome, accidental deaths, and sicknesses causing death.
Exposure to a broader range of environmental risks, travel risks,
risks associated with public places and risks associated with
exposure to other persons, in particular children, were all
contributing factors to the overall findings.
The health benefits of breast feeding cannot be overstated. In
1998 the Canadian Paediatric Society announced its unanimous
endorsement of the World Health Organization's new recommended
guideline that mothers should breast feed for at least one year
for optimal health outcomes of their children.
The research on breast feeding clearly confirms the importance
for optimal infant health. It also enhances the bond between
mother and child which is a significant factor affecting healthy
outcomes. In addition, a family can save up to $4,000 in the
first year in the cost of baby formula alone, which significantly
affects the economics of the decision to provide direct parental
care.
1640
Based on the comprehensive research, there is a need to promote,
protect and support breast feeding in Canada. Extended parental
leave options could help to achieve these objectives. According
to Dr. Fraser Mustard, breast feeding can provide a perfect
nutritional and emotional nurturing to endow an infant with the
important capacity needed for a full and productive life.
What would be the criteria for policy development? Obviously,
our policy should be child centred and promote the best interests
of children to the best extent possible. It should presume that
parents are the primary caregivers. It should provide
flexibility, options and choices. It should be inclusive and
responsive to the social realities. That is why we need more
choices. Finally, the policy should be fair and equitable and
neither penalize nor compel caregiving choices.
The first year of life is the most important period during which
a caregiver can influence the future physical, mental and social
health outcomes of children. It is vital that this opportunity
for either parent to provide direct parental care to a new child
or an adopted child during that first year should be made
available. Therefore, extending parental leave from the current
10 weeks to 37 weeks to allow one full year for one of the
parents to provide direct parental care is an important option.
Investing in children, particularly during the formative years,
represents a sound preventative strategy to improve the physical,
mental and social health of children. Even the most conservative
research estimates show that for every $1 invested in children,
there are $2 saved in health, social program, educational and
criminal justice costs. The studies have even estimated cost
savings to be as much as $7 for every $1 invested.
Let me conclude by repeating the most important fact. In Canada
25% of our children enter adult life with significant emotional,
behavioural, academic or social problems. The monetary and
social costs are enormous and therefore investing in children is
an imperative, not an option. Research has consistently found
that the most significant determinant of child health outcomes is
the quality of care provided during the first years of life.
Therefore, if we value our children, we must also value our
caregivers. In my view, extending parental care is in a small
way showing that we do value our children and their caregivers.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre, Tobacco.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the hon. member on making some very good
points with respect to children and the importance of caring and
nurturing children and investing in children. He touched upon
some very important issues, breast feeding, proper nurturing of
the child, the bonding between parent and child, and so forth.
I seek his comments on another topic which is very closely
related and that is homelessness. Today we saw on the Hill what
in my view was a very sad commentary upon the state of our
society. Numerous homeless people and people supporting them
came to the Hill to make their concerns known to the nation's
capital and to those who are leading this country. There were
riot police lined up in riot gear, dogs, and police with batons.
There was even the use of pepper spray against these unfortunate
people.
This is a very serious problem. What does the hon. member see in
the throne speech that addresses that issue? We know a minister
was appointed to deal with the homelessness issue. She has been
travelling across the country and gathering information, but it
is time now to stop travelling and stop studying. The answers
are there.
It is very clear that the federal government needs to reinvest
in the social housing program, reinvest in support services for
those who are released from institutions and so forth, yet the
throne speech did not address those issues. Does the hon. member
have any comments on that problem?
1645
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the issue of homelessness is
a very serious and important priority for the government. The
member will well understand that homelessness is a complex
problem that needs more than a simple solution. There is no
simple solution.
The Golden report on homelessness found that 35% of homeless
people in Toronto had mental illness, 28% were youth who were
alienated from their families of which 70% had experienced
physical or sexual abuse, 18% were aboriginals off reserve and
10% were abused women.
The member will well understand that this does not paint a
picture of economic poverty and homelessness due to economic
causes. It is social poverty.
The member is quite right that there have to be solutions. But
I can tell the member that finding a solution to mental illness,
to family breakdown, to youth who are alienated from their
families, to domestic violence and to aboriginal issues will take
time.
I think the member would concede that the government has covered
the bases in terms of putting the framework in place so that all
members in this place can work together to deal with
homelessness.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to try once again because I have known this gentleman for a
few years and I totally respect his values, his understanding of
family and of young children. I know he has his heart in the
right place. We have also served on committees together to try
and resolve some of the problems that young children face.
With regard to the child pornography issue and hundreds of
thousands of signatures and letters from the Canadian public and
many more on its way, can the member explain to me why the
government is reluctant to do something about the issue today by
invoking the notwithstanding clause as some of the member's
backbenchers have suggested prior to this date? Let us stop the
perversion.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's
question. The Sharpe case has certainly challenged Canadians to
deal with the very serious issue of possession of child
pornography.
It was simple possession alone. The member knows that the
effect of that case was to basically deal with the laws as they
stand in B.C. Throughout the rest of the country, the member
knows that the laws of Canada remain in place and continue to be
in force.
The member has asked a specific question and I will give him an
answer. I am advised by justice officials that if the
notwithstanding clause was invoked it could not be applied
retroactively, in which case Sharpe would get off. I do not want
Sharpe to get off. I want the laws of Canada to be defended in
the courts to the fullest extent. I do not want anybody in
Canada to get away with possession of child pornography.
The notwithstanding clause is only a perspective instrument. We
have to go back and make sure that all of the cases and all of
the charges that have been laid since the Sharpe case, get dealt
with by the laws of Canada that protect our children from those
who would seek to abuse them.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in today's debate on the throne speech and to
respond to a number of statements made in that speech.
Let me point out first off that the session started four weeks
late. According to the government, that time was used to prepare
the Speech from the Throne.
I should let you know at this point that, like my colleagues, I
will be sharing my time. I will be sharing it with the hon.
member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. We will both speak for
ten minutes.
As I was saying, it is unfortunate that the government delayed
the beginning of the session by four weeks in order to draft
this Speech from the Throne which, as we all know, could have
been prepared over the summer.
The speech is timid and lukewarm in terms of substance. While it
is rather lengthy, the speech does not have much substance. It
lacks substance.
1650
Of course, there are a few interesting things in there, but
there are also serious omissions. Take telecommunications for
example.
With respect to telecommunications, the throne speech says that
the government will adapt its programs to reflect the
socioeconomic realities of rural communities and that it will
intensify its efforts to ensure that those communities and all
regions of Canada can take advantage of the opportunities
created by the new global, knowledge based economy.
We understand what that means. It means that the government
wants to connect all rural communities. I am all for it, because
it is important.
Between you and me, many people still use the phone to talk.
Computers are not the only ones to use phone lines. In our rural
communities, there are still ordinary people made of flesh and
bones who like to pick up to phone to have a conversation.
What is the government doing for these people? Let me tell you
what it is doing, or rather what it is not doing for them. In
urban areas, the government allows for competition to decrease
the cost of local residential phone services. In rural areas,
the phone bill has been going up year after year. In some cases,
it increased twofold over six years. This represents an
impressive inflation rate.
Why is that? The problem is simple. Businesses operating in
rural areas have higher telephone bills than those operating in
urban areas.
The message to these businesses is very clear: if you want to
save on communication costs, get out of the rural areas and into
the city. I am sorry to say that is an unacceptable message.
Rural communities have a right to life as well.
When a company or individual in a rural area wants to have
telephone service, the first thing needed is quality service.
There are some areas in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere that are
still in the party-line era, with two households to a line and
with exchanges that cannot handle electronic signals. In short,
they are still in the dark ages, telephonically speaking.
Then there are the long distance costs. There are big savings
to be made by major companies with high calling volumes.
But an individual—a man or woman who is not just a single user
but a rural user on top of that—may find, believe it or not, that
he or she is in a municipality where calling city hall is a long
distance call. Imagine that.
The throne speech has nothing to say on any of this, but I would
go even further. Very recently, just a few weeks ago, the CRTC
brought down a decision on high service-cost areas, which to all
intents and purposes means the rural areas. The assumption was
that telephone companies charge reasonable amounts to their
subscribers and therefore there was nothing to worry about.
The telephone companies have raised their monthly rates for
local calling beyond a reasonable level.
Some families have discontinued phone service. Others, however,
cannot and will not, but will give up some other essential
instead or will deprive their children of some other essential.
It seems that the Speech from the Throne has no consideration
for these circumstances, which are worsening poverty.
1655
The government and the Minister of Industry, in particular,
through the CRTC, have totally abandoned the rural community.
In Quebec the situation is even more tragic. Most of rural
Quebec is served by Québec Téléphone, known as Quebec Tel. This
company is 51% American owned.
For this reason, the CRTC has denied Quebec Tel the right to
expand within Quebec or Canada, but is permitting Canadian firms
and even new companies from the United States—AT&T; and Sprint—
to eat away at the territory of Quebec Tel.
Consequently, Quebec Tel is being eaten away from the inside by
this competition, which, to all intents and purposes, is unfair.
The Minister of Industry could, with a simple decision, accord
Quebec Tel the rights the other telephone companies, including
the American companies, enjoy on Canadian soil. This puts both
the company and its subscribers, including myself, at a
disadvantage. The situation is intolerable and unacceptable and
is not even mentioned in the throne speech.
This speech does not deal with the real challenges in
telecommunications, challenges that concern the rural community.
The country is big. Quebec is big, it is vast. There is air
and great open spaces, but the government is literally mocking
the people who live in these spaces and who need telephone
service.
Wherever I am in Quebec, my hydro bill is always the same:
distance is not a factor.
The cost of my car registration is the same for a given class of
vehicle. My drivers' license costs the same, whether I live in
Montreal, Quebec City or Portneuf. So why, tell me why, does
the cost of my telephone vary according to where I live?
We had the choice for the telephone of the hydro approach or the
airline route approach. The choice was the airline route
approach, and the cost has become prohibitive for those who live
far away.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wanted to follow my colleague; in fact, what I have is more of a
remark than a question.
He is entirely right. In the throne speech, we have the
government talking about the Internet and about connecting many
municipalities in Quebec with the world. This is all very
lovely, but since I too am a member with a rural riding, I can
confirm that, in 1999, on the eve of the next millennium, there
are taxpayers in Quebec—and in Canada as well, I am sure—who have
party lines, and even some who do not have any telephone service
at all.
The federal government wants to invest in impressive programs
such as the Internet, but does nothing about what is happening
just outside major cities.
Bell Canada and other telephone companies have come up with this
wonderful concept of areas without service. I urge all members
of the House to examine the legislation and to look at all the
definitions. They will realize that, ultimately, the telephone
companies are the big winners. All they have to do is sit
tight. That is it.
I think the government should take some very tough action. When
the CRTC looked into this, the government was strangely quiet,
while the regions all got together to bring to light the fact
that, in 1999, there are, as I said, families without any
telephone service at all.
1700
Worse yet, Bell Canada has allocated telephone numbers to
families—they are listed in the directory—that do not even have
service because their homes are perhaps 10 or 15 metres beyond
the last telephone pole. It is as ridiculous as that.
The members opposite sit back, go on about the Internet and want
to see the whole world connected. All these political speeches
are very impressive, but the regions are being left to fend for
themselves.
I would therefore ask my colleague if this is a situation he
sees in his riding, on the outskirts of Quebec City.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an
important point. Let me tell you about my riding of Portneuf and
in particular the Portneuf RCM.
In the Portneuf RCM, there are a lot of exchange areas. And
within some of these exchange areas, there are long distance
charges to call from one community to another, even if there are
no long distance charges to make a call to Quebec City.
Do you see what impact this has? The Portneuf RCM is a social
environment. People have lived in these communities for
generations now. And since there are long distance charges, for
instance, from Saint-Raymond to Saint-Marc-des Carrières, some
people will forgo making phone calls.
I know some older people who have lived all their lives in the
Portneuf area, who have worked there, have raised their families
and are now retired. These people can no longer afford to call
their children, who live in another community only 20 or 30
kilometres away, because of the long distance charges.
Should the CRTC regulations not ensure that the people living in
a social environment like Portneuf have the opportunity to call
members of their own family? Or is their only purpose to allow
major corporations to lower their long distance charges?
Something does not make sense here ,and the government is not
addressing the issue, and I think my colleague shares my
concern.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
will be very short. I think the member for Portneuf will be able
to answer it immediately.
What he just mentioned clearly explains one reason why more and
more people are leaving our regions. What does he think the
federal government should do to stop the exodus to the large
urban centres?
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, young people are indeed
leaving our regions and people who need medical care are moving
to the city.
The solution is simple, however. Let us give the regions
affordable telephone access everywhere. Let us eliminate long
distance charges within an area that forms a single social and
economic environment, such as the Portneuf area. That would
solve a lot of problems. It is possible.
Feasible proposals have been made by Quebec Tel and Télébec,
among others. One such system has been implemented in the United
States. The government must take action in this regard.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is now my turn to take part in this debate on the Speech from
the Throne. I must say that I am not doing so with much
enthusiasm, because, as many observers pointed out when it was
read in the other place, I found it was very dull and lacked
substance.
It was not the fault of our new governor general, who read it
very well, but it was so dull that I saw people who were nearly
falling asleep, even though they had taken the precaution of
standing while it was being read. They did not find it very
lively.
I must say that the first three throne speeches delivered by
this government since I was elected in 1993 were not very lively
either.
1705
In my opinion, this dull and vague speech, which makes no real
commitments, is a screen for a certain government strategy. I
think the government intends to tinker with the rules under
which the next referendum will be held in Quebec. It has raised
the issue of the majority; it has challenged the principle of a
simple majority, which is accepted throughout the world.
Newfoundland joined the Canadian federation, after two
referendums, with a majority of 52%. Several countries joined
the European Economic Community with 51% of the vote. This
principle is universally accepted.
It was even confirmed in Mont-Tremblant, where the
intergovernmental affairs minister hosted a seminar. Several
experts confirmed this principle, including some from Scotland.
But the minister still wants to review the rules concerning the
majority needed in a referendum.
In the throne speech, there is talk about a clear question. In
the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, in 1992, voters had
to vote without having seen the accord. How is that for a clear
question? Voters were asked whether they supported an accord
they had never seen. Many voters had never got a copy.
Like the hon. member for Portneuf said, however, it does not
take a great deal of time to examine this speech. The main
problem with it is what it does not say. Just like the member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I was disappointed not to find
in this speech a single word on shipbuilding.
Yet, 160,000 people sent the Prime Minister a postcard asking
for a new shipbuilding policy.
This week, I heard industry officials acknowledge the fact
following an emotional outburst from a Reform member who was
wondering why this sector should be supported. We will deal with
this Reform member in due course. The department official's
reply was “No, we are not doing anything special in support of
shipbuilding”. This prompted me to say that was exactly what we
were criticizing the Liberal government for: not doing anything
special for shipbuilding.
In one country in the world that is blessed with the largest
marine area, three oceans and the longest interior seaway in the
world, a country that does much trading, the shipbuilding
industry currently accounts for only 0.4%. Yet, our country is
among those with the heaviest marine traffic per capita. There
is something wrong with this picture. At any rate, I will have
the opportunity to pursue the matter when a private member's
bill comes up for debate in the House next Tuesday.
The title of the speech from the Throne is “Building a Higher
Quality of Life for All Canadians”. What about the quality of
life? While 62.7% of Americans are employed, only 59.5% of
Canadians are.
Granted, the unemployment rate has decreased, but only 40% of
Canadians who lose their job qualify for EI.
What a beautiful country. The other 60% have to rely on social
assistance, which, as we know, is a provincial responsibility.
Other members addressed transfer payments. Let me quote a
startling figure: since the Liberals took office, there are
500,000 more children living in poverty. These children live
below the poverty line, which means that their parents are poor.
Moreover, our productivity rate is only 81.3% that of the United
States. Over the past 20 years, the average actual income has
shrunk by about $142 annually.
1710
Things are not getting better. I can see why the government is
saying that we must build a better quality of life. That
statement may mean that the government has finally realized that
there is a problem. If so, then the Prime Minister should stop
saying that Canada is the best country in the world, because it
is not necessarily true.
In 1998, the actual per capita income was $29,000. This figure
includes high income earners. In the U.S., it is $46,000.
Any country where the quality of life is generally good should
invest in training its workers. Canada ranks 13th in that
regard.
As for research and development, we are dead last among the G-7
nations. The government boasts about a knowledge-based economy,
when in fact scientific research institutions and centres have
suffered such deep cuts that they have not yet made it back to
the 1995 level.
The Minister of Finance managed to achieve a zero deficit. He
even generated surpluses. I do not know what his objective is
for the next five years. It may be that he is aiming for a
surplus of close to $100 billion, this at a time when there are
more and more poor and middle-income families. When we talk about
middle-income families, that includes of course some high-income
earners. This means that the situation is even worse for
low-income families.
Today, there was a demonstration on the front lawn of parliament.
There has never been so many homeless people in Toronto,
Vancouver, Montreal and all the other major cities across
Canada. Those people have nowhere to go. They have to rely on
soup kitchens. It does not make any sense to keep on repeating
that Canada is the very best country in the world.
This speech does not talk about matters over which the federal
government has full jurisdiction. What little substance there is
in the throne speech deals with matters of provincial
jurisdiction. It is a shame, and we can never denounce it
enough.
I sometimes tune in to open line shows. People seem to think
that it is only in Quebec that waiting rooms are crowded. The
situation is the same everywhere, in Ontario and elsewhere. Why?
Because of drastic cuts to transfer payments.
When questioned, the minister of Finance suggests that fewer
cuts are being made and he even tries to pass these off as
increases.
This is a bland and unsubstantial speech, but the little
substance that can be found in it is indeed very subtle. It
reflects an increasing invasion of provincial jurisdictions. The
will to impede Quebec democracy by interfering in the referendum
rules is obvious.
All the Liberals have to do is mind their own business. It is up
to Quebecers, and Quebecers alone, to decide their future.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, when my
colleague spoke about a dull speech that lacked substance, I am
sure he was not talking about his speech but about the throne
speech.
I want to congratulate him and to take this opportunity to
commend him for his work on shipyards and also to point out the
fact that he has the full co-operation of our party on this most
important issue.
Since the member is always serious and very sensible, I would
like to benefit from his expertise. I noted that he talked a lot
about poverty.
1715
Poverty is somewhat hidden because people believe it is linked
to the unemployment rate, at present. One must never forget that
the unemployed who are no longer eligible for EI benefits become
welfare recipients, and then we lose track of them.
I think poverty has become the biggest problem in the country. A
lot of people are suffering, people who work part time, people
who have temporary jobs that pay very little, less than the
minimum required to make a decent living.
I would like to ask my colleague, in this the international year
of action to fight poverty, if he would seriously consider
implementing a guaranteed minimum income program in Canada.
Canada is said to be a rich country for a few people.
Would the fact of being Canadian not justify having access, at a
certain age, to a guaranteed minimum income to be able to meet
one's basic needs, which a very large part of Canada's
population cannot do?
I would like to ask him if he knows of a study on the validity
of the concept of a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians
at age 18 or 21, which would allow them to get by until they can
get a better paying job.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I almost turned red—in spite of
myself—at hearing a member of another party compliment me. I
thank him for his compliments. I did not expect this kind of
comments from him, but I am greatly honored.
He asked me an interesting question. I remember that, when I was
sitting on the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, several people had indeed raised this issue with
us.
I do not want to speak on behalf of my party. I want to express
a personal opinion. Because of shared jurisdictions in a federal
system, the issue is very complex. On the social union agreement
alone, there are differences of opinion between Quebec and the
other provinces.
Whether one is a sovereignist or a federalist, the hon. member
for Chicoutimi knows well that, when Quebec's interests are
close to one's heart, one cannot ignore certain things on the
federal level when the government wants to interfere in
provincial jurisdictions.
I believe that, in the current context, a guaranteed minimum
income in a confederate state or a federation would be very
difficult because there must be a lot of consultation and
co-ordination between the different governments.
In a sovereign Quebec, this would be possible and I would be one
of the main proponents of this. Following the by-election in
Hull—Aylmer, if he wants to keep his seat in Chicoutimi, the hon.
member should consider joining the Bloc Quebecois to ask for the
same thing as we have been asking. Perhaps a guaranteed minimum
income under a sovereignist government in Quebec would then be
possible.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment to make.
Mr. Forget, who was a Liberal minister 20 years ago, made a
study on a guaranteed minimum wage. This study said that such a
program was possible. As my colleague for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said, it would be very much easier
for us if we were sovereign. Even in Canada, however, it surely
is possible.
I would like to ask my colleague for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière a question. It is true that
there are poor people everywhere, including 1.5 million
children. In our regions, it is even worse. What could the
member say to the government to convince it to listen up, to
open its heart and to help the poor in our regions?
1720
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, my answer would be that
government members should do what the member for
Matapédia—Matane does.
They should do what he does. He brings the problems of his
constituents before the House. We should not do like the Liberal
members, who try to sell indefensible Liberal policies, such as
employment insurance cuts, in their ridings.
This is unacceptable. They should do what my colleague does and
stand up for their constituents.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the
distinguished member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul. It gives me
great pleasure to address the House in reply to the recent Speech
from the Throne.
I am a proud member of the club of 1988. November 21 will mark
my 11th anniversary as a member of the House, representing the
voters in the west end of Winnipeg first for the riding of
Winnipeg—St. James and now, following redistribution in 1997,
the riding of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.
In those 11 years I have witnessed much change, most of it for
the better. I spent my first five years on the opposition
benches during the Mulroney years. I am quite sure you remember
them well, Mr. Speaker, even though you were not here.
I recall the letters and phone calls I received in those days.
People were down on their federal government, and some of them
were even down on their country. There were issues like the
divisive constitutional changes proposed at Meech Lake and
Charlottetown, the bitter debate over free trade, the soaring
deficit and debt, and an economic recession thrown in for good
measure. All those issues left many Canadians feeling
pessimistic about their futures.
In late 1993 the country changed for the better with the
election of a new government, bringing in a new approach and some
new directions. The new Liberal government embarked on an
ambitious plan to put Canadians back to work and to restore
stability and credibility to the nation's finances. We have
worked hard to rebuild the foundations of Canada. We have worked
hard to restore the confidence of Canadians in the future.
I am proud to say that in short order the government transformed
the record deficit of $42 billion that we inherited from our
predecessors to two consecutive balanced budgets, with a third on
the way, and a growing budget surplus. As a result interest
rates have fallen sharply, driving the economy to create, it is
hard to believe, nearly two million jobs since we took office in
the fall of 1993.
In my province of Manitoba the federal government's economic
policies have helped push the unemployment rate down to 5.4%.
That is one of the lowest in the country, if not the lowest.
With the nation's finances firmly under control and the economy
growing, the government has been able to make key reinvestments
in social and economic programs. That is something Canadians
want us to do.
For example, research and development funding has been boosted
significantly. Health care funding has been increased by $11.5
billion, of which my province of Manitoba will receive $425
million. We have improved support for those pursuing
post-secondary education through changes to the tax system and by
introducing the millennium scholarship fund.
Our infrastructure renewal programs have seen some $6 billion
invested across the country improving everything from community
centres to highways, including a number of projects in my riding
of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.
Despite what the opposition may want Canadians to believe, we
have begun cutting taxes in the last three budgets, or
effectively over the past three budgets, to about $16.5 billion.
Average families in my riding earning $50,000 will see their
federal taxes fall by $550.
1725
This is only the beginning. We stand today before a new century
confident in the future of our country. All Canadians can be
proud of our achievements as an independent and prosperous
country with a dynamic economy and a strong and democratic
society. As the United Nations consistently reminds us, Canada
is the best place to live in the world. That declaration has
come from the United Nations for the last six years.
Canadians are confident that despite a rapidly changing world
where technology, knowledge and creativity are the driving forces
of the new economy, Canada will succeed. Maintaining and
enhancing our standard of living require a comprehensive strategy
to take us into the 21st century. The throne speech boldly sets
out that strategy.
The government's vision for the future includes a commitment to
Canada's children and youth, which is a very good start; the
building of a dynamic economy; further strengthening our health
care system; ensuring the quality of our environment; building
stronger communities; improving the relationship with aboriginal
peoples; and advancing Canada's place in the world. It is large
order. It is an ambitious agenda, but it is something that we
simply have to do on behalf of all Canadians.
Our plan for the next two to five years is comprehensive: first,
increase maternity and parental leave benefits; second, a federal
provincial agreement on more supports for early childhood
development, which is very important; third, more after tax money
in the hands of families; fourth, more family friendly
workplaces; fifth, modernization of family law; sixth, a third
significant investment in the national child benefit; and
seventh, strengthened learning opportunities through an expanded
SchoolNet. That is real support for Canadian families in the
Canadian way.
While hon. members opposite profess to offer so-called solutions
to the country's woes, the government has delivered and is
preparing to deliver even more. I think Canadians recognize
this. The phone calls and letters I receive these days are much
more optimistic and much more positive about our future than the
ones I received 10 or 11 years ago.
I want to be very frank. This is not to say that all is well
and that the government can afford to rest on its laurels. That
is not the truth. There are all kinds of things to do to keep on
building this great country. There is a lot to be done.
For example, in my home area of Canada in the west, prairie
farmers find themselves in the midst of one of the worst
agricultural periods since the Great Depression. The Liberal
government has responded with a $1.5 billion income assistance
program designed and implemented in partnership with the
provinces and stakeholders.
Many argue that $1.5 billion is not enough. It would be more
accurate to say that not enough of it has been paid out so far.
Federal assistance to prairie farmers has recently been boosted
by an additional $170 million, something announced by the
agriculture minister just days ago, raising the total federal
emergency aid to farmers to over a billion dollars. This is over
and above ongoing federal support payments of $600 million to
agriculture.
Having grown up on a farm in southern Manitoba around the
community of Glenboro, I understand and greatly sympathize with
the plight of prairie farmers. I would like to see existing
income assistance moneys paid out as soon as possible.
This is only part of the solution. In the Speech from the
Throne the government reaffirmed its long term commitment to
Canada's farmers. We will work to reduce foreign export
subsidies at the upcoming WTO meetings in Seattle.
The government also reaffirmed the importance of biotechnology
research to the future of Canada's agriculture industry and
pledged additional support. In addition, the government is
committed to helping prairie farmers by building on the work
already done by Judge Estey and Mr. Kroeger in their reports on
the grain transportation system.
1730
The government must ensure that there is greater competition
within the system and that producers receive the benefits through
lower transportation costs.
I will comment briefly on the importance of ongoing
communication between the government and the public. I recently
had the honour of heading up a caucus task force on the four
western provinces. That task force was mandated to complement
the work of the existing western Liberal caucus by consulting
with western Canadians about what the government's priorities
should be as we approach the new millennium.
Without prejudicing the contents of the report, which I expect
will be released very soon, western Canadians overwhelmingly
welcomed the opportunity to be consulted on what the government's
priorities should be as we enter the new millennium.
The throne speech reflects many of the comments that my task
force heard during our consultations. The commitment to further
tax cuts while reinvesting in the social safety net, the
commitment to further investments in research and development and
improvements to our infrastructure, and ensuring that Canada's
children and families are a priority are all important issues for
western Canadians. The government is listening to western
Canadians, indeed to all Canadians, and it is responding to what
it is hearing.
The throne speech provides an inspiring vision to take Canada
into the new millennium. As the Prime Minister so boldly stated,
Canada will be the place to be in the 21st century.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to hear the hon. member mention that our society needs a
dynamic economy. He spoke about more money being in one's hands
after taxes, which is very important, but in order for people to
have more money they must have jobs.
I want to direct the hon. member's attention to an issue that is
very important to those of us who live in the maritimes, the
issue of a national shipbuilding policy. The throne speech made
no mention of that issue whatsoever and yet it is an issue that
has been brought forward on many occasions and presented to the
federal government as a very pressing concern for those living in
coastal areas. Management, workers and many people are
supporting the idea of a national shipbuilding policy, a policy
that is aimed at bringing about some very productive employment
for the people who have the skills and training necessary to
perform that work.
Did the hon. member see anything in the throne speech that gives
any hope or any promise for a national shipbuilding policy for
Canada?
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member from
Halifax wants to gain insight into this issue, I invite him to
read the report by the Liberal caucus representing Atlantic
Canada. He will find that reading very interesting. The report
contains a lot of information on the issue of a shipbuilding
policy.
If the hon. member from Halifax wants to be updated on what
government members are doing and saying with respect to
shipbuilding in Atlantic Canada, I want him to read that caucus
report. It is good reading.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate Her Excellency the Governor General for
delivering the Speech from the Throne with an eloquence that
befits the inspiring vision of the Government of Canada for the
21st century, that is building a higher quality of life for all
Canadians.
On behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul, I
pledge that we share this vision and are prepared to make it a
reality. It has been my privilege to have served them in the
House for a little over a decade.
This House is a very special place, indeed, where openness of
hearts and openness of minds are a way of life, where the true
power of co-operation reveals the very best in our nation and the
very best for our nation, a democratic society with responsible
government and a citizenry committed to hard work, integrity and
justice.
1735
The quality of life in Canada speaks for itself. For six years
in a row, Canada has been deemed by the United Nations as the
best country in the world in which to live. As we cherish this
honour, let us reflect once more on our country's past, as did
the Prime Minister in his response to the Speech from Throne when
he said that Canada is a triumph of will over geography and
economics.
Indeed, the departing 20th century has been a challenge to
Canada. The Prime Minister noted that in a century of tyranny,
of brutal dictatorships, of human rights oppression and of
growing gaps between the haves and have nots, Canadians gave
their lives so that others could live in freedom. He said Canada
embraced a charter of rights and freedoms and developed an
advanced system of social security and a social safety net.
He went on to say that in a century of great economic progress,
of entrepreneurship and innovation, and of education, Canada grew
from a small agrarian society to become one of the leading
industrialized countries in the world and the only major country
in the world to have all its schools linked to the Internet.
These Canadian successes define the conscience and the strength
of our nation's will as a people.
The Prime Minister went on to emphasize that in a century where
artistic production has expanded as never before, Canadians
occupy a place of honour. I just saw the Minister of Canadian
Heritage beaming with pride and joy, and rightly so.
The sum of all these achievements equates to our Canadian
genius. It is this Canadian genius that the Government of Canada
applied to succeed in eliminating the $42 billion national
deficit, reducing the double digit unemployment rate, restoring
our collapsing physical infrastructure and balancing the books of
the nation.
It is this Canadian genius that guided the Government of Canada
in the creation of the national child benefit program, the
establishment of the Canada millennium scholarship fund, the
restoration of $11.5 billion transfer payments for medicare and
the increase in the budget for research, innovation and
development.
Canadians have watched the government lead the country from a
nation of despair to a nation of success.
Even as Canada rightfully basks today in the quality of life of
our people, we are the first as a people to acknowledge that we
can do better for ourselves and for the world.
The Speech from the Throne defines our national vision for
Canada in the 21st century and our plan to turn our vision of
today into the reality of tomorrow.
The Prime Minister spoke of the need for a comprehensive
strategy for leadership in the knowledge economy and for
promoting our interests and projecting our values in the world, a
strategy that integrates the economy, social policy and the
environment.
He sees that the role of a national government today is to
represent the future to the present, is sometimes to act
directly, sometimes to work in partnership, sometimes to create a
framework for the private sector and sometimes simply to lead by
example. He sees that to attain our national vision and meet our
national objectives, we must work with Canadians to achieve them.
As members of parliament, we come to this special place to make
a difference in the quality of life of our fellow citizens, not
only for a few of them, not for some of them, not even for most
of them, but for all of them.
This is what the Government of Canada has in mind when it
commits to develop our children and youth, build a dynamic
economy, strengthen health care and quality care, ensure the
quality of our environment, build stronger communities,
strengthen the relationship with Canada's aboriginal peoples, and
advance Canada's place in the world.
As Canada beholds the dawn of the new era, let us be reminded
that our greatness as a nation rests as much in our past as in
our future. The greatness of a nation is tested when it creates
opportunities out of challenges.
1740
There is one such challenge that touches the heart of the
Canadian experience. I speak of the challenge in rural Canada
which at once becomes a challenge for all of Canada.
The farm income crisis is real and painful, and we worry very
much about the farmers affected and their families, their sons,
daughters and grandchildren. For most of them, this crisis is a
matter of survival: food on the table, security from bankruptcy
and a sense of confidence in tomorrow. That is why the
Government of Canada has announced an additional $170 million
over and above the over $1 billion that is already in our
disaster aid program.
We in the government caucus continue to preoccupy ourselves with
this very vital issue. We are determined to examine all options
for a solution and we will search for new approaches, such as
easing the cost of transportation and handling of grain.
As chair of the northern and western federal Liberal caucus, I
share with colleagues the sense of duty and dedication on the
part of our members to contribute our share to the future of our
nation. Rural Canada and our farmers are a vital part of that
future.
We want a Canada with a higher quality of life for the whole of
our citizenry where every Canadian from every region shares the
blessings of this great nation. Let not our experiences of pain
detract from our sense of belonging to this great country.
We challenge ourselves to lend our ears and hear with equal
acuity the voices that come from all regions of our country.
Although not everything can possibly be done, we must have the
wisdom to reconcile them all, to reconcile the diversity of our
needs and aspirations just as we reconcile the diversity of our
talents and experiences.
Early at the turn of this now departing century, then prime
minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, while beholding a model of Gothic
architecture in England, said:
The cathedral was made of granite, oak and marble. It is the
image of the nation I wish to become. For here, I want the
granite to remain granite, the oak to remain oak, the marble to
remain marble. Out of these elements, I will build a nation
great among the nations of the world.
Now I behold a parliament whose governor general is from the
Pacific and whose members of the Senate and the House of Commons
come from varied roots, a parliament where we hear the sound of
many tongues and accents, see the sight of many colours, feel the
beatings of many caring hearts and distill the wisdom of many
minds.
And thus, I am confident that working together this parliament
can achieve our common vision: building a higher quality of life
for all Canadians. We can say, with resolute confidence, the
great future is indeed Canada.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. He talked about
Canada's vast resources and the fact that Canada is a vast
country. He also bragged about the Liberal government's policies
for Canada.
We know our population is low. We know that Canada needs a
larger market for our goods and services. With the fast changes
that are taking place in our country and in the international
arena and the fast changes that are taking place in the global
village, which is globalization, one policy that is very
important for a nation is the foreign policy.
There is not even one word about foreign policy in the throne
speech. This is a policy that is like a thread in a necklace
which keeps all the beads together. A foreign policy is the
policy on which the other policies of a nation depend. I am
talking about trade, the economy, the fiscal health of a country,
investment, defence, security, immigration, human and natural
resources and so on.
Since a good, sound, solid foreign policy is very important to
a nation, I would like to ask the member why there is not even a
single word about foreign policy in the throne speech.
1745
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened
that the member stood in his place and said there is nothing in
the Speech from the Throne on foreign policy. I wonder whether
indeed he has read the Speech from the Throne. Perhaps I should
call to his attention pages 21 and 22 where it says, “Canada's
place in the world”. In the interest of time, the member should
accept that that phrase speaks of Canada's foreign policy in the
world, and that is to care for everyone.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I noticed he
spoke about everybody sharing in the blessings of this great
nation and the importance of that happening. In order for some
communities to share in the blessings that this nation has, there
is a need for basic infrastructure within a lot of small
communities right across Canada.
In my riding of Halifax West many small communities could
certainly benefit from the Canada infrastructure works program.
Quite some time ago I wrote to the Prime Minister on that issue
and got a response that indicated it would depend largely upon
the provinces and the municipalities wanting to have such a
program. My understanding is that the provinces have now come on
board and want the program. The Federation of Canadian
Municipalities has written to support such a program.
The evidence has shown from the past program that it is a useful
way of getting very basic infrastructure such as roads, sewage
and water systems into many communities that would not otherwise
be able to have them.
Does the hon. member see anything in the throne speech that
would give any hope for a program that would address the basic
infrastructure needs of our communities?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the
member raised that question and shared with us his concerns for
citizens of Canada. Therefore I am obliged to remind the member,
and all members of the House, that pages 12 to 16 give the exact
plan of the government on the infrastructure for Canada for the
21st century.
It will encompass not only the physical infrastructure but the
information, knowledge and cultural infrastructures as well. In
other words, the sum total of our resources will be used so that
we will all be stronger. It is in the throne speech and the
member can expect a real hope of attainment on that issue.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey Central.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the Speech from
the Throne which is supposed to explain how parliament intends to
proceed with public business.
The government recessed this place for over four months.
Canadians must be sorely disappointed with the lack of substance
announced for the current session. There must be particular
disappointment in the whole area of justice. I will highlight
some of the shortcomings in what was presented by the government
in its speech.
Some have commented that a Speech from the Throne is intended to
very generally indicate the direction of the government in the
coming months. It is often flowery with little substance, and
that is understood. Just what did it say to indicate where the
government has its beliefs, its plans and its focus?
We have often heard of the don't worry, be happy attitude of the
Prime Minister. His arrogance has become increasingly obvious.
In spite of valid criticism, he always answers that only he knows
what is best for Canadians. His answer to citizens who do not
like the way of things is that they can always move to another
country. What has he said through the Speech from the Throne?
His statement that “Canadians are justifiably proud of having
built communities where citizens feel safe”, shows he knows very
little about the average Canadian. Now that he has beefed up his
own personal security through the RCMP, and now that he expends
hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintaining that security, he
jumps to the conclusion that all Canadians feel safe.
1750
The most recent Statistics Canada studies on public perception
of crime show that Canadians do not feel safe. Urban residents,
females and seniors do not feel safe walking alone in their
neighbourhoods at night. More and more Canadians are cocooning
themselves within their homes at night. More and more Canadians
are spending more and more on deadbolts, alarm systems, guard
dogs and self defence courses.
The throne speech claim to citizens feeling safe rings hollow to
most Canadians.
The speech goes on with more flowery words that on closer
inspection contain little substance. It talks of a
reintroduction of legislation to reform the youth justice system.
The government is acting only to quell the strong dissatisfaction
of Canadians with the Young Offenders Act. Even the Minister of
Justice accepts its failures.
Unfortunately, this government proposes little more than a name
change of the current legislation. It has only made minor
improvements in limited areas. In most of the significant
portions, it does not legislate the process. It leaves it up to
the discretion of the courts.
The throne speech promises reform of the youth justice system,
but in reality Bill C-3 is little more than a puff piece. There
has been glitter, there has been spin doctoring and there has
been promise, but there is little substance to the youth criminal
justice act.
The throne speech promises to combat drug trafficking. The
government likely made a similar promise 30 years ago. It is no
closer to solving the drug problem today than it was then. In
spite of billions of tax dollars spent on the war on drugs, we
still have traffickers in our schools. We still see that the
vast majority of crimes are related in one way or another to
drugs and all we get from the government is vague promises. What
we do not see is concrete action to address the illegal use of
drugs in this country.
The throne speech mentions focusing attention on international
crime, including money laundering, terrorism and the smuggling of
people, drugs and guns. We have seen how prepared this
government is to the problem of people smuggling.
Four boatloads of Chinese migrants were smuggled into my home
province of British Columbia over the past few months. Taxpayers
face a potential bill of $52 million or $123,000 per person for
the 420 individuals we have chosen to detain. All indications
are that more may also attempt to enter Canada in the same
manner. We have all heard the minister's plan. She is waiting
for the north Pacific winter storms to deal with the rusty old
ships.
This government has few, if any, ideas or programs to properly
address crime within Canada and now it talks of addressing
international crime. It is all just talk.
The throne speech mentions strengthening the capacity of the
RCMP. However, it was this government that put the RCMP in such
a fiscal straitjacket that the only training facility was forced
to close. Patrol cars are parked because the force cannot afford
tires. Planes were grounded, boats were docked, investigations
were shelved due to lack of resources. My home province of
British Columbia is already short about 400 federal police
officers. My own community of Surrey has some 70 vacant
positions in a complement of some 370.
This government operates in a most peculiar manner. First it
rapes our national police force of its ability to function
through budget freezes or inadequate resources. Then at some
future politically opportune time it will ride in on its white
horse amid much fanfare to announce additional funding. In the
meantime our communities suffer from inadequate policing and lose
valued police officers who leave for other opportunities because
of frustrations and obstacles to doing their job. All in all
there is little promise for Canadians in the area of innovative
justice programs.
I turn now to a couple of areas important to Canadians but which
were not even mentioned in the throne speech. There was no
mention of the child pornography issue. On January 15, 1999, 10
months ago, Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw ruled that the present law on
possession of child pornography was unconstitutional. On January
16 I wrote to the Attorney General of British Columbia urging him
to appeal the decision, which he subsequently did.
On January 21 I wrote to the justice minister to encourage her
to immediately introduce amending legislation for the sake and
the safety of our children. On January 26 approximately 70
Liberal members and senators urged the minister to introduce new
legislation, then promptly voted against a Reform Party motion to
do just that. The minister merely made public statements that in
her legal determination the British Columbia Court of Appeal
would uphold the constitutionality of the current law. Well, we
all know just how wrong she was. The appeal court ruled that the
law was unconstitutional.
I wrote the minister once again urging her to introduce
legislation to clearly define for the courts the intent of
parliament on the possession of children pornography and still no
action. Instead, the minister now wants Canadians to wait for
the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the case which will not be
heard until January. The decision may take months.
1755
Meanwhile our justice system is left in chaos over this law.
Some prosecutors are holding charges in abeyance until the
supreme court decision. Some investigations are being shelved
because scarce police resources cannot be wasted on legislation
that may ultimately be unenforceable. Convicted offenders are
now proceeding with appeals. And there is nothing from the
government in the throne speech.
Another issue of importance to Canadians is the raising of the
age for consensual sex. The Mulroney Tories lowered the age from
16 to 14 years, meaning that a 14 year old can consent to having
sexual relations with an adult. Canadians everywhere feel that
this law subjects young people to abuse by predatory adults.
There is a clear cry for the return to the age of 16. Canadians
believe that those 14 and 15 are far too susceptible to coercion
to be making informed decisions about sexual activity with older
individuals.
In fact in a recent case, two escaped sex offenders wound up
with a 14 year old girl. Eric Wanamaker, 51 years old, charged
with sexually assaulting this young girl, was acquitted when the
judge ruled her conflicting testimony led him to believe that she
had consented. It is difficult to believe that a 14 year old has
the wherewithal to make a free and informed consent with a 51
year old, especially when we consider emotional maturity and
power.
There is no mention of the issue of consent in the throne
speech. It does not seem to be a priority for the government.
Once again the government will probably study the issue to death
and if anything ever does get done, it will be watered down in an
ineffective way.
To sum up, the throne speech contained a number of smooth and
flowery words. It contained little if any substance. Much of it
contained issues that have been around for throne speech after
throne speech. It did not address many of the issues of concern
to Canadians. It leaves us with poor expectations. I am
disappointed and Canadians are disappointed.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on this side of the House we were looking for a useful throne
speech that the Liberals took so long to write. Instead of high
hopes what we got was a hopeless, empty shell of a speech. There
is a lack of vision for the 21st century by the Liberal
government and the Prime Minister confessed that.
If I had written that speech, I would have given a vision to
build a strong and wide bridge for all Canadians to cross to the
next millennium to find peace, hope, prosperity and opportunities
for all.
With the fast changes that have been taking place in the global
village in the past decade, the foreign policy of a nation
becomes increasingly important. Foreign affairs was not
mentioned in the throne speech. There was not a single word
about it. A nation's policies on trade, the economy, fiscal
health, investment, defence, security, immigration, human
resources, natural resources and other issues depend on good
sound foreign policy, but there was not a single word about it in
the throne speech. There was no mention at all.
Traditionally we have had a niche in the world arena. In the
world, Canada has little military interest, no weapons sales
interest. We have no hidden agenda. We have no threatening
trade interests. But the current Liberal government is eroding
our reputation as a potential world leader having integrity and
fairness. The Liberal government's lack of a plan and its track
record since 1993 show Canadians a weak spirit and a weak
political will to make any leaps and bounds at the international
level.
The Prime Minister has missed many opportunities for our
country. His missing King Hussein's funeral is typical of what
he has done to our international reputation. He did not allow
B.C.'s emergency response team to go to Taiwan after the
devastating earthquake there. The Prime Minister also
disappointed the people of Turkey in terms of helping them with
the first of the two earthquakes. He responded very late to the
crisis in East Timor. His policies were on the wrong track when
India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests. The government was
on the verge of declaring a trade war with our largest trading
partner earlier this year.
1800
There are numerous examples. The decisions concerning Iraq and
Kosovo were done deals before they came to the floor of
parliament. It was meaningless to have take note debates without
a vote. It did not provide an opportunity for the government to
listen to anyone in the House or to parliament.
The foreign policy of the government has many faults. There is
not a word about foreign policy in the throne speech. Over a
century ago Sir John A. Macdonald hoped that Canada would be a
source of strength, not weakness. Our bilateral and multilateral
foreign policy requires the integration of diplomatic, military
and economic dimensions of policy into a coherent framework
grounded in sound principles and oriented toward promoting long
term security and prosperity for Canada and Canadians.
Therefore the official opposition and the Reform Party, as the
government in waiting, released its interim foreign policy paper
this week, Canada in the New Millennium: A New Look at Foreign
Policy. It is a sincere effort by the official opposition to
present a thoughtful, strategic new foreign policy approach
consistent with Canada's national interest.
It is a program of action that will permit coherence, encourage
consistency and retain moral purpose. It seeks to restore our
country's international credibility, shamefully squandered over
the past 30 years by Liberal and Tory governments. It is
designed to advance our security and prosperity, and it allows
our country to adapt to the ever changing dynamics of world
affairs.
Canada's influence in the world has steadily declined. In the
last several years a small elite group has formulated our foreign
policy. Many of its assumptions stem from a 30 year old foreign
policy that needs to be rethought. The Liberals, beginning with
Mr. Trudeau, have ignored, for example, the importance of NATO.
Canada belongs to some 100 international organizations, some of
which do not even exist. There may not be any analysis done on
cost benefits or value for tax dollars. Our friends and foes
wonder what are our national goals. Canada is becoming the
laughing stock of the international community.
The current government uses catch phrases like soft power and
human security but has never explained what they mean. In fact
it has endangered our long term economic and political interests.
The government's foreign policy is not enhancing our security
and prosperity. This government and the Tories before it eroded
Canada's military capability to the point that they have caused
our international influence to decline. Except for its
initiatives to ban land mines, the government has failed to
address drug and small weapon smuggling, organized crime, illegal
immigrants, gangs, money laundering and industrial espionage, to
name only a few areas.
There are infamous reports of corruption and wrongdoing in our
foreign embassies. The government does only three things: first,
it punishes whistleblowers; second, it covers up the wrongdoing;
and third, it does nothing. The government has practically done
nothing to address this serious issue. Based on a constituent's
concern I discovered some wrongdoing, took action and attempted
to fix the problem. Our image is being tarnished and our
abilities at the international level have been curtailed as these
situations go unaddressed.
We have foreign missions where people are lining up and waiting
for many hours. They have no washrooms, drinking water or
covered facilities.
Next door to these places are the embassies and high commissions
from other countries that provide those basic facilities, not to
mention air conditioning.
1805
Our foreign policy has been hostile to certain nations and
discriminatory toward others. The immigration head tax is a good
example of that, and so is the inconsistency of the government's
handing out foreign aid in billions of dollars.
The Liberals continue to maintain and promise that they will
provide 0.7% of the GNP to foreign aid, but actually they have
been able to give only one-third of that. The question is not
one of more or less but one of fair commitment. They deliver a
message of false hope to the poor and starving people and the
governments of the world.
The government delivers billions of dollars of our foreign aid
unaudited, without transparency, without parliamentary review and
without compatibility with our national interest. It ensures
that it is unaccountable by refusing to establish the aid
effectiveness measurement asked for by the management of CIDA.
Other than for humanitarian reasons, our foreign aid should be
attached to good governance and an acceptable human rights
record.
The Liberals do not target our support to credible
organizations, nations or even regions that are important to the
Canadian interest. There is no mention of these considerations
in the throne speech. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, there is no mention
of foreign affairs or international trade in a speech which
announces the work that the Liberals plan to do before the next
election.
I know my time is limited, but I want to talk about peacemaking
versus peacekeeping. I want to talk about Candu reactor trade
barriers and I want to talk about plutonium, nuclear wastes and
many other issues.
In conclusion, I encourage all members of the House and all
Canadians to read our interim foreign policy statement on Canada
and the millennium and ask the Liberals across the way to open
their eyes. They should not sleep at the wheel. They should
either do the job properly or get out of the way.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will just ask the member a very short question. Another item
that was not mentioned, and if it were it was very limited, was
the agricultural industry. A person would get a bit excited if
the government had said some things in that agricultural policy
that would give us hope, but there was absolutely nothing.
I would have even become excited if there had been a slight hint
that the Liberals were to move the heritage minister out of her
position and put her in charge of agriculture. The way that
woman throws money around, I do not think there would be a poor
farm in the country, plus they would have flags flying from every
weather vane.
Would the member comment on what he feels are the real answers?
Why does he feel that things like international affairs,
agriculture and the grassroots native problems are not included
in the throne speech in his view?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the
thoughtful comments of the hon. member and I thank him for the
excellent question. That is the question about the throne speech
all of us are asking on the opposition benches.
The answer to that question is simple. How can the government
ignore such important areas like agriculture, child pornography,
defence, airline mergers and illegal immigrants coming to this
country? All these areas are missing from the throne speech,
even the broad base tax cuts which Canadians have been demanding
for a long time. All these areas are missing just because of one
reason. The government's arrogance shows that it lacks vision.
The Liberals have absolutely no vision about the 21st century and
where Canadians should be heading so confidently to look for
prosperity and opportunities for all. Basically the government
is lacking vision.
In one of his speeches the Prime Minister even admitted that.
He said that Canada was doing very good without vision. Imagine,
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had vision? The Prime
Minister has absolutely no vision and he confessed that. The
Liberal government is giving evidence day after day that it
really has no vision.
1810
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise but I cannot let a sin of
omission prosper. He said there was nothing on agriculture in
the throne speech. Let me read one sentence at page 14:
Indeed, it is an economy in which technology can lead to greater
economic stability for the primarily rural regions in which
cyclical resource industries—agriculture, fisheries, forestry,
mining and tourism—are the dominant sources of wealth. The
government will encourage the development and adoption of new
technologies in all sectors.
From now on I think we have to adopt a policy that when
something comes from Reform we take it with a grain of salt.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to hear
from the hon. member because that is the only thing mentioned in
the throne speech about agriculture. I challenge the member to
show me anything else.
Is there any solution to the crisis or the problem? The Liberal
government, while it is figuring out if there is a crisis at all,
does not know how farmers are suffering.
Speaking of foreign affairs, I ask the hon. member or any other
member on the Liberal side to tell me the page in the throne
speech where it talks about foreign affairs or international
trade. I look forward to an answer from the hon. member.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member talked about vision. We talk about vision on this side of
the House. We are looking at matters such as rebuilding the
national infrastructure.
We have a $40 billion deficit. I remind the House that it was
this government in 1993 that adopted the the proposal of the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities which was wandering in the
wilderness when the Tories were in power. For five years we have
had a strong national infrastructure program that is being
renewed in the Speech from the Throne.
As one who comes from the greater Toronto area, and as chair of
the greater Toronto area caucus on our side of the House, I want
to say how important this is for an area of 4.5 million people.
To reinvest in core infrastructure is extremely important for the
residents of the GTA.
We talk about vision. In the Speech from the Throne we are
talking about investing in the economy and technology. I realize
that when we talk about investing in technology we are talking to
some people here who still believe the earth is flat, but the
fact is that in this case we are talking about a vision of going
forward to the 21st century, not back to the 19th century.
We are looking at a program that is investing in high
technology. I happen to come from an area of the greater Toronto
area with probably the highest percentage in Canada of new
technology in terms of computer industries. Members opposite may
be working with Ouija boards over there, but from our standpoint
we are looking ahead at advancement.
When it comes to vision, we know what vision is about.
Fortunately our vision is forward, not backward.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my speech
was effective enough to at least wake all of them up. The member
spoke about the deficit. I ask the member, and all members on
the other side of the House, why they did not balance the budget
29 years ago. Why is the deficit continuing?
They balanced the budget on the backs of taxpayers. The budget
could have been balanced 29 years ago if the government increased
taxes then. The budget should be balanced by eliminating waste
and duplication, by reducing spending in government and by giving
a tax break to Canadians.
Canada is the number one country in the G-7 for paying the
highest amount of personal income taxes. That is shameful. That
is a lack of vision.
1815
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings of the House and to
put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion
now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 135
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harvey
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Konrad
| Laurin
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Bonin
| Brien
| Brown
| Cauchon
|
Coderre
| Crête
| Debien
| Finlay
|
Fournier
| Graham
| Guay
| Iftody
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
| O'Reilly
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Serré
| Steckle
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That the address be engrossed and presented to Their Excellencies
the Governors General by Mr. Speaker.
(Motion agreed to)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1850
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on October 19,
1999, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a
question concerning a Labour Congress study that confirmed what
we have known for a long time.
Women are penalized by the employment insurance reform.
Ultimately, children are also penalized.
In her answer, the minister ignored the substance of my question
and spouted statistics, which proves clearly that the Liberal
government does not care at all about women's needs.
The employment insurance plan designed by the Liberal government
completely ignores the real conditions on the labour market. It
is designed for men who have been working full time throughout
their life.
It is about time the government woke up and realized that we are
not in the 1950s anymore. Women are now on the labour market and
they deserve protection under the EI plan.
The current labour market also includes a substantial number of
workers in seasonal industries. The Liberal government scorns
these workers. It blames unemployment on the unemployed.
It is not the fault of the workers if they cannot fish under the
ice or exceed lumber quotas. The government should assume its
responsibilities and invest in an infrastructure program to try
to diversify these local economies.
Besides women and seasonal workers, the employment insurance
program is also ignoring self-employed and part-time workers.
Instead of hiding behind statistics, the Minister of Human
Resources Development should realize what is really going on in
the labour market and set up an employment insurance program
that really meets the needs of all workers.
The employment insurance program is at a critical point. With
only one third of the jobless eligible for benefits, we are
obviously dealing with a crisis.
Do the Liberals opposite not realize that their policies have
real consequences and that poverty and the popularity of food
banks are increasing because of the changes they made to the EI
program?
There is a $26 billion surplus in the EI fund. The Liberals are
refusing to help workers, but not because they are out of money.
They are refusing to meet the needs of the workers because they
want to protect the interests of their bank buddies.
Enough is enough. The government should stop making the jobless
feel guilty or feel like they are criminals and change the EI
system to ensure that it is in sync with the realities of
today's labour market.
1855
Canadian workers contribute to the employment insurance fund and
they should get benefits when they lose their jobs. After all,
the reason we have an employment insurance program is to help
workers when they are out of work.
I hope the Minister of Human Resources Development and her
officials will really take note of what I said, will follow up
on the issue that I raised and will amend the employment
insurance program, so as to meet the needs of workers and, above
all, eliminate child poverty in this country.
As we saw today on Parliament Hill, there is an increasing
number of poor. This is why they came to Ottawa to protest. The
changes made to employment insurance have even generated a 10%
increase in the number of people going to food banks.
The Liberal government claims to be a responsible government.
But a responsible government should take concrete action to
eliminate poverty. This is absolutely not what this government
is doing. The government must act now.
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is recognized
throughout the world for its quality of life. We are committed
to helping Canadian families, as the government said it would in
the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's speech.
The government made a commitment to introduce legislation in
this parliament to redesign parental benefits. We are extending
employment insurance maternity and parental benefits from the
current maximum of six months to one full year. We are making
these benefits more flexible to meet the different needs of
families. We are also making these benefits more accessible by
increasing the number of parents eligible for support.
Presently there are several features of the EI program that are
important for women. Through EI reform, every hour of work is
covered and women working part time or holding multiple jobs can
now be eligible for both EI regular and special benefits.
It is encouraging to see that maternity claims have remained
virtually unchanged and that the duration of these benefits has
remained the same. This is despite the fact that between 1995-96
and 1997-98 the birthrate has gone down by 4.6%. Prior to EI
reforms, no women working part time were eligible for EI, let
alone maternity benefits.
We also know that two-thirds of those who receive the most
generous family supplement are women. Fifty-eight per cent of
those participating in the small weeks adjustment projects, which
provide workers in high unemployment regions with higher
benefits, are women. The reach back provision for the active
employment measures expands eligibility for women, providing
increased help for stay at home mothers to get back to the
workforce.
We also have a number of initiatives outside EI aimed at helping
women enter or re-enter the workforce. These initiatives
include: projects to promote the self-sufficiency of lone
parents, 80% of whom are women; grants to help women pursue
higher education; and programs focused on helping young women at
risk. Two programs, the legislated employment equity program and
the federal contractors program, were introduced to ensure that
women have equal access to employment opportunities.
[Translation]
Canadian women have made major gains on the labour market. They
now account for close to half of our manpower, compared to only
30% in 1966. Over the past four decades, the employment rate has
increased more rapidly for women than for men. In the last 20
years, that rate has been the highest among G-7 countries.
[English]
In 1998, women of all ages had lower unemployment rates than
men, and in October 1999, adult women had their lowest
unemployment rate since 1975, 5.8%.
Women are getting better access to knowledge based jobs.
In fact, women are enrolling in university at a much higher rate
than men. Over 13% of women between 18 and 29 years of age were
enrolled in university in 1997 compared to about 11% of young
men. The number of women with post-secondary education is rising
rapidly. In 1998, 28% of working women had a university degree,
up from 22% in 1990. Despite this—
1900
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am very sorry but
the parliamentary secretary had two minutes to respond and her
time has run out.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for
one more minute.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary has asked for one more minute. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, it will be worth it if
they listen.
Despite this positive news, we want to be sure that women in the
workforce are provided with proper support systems. That is why
we are examining the issues of accessibility to the EI program
for women.
As part of EI reform, we have put in place a monitoring and
assessment system. Every year we receive information about how
the system is working. We are looking forward to receiving this
year's monitoring and assessment report to get a better
understanding of how the EI program is working.
We are committed to making sure that EI is fair and accessible
to all women.
TOBACCO
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): As
you are aware, Mr. Speaker, public life, especially work as a
member of parliament, has its exhilarating and rewarding moments
occasionally, but most of the time there is a real sense of
frustration, especially when we are unable to mobilize public
resources in the interests of the public good.
Tonight is one of those occasions as I revisit the issue of
youth smoking. As we deal with this issue, I am certainly faced
with one of those moments of very deep frustration and anger.
Since my question on October 25 on tobacco taxation, the Liberal
government has blown another opportunity to strike a significant
blow against youth smoking and as a result the health and lives
of more Canadians will be sacrificed.
The government cut taxes on tobacco in 1994 in response to the
smuggling crisis. At the same time, it promised to launch a
major campaign against youth smoking. More young people are
smoking today, and on top of it all, tobacco profits continue to
rise.
Statistically we know that the trend to non-smoking dropped off
immediately in provinces where taxes were cut in 1994. The
differential over the last eight years is 24% where there were no
cuts and 8% where there were cuts. In young adults, smoking
rates have rebounded to pre-1989 levels.
It is bewildering as I try to conceive of what it will take or
what we can do or say tonight to prompt the government and the
health minister to take action.
We have heard from the scientific community that youth smoking
carries the severest of all tobacco's health consequences and
that youth smoking sets up the most difficult problems to
overcome. We know internationally that there are health
organizations and also, of course, the World Bank that endorses
high tobacco taxes as a weapon against youth smoking.
We know that stable high prices in neighbouring states mean a
significant tax hike here will not trigger renewed smuggling. We
also have Canada's leading health groups on tobacco unanimously
calling for a significant $10 federal-provincial increase in
tobacco taxes.
We should all commend the work of those groups: the Canadian
Cancer Society, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and the Quebec Coalition for
Tobacco control.
What does the government, which claims to be committed to ending
youth smoking, do? It raises taxes 60 cents. There is no
logical reason and no obstacle standing in the government's way
from introducing significant enough tax increases to make a
difference, significant enough to discourage young Canadians from
needlessly endangering their health.
Instead, what does the government do? It chooses to talk the
talk but do nothing.
1905
In closing, let me remind members opposite and the government
that it is not only tobacco taxes that we are talking about. We
are talking about the government's cave-in on tobacco sponsorship
legislation. We are talking about the government's obstacles to
and blockage of Bill S-13. It promised to bring it back in some
form, but it is not here. It is buried somewhere in some Liberal
caucus committee.
We are talking about the government's refusal to call the
tobacco companies to task for the kind of health care costs that
we are incurring as a society because of tobacco advertising and
because they are pushing tobacco products on young people. We
are talking about the government's commitment to spend $100
million on tobacco cessation and smoking prevention and barely a
fraction of that has been spent today.
Today I call on the minister once more to take some action. I
say to the government that it is not too late. Act now for the
sake of our young people and for the health of our nation.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned
about smoking by young people. That is in fact the key reason
why it has continued to increase tobacco taxes on a regular
basis.
[Translation]
Since the implementation of the government's anti-smuggling
initiative, in 1994, the federal government and the
participating provinces—Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island—have been working together to
jointly increase taxes on tobacco.
[English]
The tobacco tax increase announced in the House on November 5
was the fourth such increase since 1994. In total, taxes on
cigarettes have been increased by $4.40 per carton in Ontario,
$5.00 per carton in Quebec, $3.40 in New Brunswick, $3.80 in Nova
Scotia, and $5.80 in Prince Edward Island.
We will continue to work with the provinces and enforcement
agencies to implement increases in tobacco taxes in a manner that
will minimize the risk of renewed contraband activity.
In addition to these tobacco tax increases, the Minister of
Health has indicated that the government will intensify its
efforts to reduce smoking, particularly by younger Canadians,
through tough anti-tobacco advertising and upcoming labelling and
information reporting regulations.
These initiatives demonstrate the government's concern with
smoking and its resolve to take steps to discourage smoking by
young Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.08 p.m.)