36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 58
CONTENTS
Monday, February 28, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-238. Second reading.
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1110
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1115
1120
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1125
1130
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1135
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1140
1145
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1150
1155
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1200
1205
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| BillC-13. Report stage
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Motion
|
1250
(Division 752)
| Motion negatived
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1255
1300
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1305
1310
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1330
1335
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1340
1345
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CLIMATE CHANGE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| MÉLANIE TURGEON
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| FIGHT AGAINST RACISM
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1400
| COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| SCOTT TOURNAMENT OF HEARTS
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| MÉLANIE TURGEON
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1405
| CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| WORLD SPRINT SPEED SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| DEVELOPING YOUNG CANADIAN TALENT
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAMS
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1410
| SANDY GELDART
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| BILL C-20
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| BROADCASTING
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1445
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRAINING
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1450
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PLUTONIUM SHIPMENTS
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1455
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| AMATEUR SPORTS
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| DRUGS
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1500
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-442. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-443. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1510
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-444. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-445. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-446. Introduction and first reading
|
1515
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-447. Introduction and first reading
|
1520
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1545
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1550
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1555
1600
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| THE BUDGET
|
| Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Motion
|
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| motion
|
| The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83 |
1715
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Third reading
|
1740
(Division 753)
| Amendment negatived
|
1745
1750
(Division 754)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 58
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 28, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed from November 5, 1999, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canada Post
Corporation Act (mail contractors), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in the debate on this private
members' bill put forward by the NDP. In a nutshell, this bill
would remove provision 13(5) from the Canada Post Corporation Act
which excludes rural route mail couriers from section 3(1) of the
Canada Labour Code. I am opposed to this bill and I believe that
most of my colleagues are as well.
I want to state from the outset some of the problems. First, I
would acknowledge that there are severe problems concerning how
rural route mail couriers are treated in Canada. I want to
acknowledge the member of the NDP for recognizing this, although
I do not agree with his solution.
It is important to identify what is happening with the rural
route mail couriers. As independent contractors, rural route
mail couriers must submit tenders for their jobs and then
negotiate a contract with Canada Post after the fact. That is
what is happening right now. That is why they are so frustrated.
Of course, we do not see that in the private sector. It would be
ludicrous to bid on a job and then enter into negotiations for
compensation after the fact.
Canada Post does not have any guidelines for the tendering
process or contracting process that would ensure fairness. The
mail couriers believe that they are being asked to do jobs under
extremely poor conditions, at very minimum wages, and they are
being force by Canada Post officials to lower their bids to
maintain their contracts. There is a very serious problem with
the rural route mail couriers and something needs to be done
about it. In speaking with some of these couriers in British
Columbia, it is absolutely clear that they are not being treated
fairly. It is absolutely ludicrous to bid on a contract and then
have to negotiate after the fact.
It is the government's responsibility to correct this situation
and I would call upon the government to put it on its agenda.
Something needs to be done.
1110
At the current time an exemption under the Canada Labour Code
prevents rural route couriers from being deemed employees. The
NDP member has proposed that they be deemed employees, and
therefore CUPE and a number of other unions would be in a
struggle to unionize them for collective bargaining purposes.
Clearly, I do not believe that is what they want.
There is no question that there are differing opinions, but I
believe what they really want is the ability to negotiate and
have a very open and fair tendering process with sealed bids.
That is what we should be focusing on. Clearly, this bill does
not do that.
Another problem is that there are a number of other
organizations within our mail delivery system which also bid. I
would submit that they are not being treated fairly either. Some
of them are urban expedite contractors, suburban contractors,
highway regional service contractors and marine contractors.
There are a number of organizations which are also facing
similar conditions and are not being treated fairly by Canada
Post, yet this private member's bill, an act to amend the Canada
Post Corporation Act, only deals with one small aspect, the rural
route mail couriers.
Although it has been recognized that there is a problem, I do
not see this as a solution. In fact it would probably make it
much worse. We would see a number of unions trying to decide who
would control these employees, and I am not so sure that is what
the employees want.
What the employees really want at the end of the day is an open,
transparent tendering process with sealed bids so they can bid
openly and fairly and receive fair compensation for the contracts
they are awarded.
An hon. member: Free enterprise.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Free enterprise. That is it in a
nutshell, much as it is done in the private sector. That is what
should happen, but that is not what is happening.
What is happening is that contracts are being bid on and then
negotiations are being held after the fact. I cannot imagine
anything so ridiculous.
Although I cannot speak for all members, the majority of us will
be voting against this private member's bill. In my discussions
with members they have indicated that they have concerns with the
bill. Nevertheless, it identifies a problem that needs to be
addressed. The Government of Canada should instruct Canada Post
to ensure that independent contractors are treated fairly, that
there is an open and transparent tendering process, such as there
is in the private sector.
That is it in a nutshell. I cannot add much more. Again, I
call upon the government to address the situation to ensure that
Canada Post has a tendering process, not only for rural route
mail couriers but for all of the people in the other
organizations, which is fair, open and transparent.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of my
colleague from Winnipeg Centre who presented this very important
private member's bill, Bill C-238, which would repeal section
13(5) of the Canada Post Act which restricts contractors from
being treated as employees.
The reason the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre presented this
bill was not only to represent the 5,000 people who do a superb
job in delivering Canada Post's mail from coast to coast to coast
in the very rural and very far-reaching areas of this country, it
was also to correct a historical wrong.
Unfortunately these people have been restricted from obtaining
any kind of furtherance in economic value by the restrictions
which the Canada Post Act places upon them. They are not, in any
way, shape or form, considered under the Canada Labour Code.
Rural route couriers form one of the major sectors which is
excluded from the Canada Labour Code strictly for economic
reasons.
1115
Maybe at one time in our history those economic reasons may
appear valid, but they are no longer valid. I will read a
subsection which asks why subsection 13(5) denies RRMCs, rural
route mail couriers, their basic rights. Andre Ouellet outlined
in 1980 when he was postmaster general that there were largely
financial reasons for including subsection 13(5) which prohibits
collective bargaining. He said that 60% of RRMCs worked fewer
than four hours per day and if unionized would press for full
time work. He also said that costs would escalate. That is
absolute nonsense.
Today most RRMCs work eight or more hours a day. When they have
a contract with Canada Post they are restricted from working
anywhere else. Part of the contract is that they can only do
that and nothing else. It restricts them in terms of their
economic lives.
It is unfortunate that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and
his party are not supporting this initiative. If he truly cared
about the 5,000 RRMCs across the country he would go to the back
lobby and instruct his party that this is actually a very good
initiative. Perhaps he is afraid that these 5,000 people, heaven
forbid, may want to organize themselves into a union.
That is not what we are pressing for. We are saying that if
those people desire to organize, if they choose to organize,
which they already are doing right now in terms of a quasi-group,
an association to press issues forward through all members of
parliament, they should have the right to do so.
We live in a democracy. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands,
whom I respect tremendously as a friend, should know that one of
the key fundamentals of democracy is that workers have the right
to organize. Whether or not he agrees with union principles is
not the question. They should have the right to organize, and
that is part of what this private member's bill will enable them
to do if they so desire. The key point is for them to bargain
collectively with the employer, which in this case is Canada
Post, a crown corporation of the Government of Canada.
Canada Post in past years has made a tremendous amount of money
in profit. A lot of it came from rural route mail couriers
across the country. Pretty soon when the contracts come up
Canada Post will contact the current holders of contracts, for
example in Jeddore and Sheet Harbour in my riding or in areas
outside Prince Rupert, in Yukon and in other areas of northern
Manitoba or wherever, to say that the contract bidding time has
come up and it expects them to lower their bid in the event they
wish to be successful in furthering the contract. After working
three, four or five years, depending on the length of the
contract, they are being asked to work for less when inflationary
pressures and everything else have hit them very hard.
I know you understand, Mr. Speaker, being from the great riding
of Kingston and the Islands, that a large part of rural Canada
is suffering under the weight of the lack of infrastructure, the
lack of medical and educational facilities and the lack of
business opportunities. These people are out in the dead of
winter. Can we imagine delivering mail at 35 degrees below zero
in northern Saskatchewan? That is a tremendous task and they are
doing it for far less than the minimum wage.
Can we tell these people that for economic reasons they are not
allowed to organize? I say no. The easiest thing the government
could do, and perhaps it could sneak it into the budget today, is
repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Act. We would all be
happier for it.
Many Liberal members come from rural ridings. They must speak
with these people on a daily basis, I am sure. They understand
this is a very good initiative and would put the government in a
good light with 5,000 people. We may even applaud the Liberals
for their effort on this very rare occasion.
The question is whether or not there are fairness and equity in
today's government. We have now passed into the new millennium.
It is really unfortunate that as we turned the calendar we left
5,000 people and their families behind. It is an important
initiative. I encourage all members of the House to look into
themselves to see if it is fair to discriminate against 5,000
people who do yeoman's work every day out there.
Many people in rural Canada do not have access to the Internet.
They do not have access to the technologies of today. Their
major link to government is through Canada Post, through the mail
system. The first people they see are those people whose
basements have been transformed into a postal outlet.
Or, the first person they see is the one at their mailboxes on
rural roads who delivers the mail sometimes in very treacherous
conditions. To them they represent government and the best part
of government, a warm body. They actually get to speak to
someone who is working for the government through the Canada Post
Corporation. The average person out there thinks of these people
as employees of the government when in reality they are not. That
is most unfortunate.
1120
The bill should have been presented many years ago. Thank
goodness the member for Winnipeg Centre had the foresight and
aptitude to understand this was a very serious issue and
presented it for debate today.
I mentioned before that their contracts with Canada Post
prohibit them from doing work for other companies while
performing their post office duties. Canada Post controls the
timeframes for sorting and delivering the mail, the order of
delivery on routes, the number of returns to the post office, and
the manner in which the mail is sorted. Rural route mail
couriers have to hire their own replacements, not because they
are entrepreneurs who control their own work but because their
contracts require they find replacements when they are sick or on
vacation.
Canada Post has total administrative control over the day to day
work of the RRMCs. Canada Post does not give them the mail and
leave to them how they wish to deliver it. Rather there is a
whole set of rules that determine how RRMCs do their work and
there is direct supervision.
Basically what do RRMCs want? They want subsection 13(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act repealed so they can bargain
collectively. Letter carriers of Canada Post do the same work in
other ways and they have collective bargaining rights. Private
sector workers who deliver parcels in rural areas also have
collective bargaining rights as do rural route postal workers in
the United States.
In this day and age of free trade, globalization, NAFTA, et
cetera, why would the so-called great democracy below us, the
United States, allow its rural route mail couriers in its many
rural areas to have the ability to bargain collectively for their
rights? Why is it that Canada excludes that? The reason is
subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Act, which needs to be
repealed.
I could go on at length about this issue but what we need to do
is quite clear. It would make the government look good,
especially at budget time. The Liberals could even use it as an
election ploy. I am sure they would love to use something to
help them out after the recent HRDC fiasco, et cetera.
On behalf of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and all members
of the New Democratic Party federally and provincially across the
country, we are proud to stand on behalf of over 5,000 rural
route mail couriers so that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Act is repealed and these people are included in the Canada
Labour Code and have collective bargaining rights for themselves
and their families.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I rise today to participate in the debate
on Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
It is important to remind all members present of the incredible
economic progress and turnaround that Canada Post has achieved in
the years since its creation as a commercial crown corporation. I
will not go into great detail on this point other than to say
that since 1981 Canada Post has transformed itself into a
profitable enterprise through a combination of innovation
marketing, sound planning and good business practices. However,
above all, this remarkable performance is a tribute to the men
and women of Canada Post who daily provide to Canadians a high
quality and cost efficient postal service. I know all members
join with me in paying this tribute.
As stated earlier in the debate, Canada Post's primary mandate
is to ensure that all Canadians receive reliable and affordable
postal service. To some this essential service is taken for
granted. It is sometimes easy to forget the challenges the sheer
size of the nation presents to Canada Post in maintaining service
on a daily basis yet remaining competitive with businesses that
do not have to meet such an important and vital requirement.
The key to Canada Post's ability to provide a reliable and cost
efficient mail service is its use of contractors. Here is the
crux of the matter and why I believe Bill C-238 to be
fundamentally flawed. The bill seeks to repeal subsection 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act, thereby allowing that
contractors who consider themselves to be dependent within the
meaning of part I of the Canada Labour Code may be found to be
employees for collective bargaining purposes.
1125
This would involve or impact upon all contractors regardless of
the nature of their work or contracted activity. Put simply, to
allow passage of the bill would significantly affect the
corporation's ability to meet its objective and would mean
serious increases in costs with no accompanying improvement in
service.
Canada Post simply cannot afford to take on thousands of new
full time employees. Such an unnecessary and unjustified action
would wipe away years of hard work to build a profitable,
competitive, world class business. The author of the bill, in a
misguided attempt to change the status of one type of contractor,
the rural route contractor, has failed to comprehend the dire
consequences and far-reaching implications of this proposed
legislative change.
Rural route contractors have had a long and proud relationship
with Canada Post. For decades now these people have delivered
the mail in rural and in some cases remote areas of our country.
They play an important part in Canada Post's mandate to deliver
mail to all Canadians. They are reliable, hardworking
individuals who take pride in the valuable work they perform.
In many cases mail contractors reside on or near their
designated routes and are therefore not only performing a vital
service on behalf of Canada Post but also ensuring that their own
neighbours receive mail in a reliable and efficient manner.
However, what has been overlooked by some is the essential fact
that rural route contractors are not employees of Canada Post or
a group of workers being denied fundamental rights. They are
valued contractors who have fundamentally different work
relationships than those employed full time by the corporation.
Let us examine very briefly the wording of subsection 13(5) which
states:
Notwithstanding any provision of Part I of the Canada Labour
Code, for the purposes of the application of that Part to the
Corporation and to officers and employees of the Corporation, a
mail contractor is deemed not to be a dependent contractor or an
employee within the meaning of those terms in subsection 3(1) of
that Act.
Rural route mail contractors are awarded their respective
contracts through a competitive tender process. This type of
work is of a part time nature and individuals seek this work to
supplement their income, not to obtain full or part time employee
status with Canada Post.
These conditions are spelled out in the contract documentation.
Let me make it very clear that rural route couriers agree that
these terms are in full understanding of conditions governing
this type of contracted work. It is also not their primary
employment or source of income. Nor does it lead to some form of
permanent employment status within the corporation.
Let me remind members that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in
1987 that rural route couriers were indeed contractors as defined
in the Canada Post Corporation Act. In addition, the federal
court found that subsection 13(5) did not violate any equality
rights as defined in our charter of rights and freedoms.
Behind the bill is an attempt to portray rural route contractors
as being abused, underpaid and generally exploited by Canada
Post. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rural route
contractors are treated and compensated fairly.
My hon. colleague has already mentioned the improvements made by
Canada Post to its contract tendering process that will increase
opportunities for more Canadians to do business with it,
particularly in rural areas. In addition, I believe the
corporation should also be congratulated on a number of
improvements it has made as a result of listening to rural route
contractors.
Measures that have been recently implemented are designed to
improve their training, support and the early resolution of
issues. There is always room for improvement and any business
that ignores this basic rule does so at its own peril. I know
that Canada Post is an organization that constantly strives for
improvement in everything it does.
In closing, I will not support the bill and I would encourage my
fellow members to seriously consider the factors that have made
Canada Post the world class organization it is. It has proven
its ability to meet its primary mandate and to successfully
compete in a demanding and rapidly changing market. Let us not
place unnecessary hurdles such as Bill C-238 in front of those at
Canada Post. They have earned our support and it is our duty to
give it by voting against the proposed legislation.
Strangely enough I find myself agreeing with Reformers in that
many of the changes implemented over the last two years have been
implemented as a result of their regular communication with the
department. I think that is the avenue they need to pursue to
improve conditions as we have done in the last year.
1130
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to Bill C-238 put forward by the member for Winnipeg
Centre. This bill would delete section 13(5) from the Canada
Post Corporation Act and require the Post Office to hire on as
full time salaried employees all of the mail contractors whom it
now does business with.
Let me first congratulate the NDP member for bringing attention
to this issue. As I understand it he is primarily concerned with
the rural mail contractors and the treatment they receive in
their relationships with Canada Post, although the measure he has
proposed would have effect going far beyond just the rural mail
couriers. Even though we differ in our prescription for the
problems faced by rural mail contractors, we can certainly agree
that rural couriers have been subject to some of the most
unprofessional business practices at the hands of the government
owned monopoly. This needs to stop.
We have been dealing with this issue as a party since before the
last election. My colleague the member for Tobique—Mactaquac
has discussed this issue with representatives of the Canadian
Union of Postal Workers, the Organization of Rural Route Mail
Couriers and Canada Post Corporation. Many of my colleagues have
also met with the rural route mail couriers in the past year.
As we know, Canada Post became a crown corporation in 1981 by
means of the Canada Post Corporation Act. As such its labour
practices were no longer governed by the Public Service Staff
Relations Act but by the Canada Labour Code, which allows
dependent contractors to unionize, something not provided for by
the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act provided an
exemption to section 3(1) of the Canada Labour Code which deems
all of the Canada Post mail contractors, including rural route
mail couriers, not to be dependent contractors. In 1981 under the
guidance of our former postmaster and at that time Progressive
Conservative postal critic John Fraser, our caucus voted to
support section 13(5) for a number of reasons.
First of all, this provision continued the historical
relationship that Canada Post has always had with its mail
contractors. Our national mail service has contracted for rural
route delivery since before confederation.
Second, it was felt that changing that relationship could
potentially increase the operating costs of the corporation
substantially with no corresponding improvement in service levels
to the public.
According to the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers,
there are presently 7,000 rural mail contractors in Canada. If
we compare the value of the average contract with the cost of a
salaried unionized Canada Post letter carrier, there is a
difference of between $15,000 to $20,000. That means to convert
all 7,000 mail contractors to full time unionized post office
employees would cost up to $140 million. Where would the money
come from to make this change?
The Post Office could raise stamp prices and the prices for
other postal services and the customers would have to pay. But
Canada Post is limited to increasing stamp prices at less than
the rate of inflation so most of the money would have to come
from elsewhere. That elsewhere of course would be the taxpayer.
Canada Post would be pushed back into a deficit position and the
difference would have to be made up by taxpayers.
What would Canadians get in exchange for shelling out more money
for their postal service? Better service? Better or more
frequent delivery? No. In exchange for the $140 million,
Canadians would see no improvement in postal service. This is
not a change my party is prepared to support.
Third, the nature of this change would have removed some of the
flexibility for both parties to negotiate an arrangement
particularly suited for each individual contractor. For example,
under the current arrangement contractors have the ability to
subcontract while employees do not.
Finally, this arrangement kept Canada Post on a level footing
with many private sector companies which also use private
contractors for deliveries.
For all of these reasons our party continues to support section
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. That is why we cannot
support this bill.
Let me however set our opposition to the specific measure
proposed by the hon. member. Anyone who has ever done business
can tell us that more often than not, Canada Post is big,
bureaucratic and bullying. Its guiding principle seems to be
squeezing out as much as it can from customers, suppliers and
partners.
1135
Two examples come to mind: postal rental retail franchisees and
the ad mail program for large volume customers. In both
instances, Canada Post arbitrarily introduced large changes that
were poorly communicated and very costly to the people with whom
it did business. In both cases business partners were not
consulted on changes but were instructed that they had to
purchase new, expensive and confusing systems if they wanted to
continue to do business with Canada Post. In the former case
commissions were simultaneously slashed, while in the latter case
costs were unilaterally raised.
This sounds a lot like how Canada Post treated rural mail
contractors. In many conversations with individual contractors,
with representatives from the Organization of Rural Route Mail
Couriers, CUPE and some Canada Post employees, we have heard many
horror stories about the contracting practices of the post
office.
For example, at one point it was common practice that when a
delivery contract was up for renewal, a Canada Post employee
would phone up a contractor saying that it had received a bid
from another source which was thousands of dollars less than what
the contractor was currently being paid. Because Canada Post
operates a closed bidding system, there was no way for the
contractor to verify the claim of the postal representative. The
contractor would be faced with the difficult decision to undercut
his or her own price by several thousands of dollars or lose the
contract. These and other bad faith practices by the post office
have led my party into discussions with Canada Post.
As a result of complaints from contractors and others acting on
their behalf, the post office has introduced a series of new
measures that I hope will alleviate a great number of the
difficulties contractors have had in the past. These include the
following. Rural routes will be contracted individually.
Contractors that in turn subcontract out their routes at a
reduced price will be ineligible for renewal. Rural contracts
will be issued for five years with a five year renewal option
based on satisfactory performance and tendering after 10 years. A
negotiated adjustment will be included for the five year renewal
option to ensure that market conditions such as inflation are
considered. A performance component will be included in the
contract renewal and awarding process to recognize the past
performance of incumbent contractors. The evaluation of tenders
will be based on criteria such as experience, performance,
reliability, image and cost.
In addition, when contracts are up for bid, Canada Post will
make contractors aware of the specifications of the routes they
will be performing, such as the number of points of call, daily
kilometres, number of stops for personal contact items and the
amount of ad mail they can expect to deliver. These numbers will
be updated annually or more frequently if a significant change
occurs. Contractors will be compensated for these changes.
The post office has also prepared a handbook to provide
assistance and guidance with a reference and a phone directory of
key individuals at Canada Post to call when a problem arises. In
addition, local supervisors and postmasters will be provided with
an operator's handbook and supporting training material to assist
them in working with contractors.
Canada Post is currently in discussion with representatives of
rural route mail couriers in order to finalize this new package.
I am hopeful that both sides will be able to improve on the
relationship they have had in the past and will be able to agree
on a set of business practices they both can live with. In the
meantime we will continue to work with and listen to rural mail
couriers to ensure that they are treated fairly and that Canada
Post deals with problems that arise in a timely and equitable
fashion.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak in favour of Bill C-238 which has been
presented to the House by the member for Winnipeg Centre. In
many ways it is a telling piece of legislation.
When I first came to the House, I talked about the new two
solitudes in Canada. Those solitudes are urban and rural Canada.
Increasingly the government tends to cater toward urban Canada.
People from the regions of the country, whether they are in my
region in the east, Saskatchewan or the north, see that there are
different standards and different rights for people in different
parts of the country.
This legislation deals directly with a vital service to rural
Canada, the delivery of mail to people in rural parts of the
country.
1140
I was shocked and did not know until I read this legislation
that rural route mail carriers are denied fundamental rights that
are guaranteed to many other Canadians particularly in urban
centres. We have to ask why. We know why the Liberal government
justified it almost 20 years ago when they were exempted. But we
have to ask why today are 5,000 people denied the right to
collective bargaining?
We are in a new millennium. We heard and lived with the hype
leading up to new year's eve about how this is a new century.
Surely we do not have to repeat the same mistakes of the last
century. Surely there should be the right to collective
bargaining, the right for workers to come together and say that
they collectively want to ensure that they have a better standard
of living. Surely we do not have to go back to 1920 or 1930.
Those workers, as has already been stated, do some of the most
difficult work. I know because I represent an area that has rural
route mail service. I can talk about the northern part of Cape
Breton, Inverness and Victoria counties. The rural route mail
carriers are vital especially to seniors. Seniors are the ones
who wait for parcels from many of their children who have been
called to the urban centres because that is where the work is.
For those people the rural route mail carriers represent a vital
link.
Why is it that these 5,000 employees across the country are
denied the same basic rights as their urban counterparts? They
do the same kind of work so it cannot be justified on that
ground. What do they face because they do not have the same
rights?
Their employment can be terminated on 90 days notice. Surely in
this day and age 5,000 Canadian workers who are told that they
have to submit bids in a lower tendering process, have the right
to come together and say “We would like to organize so we can
bargain with the employer and we will not be constantly under the
gun or constantly having to downgrade our standard of living”.
Today if they were to say they do not like the conditions, they
could be terminated on 90 days notice. If I were one of those
carriers that is one aspect I would seek to change.
There are no benefits. Imagine that workers, who everyone
assumes work for Canada Post but who are in fact independent
contractors, are denied the same benefits that their urban
counterparts have. They are denied bereavement leave. There was
one postal worker whose parents were both rural carriers. She
had to use her bereavement leave to deliver her mother's route
when her father died so that her mother could attend the funeral.
In the year 2000 in this country.
And we are going to deny these people the right to come together
collectively, to organize, to change these kinds of things to get
the kinds of benefits that most Canadians take for granted.
There is the tendering process. They have to bid on their
routes. They also have to do all kinds of other work. They are
the ones who have to shovel out and clear away the area around
the mail boxes. There is no compensation for that. They do all
kinds of extra work and they get no benefit for it. If they
complain, the employer can say, “If you do not like it, here is
your three months notice. We will find somebody else in the
rural community to deliver the mail”.
1145
Some might say that is the free market economy and that we
should let it dominate. I say that it is unfair to the rural
people and to the rural economy. Even if one person gets better
pay in a rural economy there are spinoff factors. It comes down
to why rural communities are treated differently. Why are rural
workers not treated in the same way as urban workers?
It is not just the NDP arguing this. Perhaps most telling is
the Canada Labour Relations Board decision regarding this. For
those who do not know, the labour board is like a court. The
clarity bill, which will be coming before the House, was based on
a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Quebec succession
agreement. The government has often taken rulings of the courts
and incorporated them into legislation. It says that the matter
has been articulated and argued before the courts which have
given some guidelines, so it will enact legislation.
The Canada Labour Relations Board is no different. It is not
partisan, at least we hope it is not. It gives us some rational
guidelines to go by. These rural route mail couriers brought
their case to the Canada Labour Relations Board and it decided
that there was a similar content in the two kinds of jobs.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is seeking in his bill
is to guarantee those 5,000 workers the same basic rights as
other workers have in the country. I cannot believe that members
of the Liberal Party would oppose giving collective bargaining
rights to people in the country. I cannot imagine the Minister
of Labour being able to look her colleagues in the face. I know
the Minister of Labour supports collective bargaining. The test,
I suppose, for the other members of her caucus is to see if they
support the collective bargaining rights that have been fought
for and are hard won by the workers in the country.
This is a private member's bill and I do not know whether the
Liberals will have to vote as a block. It will be interesting to
see whether they grant one of the things that makes this country
so different from perhaps other countries and that is the right
of workers to collectively organize.
As my colleague said, I cannot believe we would deny rural route
mail couriers a right that American rural route mail couriers
have. I have never thought of the United States as a bastion of
labour legislation and to allow America to be a guiding light is
a shameful statement for this country. For us to be in the
shadows of America when it comes to granting rights to our
workers is something I think the people in my riding are ashamed
of.
This is a private member's bill that will give members of
parliament an opportunity to do the right thing. I would ask
them to do so and support the legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, the Chair has
a confession to make, having made a mistake. The Chair
recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services for the second time in this debate,
which of course is not allowed, and did not realize his blunder
until after the parliamentary secretary had spoken. I apologize
to the House.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a great honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-238.
I listened with great interest to my colleague from the New
Democratic Party on the opposite side speak about things
American. My mind flipped back to the last election when the NDP
found it necessary to go the United States to get some of its
work done in terms of the election. I always find it interesting
when members opposite, such as the hon. member, say one thing and
yet the party, at least during the last election, does quite
another.
Having said that, it is with great interest that I speak today
about this very important bill. At the outset, I want to express
my great respect for the hardworking Canadian men and women who
deliver our mail.
1150
I have a substantial background in this subject as my father was
a rural route mail courier for 35 years. He did that with honour
and in terms of doing the right thing for my family and for the
community. I am happy to contribute to the debate to improve the
working conditions of these entrepreneurs who are rural route
mail couriers.
As I understand it, the member for Winnipeg Centre has received
representation from the Organization of Rural Route Mail
Couriers, as most of us have over the past little while. He has
decided now to support them by tabling this legislation.
We know that Bill C-238 would allow contractors to be considered
as employees of Canada Post. Ironically, I do not think the bill
would benefit the very group it is trying to help. I agree with
the hon. member for Kelowna on this point, and I think there are
others in the House who would agree with us as well, that it
would in fact harm them.
Rural route contractors continue to do this work, primarily
because it gives them flexibility. They do not have to punch a
clock and they do not have to do exactly what people tell them to
do. More importantly, they can exercise their own initiatives
and resourcefulness in this important area.
As the member for Winnipeg Centre knows, much of this work is of
a part time nature. During the last hour of debate the member
himself stated that rural route couriers do this work to earn
supplementary income for their families. Repealing subsection
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, as Bill C-238 suggests,
would eliminate all this. I would think this is not at all what
we want to do here.
I echo the comments from the member for Kelowna who said that
Bill C-238 would take away the flexibility these people enjoy
today, both on the rural route courier side and on the Canada
Post side. Clearly it would do away with that and do away with a
way of life. I do not think that is what parliament and
Canadians ultimately want.
We know that the small and medium size business sector in Canada
is growing very rapidly. More and more Canadians are choosing
this way of life because it offers them flexibility and
opportunity. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said that rural
route contractors do not want these freedoms and would prefer to
become employees of Canada Post instead, paying union dues.
Bill C-238 would not only jeopardize the entrepreneurialism of
the rural route contractors, it would also have a significant
financial impact on Canada Post.
As the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac previously stated,
changing Canada Post's contracting relationship with rural route
contractors would potentially increase the operating costs of the
corporation substantially with no corresponding improvement in
service levels to the public. That is important to note.
I will not stand here today and pretend that I have not heard
the concerns of rural route contractors. I have and I think they
are important to listen to. It is important to understand and,
as I said before, my father was one.
The good news is that Canada Post is listening. The corporation
has taken concrete steps and measures to resolve their concerns.
For example, during the first hour of debate on this bill, and
again today, the common message that has been heard is that rural
route contractors want a tendering process that is fair, open and
transparent. Canada Post has said that this is exactly what they
can expect.
At a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations, the president of Canada
Post, the Hon. André Ouellet, said that the rural route
contractors will be treated with respect and their work will be
valued and remunerated according to the contract they have signed
with Canada Post.
Mr. Ouellet also confirmed that he has had several meetings over
the past few months with representatives of the contractors and
the couriers. As a result, Canada Post has introduced a number
of initiatives to improve its relationship with this very
important partner, especially in communities in rural Canada.
These initiatives will provide rural route contractors with more
information and greater support which they require to meet the
needs and expectations of customers across this great country of
ours.
1155
This is clearly the best solution for rural route contractors,
Canada Post and all Canadians. The rural route contractors
maintain the entrepreneurial freedom that they have traditionally
enjoyed over time and Canadians in turn maintain a high quality,
cost efficient and effective postal service.
As a member of parliament, I am concerned that Canadians get the
best service possible from their post office no matter where they
live, and especially in rural Canada. I am very happy that we
have now put in place a moratorium on the closing of post offices
because there were some in my area that were in jeopardy.
Canada Post has now introduced a number of changes to improve
postal service in rural Canada. Canada Post has implemented 96
local areas to help improve the speed and reliability of mail
outside of core urban areas. Delivery standards in rural Canada
are now the same as those in the urban communities. That is good
news for all Canadians. As well, local staff in rural offices
now have the flexibility to adopt community based hours to suit
local needs.
The Canadian government and Canada Post are collaborating to
make government information on programs and services more
available to rural Canada and all Canadians. In this regard, 12
Service Canada access centres have been established in rural post
offices across Canada. These are but a few examples of Canada
Post's continuing efforts to improve the postal service for all
Canadians.
Although I do not support Bill C-238, I agree with all hon.
members who firmly believe that rural route mail contractors and
carriers deserve to be treated fairly and with respect. I hope
that Canada Post continues to listen and to act on the concerns
expressed by these very important entrepreneurs.
I urge all members not to support the bill. I do not think it
is in the best interest of Canadians. We should proceed on that
basis knowing that we will ultimately, as the government, do the
right thing for not only rural Canadians but for all Canadians no
matter where they live in this great country of ours.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I know there is not a lot of time left to debate this
private member's bill but clearly Canada Post has to take a
serious look at improving conditions for rural mail couriers.
There are two different sets of rules in Canada Post: carriers
who deliver mail in the city and the rural mail deliverers. Most
of them are working at minimum wage to deliver mail in rural
Canada. Whether it is through the mechanism that the member is
talking about or something else, we have to redefine the
relationship with Canada Post in terms of how it negotiates with
these people who have a very important job in our society. I
feel they have been mistreated for a number of years by Canada
Post.
Why do people in rural Canada have to deliver mail at minimum
wage, use their own automobiles and compete neighbour against
neighbour on a contract which they have had for years when the
city mail carriers, those in the union, do not and do not work by
the same set of rules?
Something has to change. We, as parliamentarians, have to make
it very clear to Canada Post that it has to negotiate with these
rural couriers in good faith. Everyone of these people, no
matter whether it is in my home province of New Brunswick or
British Columbia, are working under the same set of rules.
Basically there are no rules. Canada Post makes them up as it
goes along, much to the detriment of the very people who are
delivering the mail in rural Canada.
To make matters worse, they now have to take on two or three
mail routes by themselves in one particular area simply to make
ends meet and make it profitable. It means that many Canadians
are having their mail delivered later or not at all simply
because we are forcing rural mail couriers to do more with less.
1200
It is time that we took a serious look at how Canada Post
negotiates with these people, because it is patently unfair.
There is no other group in society that we would allow to be
treated in such a fashion, given the importance of the job they
do. I commend the member for Winnipeg Centre for bringing
forward this bill.
Many of us would disagree as to whether it should be a union or
something else, but I think that most of us would agree that
something definitely has to happen.
Alice Boudreau represents the Organization of Rural Route Mail
Couriers. She has visited just about every rural member of
parliament on both sides of the House. She represents drivers
from all across Canada. When she appeared before us and laid out
the situation which she and other drivers are faced with, we
could not help but feel sorry for these people.
I am not saying this in a derogatory or demeaning way, but if we
look at the rural couriers, most of them are not driving new
cars. They are not living in million dollar houses. The fact is
that most of them, after all of their expenses, are working at
minimum wage. I have to explain the term minimum wage because
obviously they bid for a contract. They bid for the right to
deliver mail. They bid against other people in society. In the
real world there is nothing wrong with that. Each one of us bids
for a position in the House. We put our reputations and our
careers on the line. At the end of the day the constituents
determine whether it will be me or someone else representing them
in the House of Commons. That is true for every member of
parliament.
However, it is unfair for rural postal drivers because Canada
Post, as I have mentioned before, does not negotiate in good
faith. It will take a look at the bids that come in and then go
back to the rural drivers carrying the mail and tell them that
someone has submitted a lower bid. Canada Post says “We want to
let you know that there is a bid which is lower than yours”.
Individuals who have been carrying the mail for years are forced
to underbid themselves simply to get their jobs back.
Can hon. members name one organization in the free world that
negotiates in that fashion? That is what Canada Post does. That
is what is driving rural mail contractors to say they need some
kind of protection.
The member who presented the bill says that we will have to take
a look at a union of sorts. I do not think a union is the key to
solving the problem.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, we know it is.
Mr. Greg Thompson: We can disagree. I know that the
member who interjected is a union representative. That is fair.
There is nothing wrong with that. However, in greater society,
no matter what corporation we are dealing with, not every person
in the world is unionized. None of us here is unionized. Most
of the companies in my home province of New Brunswick are
non-unionized. It is one of the most non-unionized provinces in
the country.
I would say that unions are not the key to immediate success,
clarification or resolving the problem. The real key is for
Canada Post to negotiate in good faith, recognizing that these
people have a very important job to do. It is a job on which all
of us in the House depend. We would not allow this to happen in
the city of Ottawa. We would not allow it to happen in downtown
Vancouver. It is basically the city mouse versus the country
mouse. In this case the country mouse is losing out simply
because it has no protection under the rules which have been set
for it by Canada Post.
1205
Let us re-engineer this arrangement between our rural drivers
and Canada Post. All we want to see at the end of the day is
fairness in the negotiations.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed, from February 24, consideration of Bill C-13,
an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No.1.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, this bill to
establish a body, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
has the virtue of bringing some very greatly desired investment
into health research.
Unfortunately, after making drastic cuts in health research and
transfers to the provinces, the federal government has chosen to
reinject funds by creating these virtual institutes.
As we saw last week, the objective set out in the preamble for
these institutes is not solely to co-ordinate research, but also
to centralize and integrate it.
We know that the research centres in Quebec, which have often
been supported by the Centre de recherche biomédicale, are
losing their desired autonomy. There is nothing in this bill
that is the least bit reassuring.
I therefore move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This motion is in order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1250
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne – 30
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Calder
| Caplan
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, which establishes
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This bill is now at
report stage, following the hearing of witnesses and clause by
clause consideration by the Standing Committee on Health.
I will remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the
principle of the bill and voted in favour of it at second
reading stage. First of all, I want to congratulate my
colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and health critic
for the Bloc Quebecois, for working so hard on the health
committee to try to convince the government majority that this
bill needed amendments to make it acceptable to Quebecers.
1255
I also heard my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the
member for Winnipeg North Centre, talk to us about all the
amendments she proposed to the government because she wanted to
see some changes made to the bill. In many respects, she finds
it just as unacceptable to Canadians. However, members of the
government majority have shown no openness with regard to the
amendments proposed by the opposition parties and no co-operation
whatsoever. Therefore, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
had no choice but to bring forward his amendments here, in the
House, at report stage, to give us at least an opportunity to
talk about what is unacceptable in this bill.
Bill C-13 is important to us. However, as it is worded, it
concerns us. In fact in its 52 clauses, it refers over 15 times
to research into the health care system and health issues, which
are without a shadow of a doubt provincial matters.
Thus, the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois make it clear
that the bill focuses on health research and not on the
potential expansion of mandates beyond the field of research.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to make sure that it is the provinces
making the decisions on the choices and principles underlying
the health care networks and services to the public as is
provided in the Constitution, which the Liberals claim they are
defending and which they are blithely flouting with ever more
obvious encroachment on provincial jurisdictions.
When the federal government was not at war with Quebec, when it
respected its partners in the Canadian federation, when it was
not led by individuals with complexes who need to go behind
Quebec's back to reassure themselves that they are powerful,
when it was guided by the values of public good and community
welfare rather than political visibility, it passed laws in this
House creating federal agencies such as the Medical Research
Council or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
that respected provincial jurisdictions.
It is therefore possible for the federal government to introduce
bills without disregarding provincial jurisdictions, which also
means that Bill C-13 could quite easily have been amended to
reflect the distribution of jurisdictions at each level of
government without watering content down. The government's bill
ignores the distribution of jurisdictions.
This negates the very principle of what a federal government
should be.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois introduced amendments to allow
the establishment of these institutes while also respecting the
distribution of jurisdictions. These amendments also seek to
ensure that what is being promoted is indeed the communication
of information among researchers, so as to improve health
networks, rather than the implementation of rules defined
without the provinces' input.
Through Bill C-13, the government once again decided to invade a
provincial jurisdiction and to legislate without having had the
courtesy of inviting its partners in the federation to help
develop this legislation.
Again, this government claims to know better than all the other
governments what needs to be done regarding biomedical research.
Once again, as was the case with the millennium scholarships or
the transitional job fund, the federal government is finding
ways to spend our billions, which are not its money, as it
pleases, primarily to gain more visibility and buy votes in the
process.
Sure, some will argue that the interim governing council that
developed this bill included Quebecers, competent people, and I
have no doubt that this was indeed the case. Through their
experience and expertise, these people undoubtedly made a
remarkable contribution while sitting on the interim governing
council. However, they had no mandate to represent Quebec and,
more importantly, these people's primary concern was not to be a
watchdog for the Constitution and for the respective
jurisdictions of the various levels of government.
Could it be that this government, which claims to be a champion
of clarity, which wants to give lessons in democracy to the
whole world and which boasts that Canada is the most
decentralized federation in the world, is afraid of giving real
autonomy to these research institutes? Is this government that
afraid of true decentralization?
1300
Once again, this arrogant, conceited, know-it-all government is
refusing to listen to the opposition's call to reason.
It is not so much the creation of the institutes of health
research that should put us on our guard but the fact that once
the institutes come into being, even virtually, there will still
be a serious risk that, with their federal mandate, they will
conduct research into public health services without first
consulting with the provinces, thus interfering directly in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore proposing a series of amendments
whose primary purpose is to emphasize the importance of
respecting respective jurisdictions and to reaffirm that
provincial jurisdiction takes precedence over federal
jurisdiction when it comes to health.
Investment in research and development is necessary and very
much desired in hospital and university research circles. In
addition, it is important that Quebec receive its fair share of
federal research and development grants.
In recent years, Quebec has been seriously neglected when it
comes to research and development grants and it is high time
that the federal government restored the balance by ensuring
that additional funds are made available to researchers and
universities so that they can pursue their work.
Historically, it is known that Quebec receives only 14% of
federal government research and development spending with
respect to infrastructures. However, it is well known that
research grants are awarded on the basis of merit. It is also
important to note that, under the peer assessment system,
approximately 30% of grants go to researchers in Quebec. It
must therefore be recognized that Quebec's researchers are good
at what they do and that they excel, particularly in the fields
of mental health, cancer, and genome and biotechnology research.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the Bloc Quebecois
is in favour of increasing research and development budgets by
creating virtual institutes and that it has supported this
principle at second reading.
The federal government must respect the specific characteristics
and strengths of researchers in the regions of Quebec in order
to focus on their successes and their skills in the areas in
which they excel.
The Bloc Quebecois says yes to the creation of a flexible and
multidisciplinary structure to facilitate the organization of
health research. The Bloc Quebecois says yes to increased R and D
funding in the health field. The Bloc Quebecois says yes to all
measures of such a nature as to provide more security to our
researchers and to slow down the brain drain. The Bloc
Quebecois does not, however, say yes no matter what the price.
We set two preconditions: the government must put an end to its
diversionary tactics and re-establish the transfer payments, and
it must respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and of all the
provinces with Bill C-13.
We all accept, and understand, the urgency. But care must be
taken to ensure that democracy does not suffer once again. We
have had our fill of government urgency creating great upheaval
in the entire process of this House and of the standing
committees. Our duty as parliamentarians forces me to remind
hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois is not prepared to vote in
favour of just any bill, even one that acknowledges that the
researchers of Quebec need funds.
In closing, I wish to state that the Bloc Quebecois is offering
its co-operation to the federal government in getting this bill
amended so that it will really serve the development of health
research, while respecting federal-provincial divisions in
jurisdiction and impacting on the health of the people of Canada
and of Quebec.
If, however, our amendments should be rejected, then
unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against this
bill on third reading.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in this important debate on Bill C-13.
I want to start by saying how very proud we are of our health
care critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre. She has done
a great job in representing our concerns and interests in the
various stages of debate on the bill. I notice that she moved
some amendments.
1305
I read with interest the speech she made on February 24. She
cited the fact that while we are in favour of Bill C-13 and the
whole concept of the proposed medical health research institutes,
we have some real reservations not only about the process and how
this bill came about but about the government's lack of
willingness to entertain a number of the issues we raised. We
thought they would augment the bill and add to the whole concept
of promoting Canada as a centre of excellence for medical
research which surely must be the ultimate goal in any bill of
this nature.
Many groups made representations on the bill when it was before
the committee not the least of which was the Canada Labour
Congress. The Canada Labour Congress brought forward a very good
point which we are disappointed the government did not
automatically welcome and embrace. The issue it wanted addressed
was that the one thing really lacking from a worker's point of
view is that there is no medical institute specializing in
occupational health and safety. One would think that in this day
and age that would be automatic, an absolute given.
If we are concerned about occupational safety and health, which
surely the government purports to be, it is a very timely
recommendation. Part II of the Canada Labour Code is currently
being debated and amended. That part of the labour code deals
with occupational safety and health. Why would the government not
have welcomed the recommendation that an institute be created
that is dedicated solely to eliminating workplace accidents and
lost time, injuries et cetera? Other countries have such a thing.
The United States is way in front of us in terms of its research
capabilities on occupational safety and health.
The government failed to respond to what we thought was a very
creative and a very worthwhile recommendation.
An hon. member: That is too bad.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member next
to me, it is too bad. We consider it a lost opportunity if the
government were really soliciting input from the general public
on this issue.
Other groups have welcomed the idea of dismantling the Medical
Research Council of Canada and replacing it with the Canadian
institutes of health research, the CIHR. The Canadians for
Health Research wrote a letter recently to inform us, and I will
repeat this publicly for the House, of a meeting that they will
be holding here on March 22 to celebrate the creation of the new
Canadian institutes of health research and the dismantling of the
Medical Research Council of Canada. The letter from this
organization reminds us that much of the country has been eagerly
anticipating this development. It also reminds us that this will
further Canada's ability to be seen as a world leader in terms of
medical research.
It is not any secret that Canada's health system is the envy of
the world and arguably the best not for profit and publicly
funded health system in all of the world. The rest of the world
watches Canada for examples of how to expand or improve their
health care systems. This is another reason that what we are
doing today with this bill is very timely.
This initiative expands the role of the public health care
system. It is not just the delivery of medical services to
people in need but the whole concept of medical research as a
holistic approach to the well-being of all Canadians. Obviously
this is the direction in which we should be going in the Canadian
medical system.
I should repeat here some of the amendments to the bill that the
member for Winnipeg North Centre thought it necessary to
introduce. The government should welcome these amendments. They
were made in good faith. We believe they help bring clarity to
the bill and to improve some of its shortcomings.
The first amendment was Motion No. 48 in which the member for
Winnipeg North Centre recommended that Bill C-13 be amended to
add the words “the members of the advisory boards shall not,
directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director,
officer”—et cetera—“have any pecuniary or proprietary
interest in any business which operates in the pharmaceutical or
medical devices industries”.
That is a point which really needed to be made. I am very glad
the member for Winnipeg North Centre made that point.
Clearly it is a conflict of interest situation. She saw that the
bill was seriously flawed. It did not say anything to preclude
the idea that a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical firm could end up
sitting on the advisory board of one of the research
organizations funded by the government. We can see how this
could be a disaster.
1310
An hon. member: Pretty cozy relationship.
Mr. Pat Martin: Certainly it would be a disaster. The
publicly funded organization could be doing research that the
pharmaceutical company wanted to have done. Let us face it.
That is a glaring oversight.
An hon. member: It is Bill C-91 all over again.
Mr. Pat Martin: I would certainly hope that the
government would see fit to at least put in a basic safeguard so
that none of the advisory boards shall have appointed to them
anyone who has a financial interest in a pharmaceutical company
or a medical devices company. It is common sense.
One of my colleagues mentioned Bill C-91. That nightmare
surfaces again. We all know how powerful the pharmaceutical
lobby is already. We certainly do not need it infiltrating the
boards of our medical research institutes.
An hon. member: Like it does with the Liberal caucus.
Mr. Pat Martin: When the Liberals failed to deliver on
Bill C-91, when they collapsed and succumbed to the powerful
pharmaceutical lobby, it was the largest single cost to our
health care system. The costs of pharmaceutical drugs exploded
and the generic drug companies were unable to make a substitute
at maybe one-tenth of the cost. Giving 20 years of patent
protection to the pharmaceutical companies was hardly in the best
interests of Canadians. It is certainly coming back to haunt us
now.
I am very proud that the member for Winnipeg North Centre saw
fit to add this safeguard for all Canadians. We will not see
that kind of conflict of interest on the boards of directors of
any newly established medical research centres.
In Motion No. 49 the member for Winnipeg North Centre also
points out that the conflict of interest and post-employment code
for public office holders should apply, with such modifications
as circumstances require, to all the members of the advisory
boards. It is a conflict of interest reference to make sure that
the current post-employment code that exists for all public
office holders shall also apply to these boards. In other words,
not only should they not have a financial interest in the
pharmaceutical company or some such thing, but there has to be a
reasonable length of time to put them at arm's length distance
from their former occupation.
The member for Winnipeg North Centre is standing up for the
interests of ordinary Canadians by ensuring that this kind of
conflict will not take place in the newly established institutes
of medical research.
Mr. John Solomon: Where do the Liberals stand on this?
Where does the Reform Party stand on this?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope that all
the parties in the House can see the common sense in making sure
that Canadians' interests are safeguarded in this respect.
Motion No. 50 that the member for Winnipeg North Centre moved
says that within three months after this act coming into force,
the governing council shall make a bylaw to establish and put in
place a code of ethics for the members of the advisory boards. In
the newly struck advisory boards and the newly established
institutes of medical research, we want a certain code of ethics
put in place. These are reasonable, basic measures we would
expect all public figures to uphold.
We do not expect any objections to any of these motions because
they are obviously put in place in good faith, in good will, to
look after and safeguard the interests of ordinary Canadians.
In closing I will repeat what the member for Winnipeg North
Centre said in her remarks on February 24. We support this bill.
We support the idea of the Canadian institutes for medical
research. We had some reservations concerning the structure of
the advisory boards. We are satisfied that those will be
remedied with the adoption of the amendments put forward by the
member for Winnipeg North Centre.
We want Canada to be a centre of excellence for medical
research. The academics, universities and scientists in this
country are poised, willing and ready to take their place at the
forefront of this burgeoning new industry and the commercial
possibilities of medical research. We welcome the opportunity.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard from most members regarding Bill C-13, a
bill to establish the Canadian institutes of health research and
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
1315
We have heard from member after member on this side the
frustration at the committee level concerning the bill. Many of
us, myself included, have put forward amendments. I have put
forward two dozen amendments. The frustration comes from the
fact that the government does not want to listen to the
opposition to make this a better piece of legislation.
The member who just spoke, the health critic for that party,
alluded to the frustration. It is legislation which we could all
embrace. We could support it. What we are attempting to do as
opposition members is to improve the legislation, but we get the
sense from government members that they want the legislation now.
They will not entertain amendments, unless they happen to be put
forward by government members, over which they have absolute
control. The government's position is not to listen to the
opposition, that the opposition should not tell the government
what should be in the bill.
That is where this whole exercise falls flat. None of us in the
House wants to be seen as running in the face of the legislation
because it is long overdue.
We are simply modelling what has been done in the United States
and most European countries for the last 25 years. We are about
25 years behind the times in setting up these institutes for
research. We do not have a whole lot to be proud of. We have a
whole lot of ground that we have to gain if we want to be
competitive in terms of medical research with the rest of the
world, so let us get on with it.
Again, it goes back to the frustration of the Liberals not
listening to what we are saying in terms of how we can strengthen
the legislation. Let me give the House an example. This is the
way we have always done things in this place, especially the
Prime Minister. We will go through the makeup of the institutes,
how the board is created, who picks the people to sit on the
board and who will determine what institutes we will have,
because as we speak we do not know. The president of the
Canadian institutes of health research shall be appointed by the
governor in council to hold office during pleasure for a term of
not more than five years.
When we hear the term governor in council it simply means that
the Prime Minister of Canada will appoint the president of the
council as he appoints senators. We have heard just about
everyone in the House from time to time rail on about the
appointments of senators, how they happen and how they might be
improved. Here we go again. The Prime Minister will determine
who the president of the council will be. Not only that, each of
the 20 members on the governing council will again be appointed
by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Why would the government not consider rejigging that formula?
It is very obvious the government wants absolute control as to
how this will be set up, how it will run and who will be the
boss. At the end of the day it will be the Prime Minister of
Canada determining the agenda for this council. In my opinion
and in the opinion of many members on this side of the House it
will be he who will have absolute control. That is why the
government will not entertain any sense of change in how these
councils will be set up, how the president is appointed or how
they will conduct business.
Unfortunately, the government has the opposition in a corner on
this one, because just about every think tank, every university,
every research institution in this country wants us to move on
and get this thing on the road, as do we.
The frustration, of course, comes from the fact that the
government will not listen to anything which might slightly rejig
the formula.
1320
The Prime Minister has been around this place longer than any
other member of parliament. When he was in opposition he would
rail on about these types of appointments taking place in this
country, whether he was talking about a board, a council or the
Senate of Canada. Only when he takes office does the tune
change. I do not think he is going to change in terms of how
these institutes will work and how these appointments will be
made.
Talk about arrogance. The Minister of Health is criss-crossing
the country under the old health research council, giving away
money, grants, as if this bill had already passed, knowing full
well that it has not. It is an insult to this Chamber, to this
institution called parliament. The Liberals are assuming this
bill is going to be passed and they are assuming it is going to
be passed post-haste.
I would suggest that something is wrong with the formula, and
this is the place where it has to change.
This bill is good news for Canada, with the exception of who is
calling the shots. Unfortunately there is a political overtone
to this bill which I do not like. I think it is incumbent upon
the Prime Minister and those who sit on his side of the House to
say a word or two on this issue of appointments and how these
institutes will be guided in the work they will do over the next
number of years.
There are over 50 amendments to the bill. The government has
simply decided to railroad us, forget about the opposition,
forget about anything that might improve this bill. It simply
wants to get the bill passed. We are suggesting that we could
pass a better bill.
The government has the opportunity to listen to the opposition
in the Chamber. Many of the amendments were discussed at
committee, but were voted down by members of the government.
However, now we are in a bigger, wider forum where Canadians will
have a chance to hear us debate the bill.
I would suggest that the government take us seriously, take a
look at the makeup of these institutes and consider some of the
amendments that we have put forward in terms of the selection
process.
This is reminiscent of the Liberal way of doing things. The
Liberals, with this legislation, have stolen page for page,
clause by clause, from the very platform which this party ran on
in 1997. If we look at what Mr. Charest was talking about in his
platform in 1997 we would find that the Liberals have basically
modelled these institutes on what we were suggesting. That is
not new for the Liberals, is it? They adopt the ideas of other
parties, claim them for their own and back off only when they
have to.
Let us get on with it and continue to engage in debate. I would
like the government to take seriously a number of our amendments
before we give our approval to pass this legislation through the
House.
1325
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-13, which we are debating this afternoon is important and
significant. It should be approved by all parties, but, the
government being what it is, there are concealed flaws.
Bill C-13 concerns the creation of institutes of health research
in Canada. These institutes are to replace the existing medical
research centres.
One reason it might be tempting to support this bill is the fact
that the Department of Finance must substantially increase the
amounts allocated to research. However, the problem lies in the
intrusion this government is preparing to make once more into an
area of provincial jurisdiction.
I can clearly recall, in 1978 when the current Prime Minister
was the Minister of Finance, that he attempted an unprecedented
intrusion into the provincial jurisdiction of municipal affairs.
We in Quebec had just elected René Lévesque, and the federal
government was trying to deal directly and by mutual agreement
with the municipalities in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
The Quebec municipal affairs minister at the time, Guy Tardif,
had systematically blocked the federal government's attempt to
deal directly with the municipalities.
You can see how tricky the Prime Minister was at the time, in
1978. To get around that, he sent a cheque for $85 directly to
all Quebec taxpayers. To annoy and ridicule the government of
René Lévesque, he took another tack and gave each taxpayer $85.
At the time, I was a member of the Parti Quebecois. In our
funding drive we collected not all of federal government cheques
for $85 but a few of them. People said to us “What the
government is doing at the moment is so stupid, we will give the
same amount, or $85, to the Parti Quebecois”.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot endorse Bill C-13 as it stands. My
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has prepared a series of
amendments in this regard, which we tabled in the House together
on Thursday.
We will try to talk members opposite into accepting them. We
hope to see the majority of these amendments passed, because the
bill would then reflect the spirit and the letter of the charter
that is a part of the Constitution the Prime Minister himself
patriated when he was Minister of Justice, without Quebec's
agreement, following the “night of the long knives”.
When we watch the little guy from Shawinigan, the member for
Saint-Maurice, in action, we get suspicious. We are also
suspicious about the amount that Quebec will receive out of the
budget allocated to health research, to discover new treatment
techniques. We are concerned because we wonder whether Quebec
will get its fair share.
Traditionally, Quebec has only been receiving 14% of the moneys
allocated to research and development. The federal government's
track record is not good.
This is why we have serious concerns. We would like to see a
framework where Quebec receives at least 24.2% or 24.3% of the
budget earmarked for research and research centres located in
Quebec benefit from these amounts.
All this is very nice, but members are well aware that,
unfortunately, Quebec has not been getting its fair share of
federal investments.
1330
Today, all opposition members are proudly wearing a red heart on
the left side. This is because today is budget day.
The Minister of Finance has made deep cuts to provincial
transfers. I remind this House that the Minister of Finance who,
in a few hours, will be tabling his seventh straight budget, cut
$1.7 billion in social transfers to Quebec for fiscal year
1999-2000.
If the minister wants to create duplication and a structure that
will interfere with provincial jurisdictions, he should be
reminded that, this year, in Quebec alone, he made cuts
totalling $850 million.
That is close to $1 billion in the health sector alone. Since
1993, he has cut health transfer payments by $3.4 billion in
Quebec alone.
Earlier I was listening to a conversation. He seemed a bit
disappointed that we are not giving our support for Bill C-13 so
that it can be passed quickly. We in the Bloc Quebecois are
only too familiar with the Liberal Party and the agenda of the
Prime Minister and there is no danger that we are going to give
him our blessing and make it easy for him.
I was reading the newspapers on the weekend. What is going on
at HRDC is scandalous. The Prime Minister said that only $2.59
was unaccounted for. The RCMP is investigating two cases right
now and, in one alone, $100,000 is involved. It is no longer
$2.50. In another case, close to $166,000 is unaccounted for.
It has literally been lost track of.
The $166,000 was supposed to go to a relatively poor riding in
East Montreal, Rosemont to be precise, the riding next door to
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and the hon. member for Rosemont had
signed the agreement with HRDC for a grant to create 45 jobs in
Rosemont. I was going to say “transfer this money” but that is
not quite it. It has disappeared. The RCMP should conduct an
investigation.
In any event, Saint-Maurice won out, supposedly because it was
closer to the border with the United States. But it is not—it is
further away. If the Eastern Townships had been considered,
that would have been smart, because the Eastern Townships are
very close to the U.S. border.
Right now we are looking at a government that is rotten at the
core and the rot is starting to spread outwards.
Last week, I read the speech given in the House by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health in support of
Bill C-13. In the not-so-distant past, I was a teacher and the
president of our union was the man who is now the hon. member
for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.
It is terrible to see how someone can change in a dozen years.
I do not know if it was the year he spent with Marcel Pépin and
Ti-Louis Laberge in his cell in Orsainville that so altered him
that he is now defending the very policies he once so vehemently
opposed. He even took his orders from Colonel Khadafi.
1335
Today, this man rises in the House to speak about the virtues of
Bill C-13. This just does not make any sense, and the mere fact
that he is defending this bill today should make us suspicious.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I add
my voice to those of the hon. member for Frontenac—Megantic and
our health critic, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to say
that after having supported the principle of Bill C-13 at second
reading, the Bloc Quebecois now prefers to reserve judgment
because of what the government intends to do about the
amendments which were moved by the Bloc Quebecois to ensure that
the Constitution is respected.
Since this debate is about health, and even health care, which
is a provincial jurisdiction, and since Quebec is particularly
concerned about federal encroachments in this area,
encroachments which this Liberal government has sought to
multiply since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois will feel an obligation
to express its dissent about this bill establishing the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, if the amendments it moved are
not carried.
The Bloc decided to take this position after a thorough
examination of the bill, after having consulted the members of
the community and having reached the conclusion that, again,
this bill was a manifestation of this government's bad habit, a
habit it could never get rid of, to use its spending power in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Besides, this government might want to do the same today, when
the Finance Minister tables his budget, since it has accumulated
billions of dollars on the back of the poorest in our society
and on the back of the provinces by drastically reducing social
transfer payments.
So this government could well be tempted again today, in the
area of health but also in education or social programs, to
spend money it has accumulated that should be given back to
provinces, and among them Quebec, which wants, with the means it
should have at its disposal, to fulfil its responsibilities in
areas which are under its jurisdiction.
This does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois does not support this
budget increase for research and development. It does support
this budget increase. It also salutes the efforts of
researchers—and there are many researchers in Quebec who want to
see an increase in research budgets.
In fact, health researchers in Quebec are among the most
effective in Canada. They are the ones who succeed in obtaining
the largest financial support, which proves that health research
in Quebec is very dynamic and can rely on the support and the
exceptional work of researchers in the major institutes that
already exist in Quebec, in our major laboratories and also in
our universities.
These researchers, who have helped in the drafting of this bill
to obtain innovative tools to improve the sharing of health
information and to support the development of advanced health
technologies, must understand the Bill C-13 in its current
form—and that is what the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve tried
to explain to be very transparent with regard to the position
the Bloc Quebecois is putting forward in the House today—could
seriously encroach on provincial jurisdictions in the area of
health.
1340
Beyond health research per se, the bill often refers to health
related issues without ever recognizing the provinces'
responsibility with regard to delivering health services to the
public, which I think is worth mentioning in the House.
In fact, the provinces' role is reduced to that of any other
player. As in the case of any person or organization involved in
the area of health, national mandates are given. In fact, the
word national is being used more and more in the House.
Everything the federal government does now is no longer federal
but national.
They want it to be national because they consider Canada a
nation, whereas Quebec has always considered itself a nation and
continues its efforts to make Quebec an open and pluralistic
nation, one in which all citizens are equal and can play their
part in building the Quebec nation.
There is another competing project, however, that of a Canadian
nation, a nation that of course calls upon a national
government, one which has a tendency to consider the provinces
as municipalities—one of the first Prime Ministers of this
country, John A. Macdonald, considered provinces to be big
municipalities.
This is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, and our opposition
is just one more instance in a long history of opposition by all
the governments of Quebec, one after the other, which have
constantly raised the importance of respecting the division of
powers in the health field as in all areas that fall exclusively
under provincial jurisdiction.
It will come as no surprise that this is, once again, a reason
for the Bloc Quebecois members to defend the interests of Quebec
in this House, but it is also an opportunity to remind people of
something: the alternative to an endlessly centralizing
federalism, of which Bill C-13 is just one more example, is a
project to make Quebec sovereign and able to be its own master
over health and other areas, able to freely control its future,
to create research institutes in the way that it wishes, and
able to ensure that Quebec researchers can have access to what
is required in order to carry out the innovative research they
plan to do.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot, therefore, endorse this bill as
presently worded, and it insists on stating in this House that
the problem does not lie with the creation of institutes per se.
Research and development might fall within the category of
residual powers and thus, theoretically, under federal
jurisdiction.
In the end, after careful analysis and reading, the bill
provides for a real possibility of direct infringement of
provincial jurisdiction in public health services, infringement
that will, as happens all too often, not involve proper
consultation with the provinces.
I may be permitted to remind this House that a few weeks ago,
the start of this month, marked the first anniversary of the
agreement, the framework agreement on social union, an
anniversary that was not celebrated in Quebec, because the
formula in this case too will permit the federal government—as
the Minister of Health himself has said—to unjustly claim
jurisdiction over health care and to impose its views on Quebec,
even though Quebec opposes this bill's application to Quebecers
and the agreement's application to it.
1345
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore proposing a series of amendments
aimed primarily at underscoring the importance of respect for
the division of powers and at reaffirming the primacy of
provincial jurisdiction in the field of health.
In closing, I would point out once again that in this House,
despite claims of concern over health care, the government has
unilaterally—it has the habit of doing things unilaterally—and
irresponsibly stopped funding the health networks put in place
in 1993 by its famous Canada health and social transfer program.
It is commendable that it is investing more in research, but it
must not lose sight of the need to re-establish the transfer
payments to the provinces. The research institutes must not be
a means for the federal government to meddle in areas of Quebec
jurisdiction.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
addressing Bill C-13, I would like to first make a short
digression. I know that you are very tolerant and that you will
give me a few seconds to do that. You also probably know that if
it were the hon. member sitting next to me who was rising, it
might take a long time.
On behalf of my myself and my colleagues, I want to congratulate
the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans
for his very long and most interesting speech delivered on
Thursday, from 5.15 p.m. to 10.15 p.m., to members, to Canadians
who were watching on television, and to the legislative
committee on Bill C-20. Our colleague deserves a good round of
applause from all the members of this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will not repeat what the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said jokingly, but he too must be commended
for his exceptional work to improve a bill which could be a good
piece of legislation for Canadians and Quebecers, for
researchers in health and bioethics, etc. However, given the
narrow-minded obstruction tactics used by members opposite, these
efforts will unfortunately be useless if Liberal members do not
show some openness.
Earlier, the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic said that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health should be able
to inform his minister, since he is from Quebec and has a clear
understanding of Quebec's concerns and freedoms, which he
defended for a long time, even going to jail for a few months in
the process.
The Bloc Quebecois' message is aimed primarily at him. I have
also listened to the speeches of the opposition parties. Not
just the Bloc Quebecois' message but the opposition speeches in
general are aimed at him.
Regardless of party, Reform, Conservative, or New Democratic, we
are all agreed that the bill is fine in principle. It is only
normal that more money be invested in research and development.
However, for reasons that differ for each party, the bill as it
now stands is not acceptable.
As the member for Rimouski—Mitis said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois
agrees with the principle of creating institutes of health
research. The Bloc Quebecois also agrees that research and
development budgets should be increased.
But the Bloc Quebecois does not agree with the bill in its
present form for the reasons stated over and over again by all
parties, more specifically by the Bloc Quebecois, because, among
other things, of the blatant intrusion into provincial
jurisdiction.
1350
We are proposing a number of amendments, as are all the
opposition parties, designed primarily to ensure that
jurisdictions are respected, not to change the core purpose of
the bill, which is to provide assistance to research and
development and to increase research and development grants, but
to respect the Canadian Constitution and the division of powers
between the federal and provincial governments.
I will quote from the bill. As it now stands, it refers to an
interest in health.
“Health” is vague, and we know that the wording of a bill
absolutely must be very clear.
This is why the main thrust of our amendments is to change the
expression “an interest in health” to “an interest in research”,
because the purpose of the bill is to establish research
institutes. When someone knocks at the door and says “trust
me”—my colleagues have already been very eloquent on this—it is
hard to trust someone who does not just put a foot in the door
but pushes in all the way, both feet, both hands and so on, into
areas of jurisdiction reserved for the provinces.
We have an absolute duty to delineate a clear definition of what
a research institute is and what its objective is.
Its objective, as set out in Bill C-13 introduced by the Liberals
and analyzed by all the parties, is too vague. We want this
research institute to really deal with research.
If the government wants to invest money in this research
institute, it might need reminding of our major concerns about
finances. Before reinjecting money into research, which is, as
I said, something with which we are totally in agreement, the
government needs to be reminded of its poor financial record.
For the fiscal year 1999-2000, which is about to end, it is
estimated that Quebec alone had a shortfall of close to
$1.7 billion under the Canadian social transfer.
This shortfall for the year 1999-2000—and I am not talking about
all of Canada, only Quebec—amounts to $850 million per year in the
health sector alone.
One can imagine how much easier negotiating with Quebec nurses
would have been if this $850 million had been available to the
Quebec government, if the provincial government had not been
deprived of that money by the federal government.
Similarly, imagine how helpful it would have been to have an
additional $850 million for health when so many people had the
flu and emergency rooms were overcrowded in Quebec, and also
elsewhere in Canada. It is important to remember that.
Looking back not just to the last year, but since this
government took office in 1993, we see that Quebec's health
sector has not suffered a shortfall of $850 million, but of
$3.4 billion.
This is what enabled Jean Charest, the Quebec Liberal Party
leader, to say “Who is responsible for the problems in the
health sector? It is not Lucien Bouchard, it is not Mike Harris,
it is the current Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the
Minister of Finance”.
This statement was not made by a mean separatist. It was made by
Jean Charest during the leaders' debate, adding, in reference to
this $3.4 billion in cuts to health over a seven year period,
that, as far as he was concerned, the main responsibility lies
with the people across the Ottawa River.
As concerns the first group of amendments presented here, I
believe the bill must refer especially, as I said, to health
research and not to the health care system and services to the
public.
The current minister, in an open letter today to La Presse,
expresses his considerable concern about becoming directly
involved in home care and in public health care. However,
throughout the bill, reference is made not only simply to health
research but more generally to health.
1355
So the amendments introduced by the Bloc Quebecois serve to make
it clear that the bill applies to health research and not to the
potential expansion of mandates beyond such research.
They are intended to make sure that the decisions related to the
choice and principle underlying the health networks and services
to the public are exclusively under the aegis of the provinces
and within appropriate jurisdictions.
Given that there was the bill establishing the medical research
council, which the research institutes will replace, or, in the
field of education, the bill establishing the Canadian council
on social sciences and the humanities, we can see that the
distribution of jurisdictions may be respected without watering
down Bill C-13.
No one wants the wheel to be reinvented. What we are saying is
that there are two councils with jurisdiction in this area.
Therefore, we are asking the government to honour and implement
what has already been done. The government's bill is ignoring
the distribution of powers. It negates the federal principle.
When the federal government wants to administer everything and
we see how badly it administers money allocated to Human
Resources Development Canada, we can see that the Bloc
Quebecois' amendments must be accepted so that the provinces, in
their individual jurisdictions, may administer until the moment
we have full jurisdiction over all our powers in Quebec.
The Speaker: It being nearly 2 o'clock, we could now proceed to
Statements by Members and thus hear more of them.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a
debate in the House, Reform Party members came out against
climate change. They produced a lot of hot air while failing to
prove their case.
Human induced global change is a self-evident fact. Just look
out the window today. Every sane person knows that increasing
population combined with technology is transforming the planet.
This has been the warmest decade on record and 1998 was the
warmest year on record.
Glaciers around the globe are becoming smaller. At the same
time, more people are finding it difficult to breath. Our
atmosphere has changed and is still changing at a frightening
rate.
The Kyoto protocol to control greenhouse emissions is a small
step in the right direction. Canada should take the lead in
showing that we can have a healthy economy and a healthy
atmosphere. Let us meet our Kyoto commitments.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians deserve a fair and just legal system. Yet this week
marks the 17th anniversary of Patrick Kelly's incarceration for
the murder of his wife.
Six years have passed since the key witness admitted she lied
during the trial bringing the entire investigation and conviction
into question. Since then Patrick Kelly has been fighting for a
new trial.
In a split 2:1 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Judge
Goudge felt Kelly had been denied justice because of the false
testimony of the key witness and called for a new trial.
Last December I asked the justice minister to use her power to
order a new trial or, at the very least, refer this case to the
Supreme Court of Canada. We are still waiting for the minister's
response.
This issue is not about guilt or innocence; it is about a fair
and open justice system. Canadians, including Patrick Kelly,
expect nothing less.
* * *
[Translation]
MÉLANIE TURGEON
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
Canadian downhill skier, Mélanie Turgeon, delivered two
outstanding performances at the Women's World Cup on the
weekend.
After winning the gold on Saturday, Mélanie pulled off an
amazing second-place finish in the Super-G, taking the silver
medal in that event. She is the first Canadian to win a World
Cup event in seven years.
Mélanie worked hard to reach these heights. We offer our
heartiest congratulations and encourage her to keep up the great
work.
Canada is proud of the achievements of this young Quebecer.
Brome—Missisquoi and all of Canada celebrate her victory.
Mélanie is an example of tenacity and perseverance for young
people. Bravo, Mélanie.
* * *
FIGHT AGAINST RACISM
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Canadian government launched a Canada-wide tour as part of
the Action Canada 2000 “Racism. Stop It!” initiative.
1400
This special millennium event will build on the growing success
of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination held annually on March 21 by inviting young
people in Canada and throughout the world to fight against
racism.
Canada is recognized world wide as a model of non-violent and
respectful cultural integration.
Young Canadians have an important role to play in Canada's
future. As part of this year's campaign, young Canadians will
get together with other young people from Australia, Austria,
Brazil, the Caribbean, the Philippines, the U.K. and the United
States.
We wish them good luck and reiterate our support for this
movement, which is to the credit of all Canadians.
* * *
COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 17, the Government of Canada announced the results of
the most recent Community Access Program competition, which will
help establish public Internet access sites in 71 rural Quebec
communities.
The Government of Canada is committed to equipping Canadians
with the tools to gain the skills they need for today's
knowledge-based economy.
This announcement is an important one for Quebec. The CAP sites
will give the selected rural areas residents affordable
convenient access to the Internet and thus to communication.
The Government of Canada aims to help establish up to 10,000
access sites in remote, rural and urban settings nationwide by
March 31, 2001.
What is involved is, of course, economic development and
communication, but primarily the quality of life of all
Canadians.
* * *
[English]
SCOTT TOURNAMENT OF HEARTS
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Sunday saw the conclusion of a hugely
successful year 2000 Scott Tournament of Hearts held in my city
of Prince George, British Columbia.
The crowds that attended throughout the week were the fourth
largest ever in the history of the tournament. It was a success
because of the hundreds of volunteers, the organizers and the
rinks that participated from all over Canada, the best of the
best women curlers in the country.
While there can only be one tournament winner, that just
happened to be the Kelly Law Rink of British Columbia. We want
to congratulate both that rink and such a wonderful, wonderful
curling tournament.
I also congratulate all the organizers, the volunteers, Scott
Paper and, most of all, the best of the best of women curlers who
came to the beautiful, friendly, wonderful city of Prince George,
British Columbia, in my riding; spent a week with us; had a lot
of fun; and took home some prizes.
* * *
[Translation]
MÉLANIE TURGEON
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois wishes to offer its warmest congratulations to skier
Mélanie Turgeon for her remarkable performance last Saturday.
Mélanie Turgeon won the Super-G at Innsbruck, Austria, on the
World Cup Circuit. This 23-year old champion is the first Quebec
woman to win a downhill World Cup event in 30 years, and the
first non-Austrian woman to win on that hill since 1964. This is
also her first victory in all of her World Circuit career.
What is more, Mélanie Turgeon was again on the podium yesterday
in Innsbruck, with a second place in another Super-G event, which
has raised her to 12th overall in World Cup standing.
Clearly, her patience, perseverance and hard work have received
their just reward. We in the Bloc Quebecois are immensely proud
to share in this great Quebec athlete's huge success. What a
great inspiration she is to others.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with a two-nil victory yesterday over Colombia in the final of
the Gold Cup International Soccer Tournament, Canada secured a
place on the world soccer stage. Seated only 11th in the field
of 12 teams from North, South and Central America, Canada
surprised many with its plays throughout the two week tournament.
We note in particular the performances of Vancouver born
goalkeeper, Craig Forrest, who was named the tournament's most
valuable player and New Westminster's striker, Carlo Corazzin,
who led all scorers in the tournament. We salute the team's
performance and its brilliant promise for the future.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is our pleasure today to congratulate the Canadian
National Soccer Team for its thrilling two-nil win over Colombia
yesterday to capture the Gold Cup for the championship of North
and Central America.
This is Canada's biggest win since qualifying for the World Cup
in 1986 and a sign of a great future for soccer in Canada.
1405
Team Canada's combination of offensive creativity and solid
defence allowed it to control the flow of the entire game. Keeper
Craig Forrest, who was named MVP of the tournament, made a
brilliant save on a penalty shot in the last five minutes that
may have saved the game.
It is no secret why soccer is becoming the fastest growing sport
among young Canadian men and women. With the win yesterday, Team
Canada has inspired thousands of young soccer players along with
their coaches and parents.
We salute our national soccer team who has not lost a game since
new coach Holger Osieck took control last year and wish it
continued success as it builds toward the next World Cup.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the Canadian National Soccer Team on its
outstanding performance at the Gold Cup tournament held in Los
Angeles over the past two weeks.
The players' determination led to their dramatic Gold Cup win
with a 2-0 shutout of Colombia's national team. Ranked 85th
going into this tournament, the Canadians also beat the 10th
ranked Mexican team in the first playoff round. Its key victory
in Los Angeles guarantees it a place in the prestigious
Confederations Cup Tournament to be held in Japan and South Korea
in 2001. This success also makes Canada's World Cup qualifying
match, to be played this June, a lot more important.
All the players and coaches deserve a round of applause for
their notable effort and win.
* * *
WORLD SPRINT SPEED SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada retained its position as a speed skating force this past
weekend when Jeremy Wotherspoon of Red Deer, Alberta, and Mike
Ireland of Winnipeg, Manitoba, placed first and second overall in
the World Sprint Speed Skating Championships.
Mr. Wotherspoon, silver medalist in the 1998 Nagano Olympic
Games, is the dominant sprinter in the world having won two
consecutive world titles. He leads a very strong Canadian team
that in long track speed skating won five medals at the 1998
Winter Olympic Games and will once again be the team to beat at
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Congratulations to these exceptional Canadians who make us all
proud.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am thrilled to join with all Canadians in
congratulating the Canadian National Soccer Team, captained by
Jason DeVos in its stunning 2-nil Gold Cup victory yesterday over
24th ranked Colombia. Ranked 85th in the world prior to this
tournament, Canada's team played brilliantly in the final game.
As a former soccer coach and father of an aspiring soccer
player, I congratulate the coaches, the volunteers, the
organizers and fans whose hard work and commitment have helped to
bring this great honour to Canada. This victory will give a huge
lift to the whole soccer movement in the country. In FIFA
President Sepp Blatter's own words, “They got to this Gold Cup
on merit”.
I especially recognize the contribution of coach Holger Osieck,
top tournament scorer Carlo Corazzin, and most valuable player
Craig Forrest on this marvellous victory. It was excellent
coaching and superb playing by the entire team. We are all very
proud of this great accomplishment.
* * *
[Translation]
DEVELOPING YOUNG CANADIAN TALENT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday last, under the chairmanship of Ted
Johnson, the board of directors of the National Theatre School
of Canada located in Montreal met in Ottawa, and the members of
the board met MPs on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Johnson paid particular tribute to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage for her leadership in the establishment of a national
program to foster the develop of young Canadian talent.
[English]
He also expressed high praise for both the current and former
Ministers of Human Resources Development Canada for their role in
supporting the opportunity for the next generation of talented
young Canadians to train and work in their field to make valuable
contributions to the development of the performing arts in
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAMS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1996 the federal government undertook its most comprehensive
reform of unemployment insurance since its inception in 1940,
rechristening it, ironically, “employment insurance”.
This reform denied benefits to six unemployed men in ten and
seven women in ten and more than eight young people in ten under
this plan and caused misery in the lives of hundreds of
thousands of families.
The Liberal Party massacred this public security plan, claiming
that it was important to develop the employability aspect.
While the Liberal government has been boasting for the past
three years that the employment programs have been on target,
the Minister of Human Resources Development has just revealed
that of a mere 459 projects, representing spending worth $1
billion, 82% were unsupervised.
1410
This sort of mismanagement of public funds reveals the urgency
of establishing a poverty commissioner, who would, among other
things, evaluate programs to avoid such an administrative and a
political mess.
* * *
[English]
SANDY GELDART
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise in the House to salute a great individual, Mr. Sandy Geldart
of Quispamsis in my riding of Fundy—Royal. At 81 years of age,
Mr. Geldart has been nominated for the lieutenant governor's
Caring Canadian Award. In the last decade Mr. Geldart has single
handedly raised over $77,000 from his bottle exchange program to
help high school graduates pursue post-secondary education.
These are students who would otherwise not be able to attend
university or college due to financial reasons. So far his
efforts have resulted in the awarding of twenty-six $1,000
scholarships with an amazing $51,000 still in the pot to keep the
program going.
I salute the council of the town of Quispamsis for putting Mr.
Geldart's name forward. Whether or not Mr. Geldart gets the
award, in the eyes of the students and the community Mr. Geldart
will be indeed one of Canada's greatest caring Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the arrogance of this Liberal government came to light once
again on Friday when the government House leader described as
“folly” the remarks by the Bloc Quebecois during committee
hearings on Bill C-20.
This “folly” is simply the broad and clear consensus in Quebec
opposing the bill on clarity. It is a well known fact: the
truth hurts.
Was the folly in this committee not rather the push by the
Liberal majority to limit debate? Was it not the expedited work
of the committee arising out of the Liberal majority's fear of
going to hear witnesses on their home ground?
In the name of the Quebec consensus opposing the bill on
clarity, I repeat loud and long that the quintessential folly in
this matter is Bill C-20 itself.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the many benefits to Canadians from the current fiscal
management of the government is low inflation. Between January
1999 and January 2000 the consumer price index grew by only 2.3%.
This was even lower than the 2.6% seen in December and comparable
to the low inflation seen throughout the government's mandate.
The policies of the government continue to achieve and maintain
price stability with the objective of holding inflation in the
range of 1% to 3%. Keeping inflation low has been just one of
the many successes of the government. How appropriate to talk
about such good economic news on the day of the budget. Canadians
can expect great—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday at the APEC hearing in Vancouver, Commissioner Hughes
invited the Prime Minister to appear to give testimony. Without
the Prime Minister's testimony there will be a cloud of suspicion
in the mind of the public that will taint the findings of the
commission.
To this point the commission has spent between $3 million and $4
million. Canadians understandably are asking why. The answer is
the public complaints commission was chosen by the PM's office as
a vehicle to bury the Prime Minister's complicity in denying
Canadians freedom of expression.
The Prime Minister does not understand the difference between a
dictatorship and a democracy. In a dictatorship the executive
directs the enforcers. In a democracy there is a firewall
separating the executive from the enforcers.
This issue is about the freedoms that we cherish in this great
nation of Canada. The Prime Minister fails to understand this
fundamental concept. Will the Prime Minister attend the public
complaints commission and be answerable to Canadians?
* * *
BROADCASTING
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week's
bid by BCE to take over CTV is just the latest corporate merger
focusing on the Internet as a broadcast medium. Why is our
government abandoning us to the private broadcasters in the new
media?
The CRTC has said it is stepping back from any kind of
regulation of the Internet. What about Canadian content? The
CBC continues to bleed from a thousand cuts.
1415
It is time to get with it. Britain has been proactive by
allowing the BBC to become an Internet service provider and
creator of high quality national content for both the Internet
and their own public network.
It is time our government called an inquiry into how to take
back our public broadcasting system in the face of national and
international corporate concentration. It is time to keep
Canadian spaces on the net, make access to the net affordable to
Canadians, enforce our copyright laws on the Internet to protect
creators, use the new media to promote culture and act to ensure
future control over our broadcasting content on the new media or
we will all be losers.
Who wants to be multi-billionaires? BCE and CTV. Who will pay
down the road? Canadians.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister was talking to taxpayers he would
know how angry they are about the bungling at human resources
development.
Their concerns can be addressed in three ways: by removing the
questionable files from the hands of those who can tamper with
them; by suspending all questionable programs pending an official
investigation; and by suspending the human resources minister and
other responsible officials while that investigation is pending.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to take any of those actions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these programs exist to help people in Canada in every
riding and in every city.
When we look at the work, we are helping all sorts of groups to
either create jobs or to help people in society. All members of
all parties are aware of these programs. They are very good for
the quality of life of those Canadians at the bottom of society.
We do not intend to stop that. Once the audit has been
completed, we have a program to ensure that if there are some
mistakes they will be corrected. We want to make sure that the
work is done properly, but we want to—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us see how these programs help people.
The public accounts from 1995 to 1998 now show the following:
while the finance minister was busy slashing funds for hospital
beds, he was increasing funding for hotel beds in the Prime
Minister's riding; while health care spending was going down,
spending on grants and contributions was going up. However, the
budget speeches of the finance minister never revealed that. The
real spending priorities were very different than what he talked
about in the budget.
Why did the Prime Minister allow the finance minister to say one
thing and do another? Will that—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we went through a difficult period, it was to
reduce the deficit from $42 billion to, what it hopefully will be
this afternoon, the fourth year in a row that we will have a
surplus.
During that period of time unemployment was at 11.5%. We had to
keep programs operational in order to reduce unemployment. We
have been successful because unemployment went from 11.5% down to
6.8%, the lowest in 25 years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every budget the government has produced has increased
spending. No doubt today it will be the same.
The human resources minister is responsible for wasting millions
of the increased spending given to that department. If that
minister is going to remain in charge of even a dollar from this
budget, it would be one dollar too many.
Why should Canadians give the government more money when it
wastes the money they give it in the first place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian people are aware of what the government has
managed to do.
When we started, I talked about the unemployment level. I
talked about the deficit that we had to cure. We had an 11%
interest rate. It went down to 6%. Since we formed government,
1.9 million jobs have been created. Those are the reasons the
Canadian people are still confident in this government.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
would have been great if the Prime Minister had talked about the
question.
We have seen problems for years now with documents regarding the
APEC file, the Somalia file and now the disaster in Shawinigan.
There are billions of dollars at stake here. Many people stand
to be tainted by this scandal but they still have full access to
this evidence.
How can Canadians be sure that there will even be any documents
left to audit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week we needed a truck to deliver the documents to
them. There were 10,000 documents given from the files of HRDC.
We have been completely open.
Some auditing is being done in every department. In the past
the auditor general only made only one report a year to make sure
everything was audited properly. Now we have four reports a year
plus auditing in every department.
All hon. members know that government is not a small operation
and there will always be something to correct. That is why my
ministers and I will do everything we can.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it was a truckload to be sure.
The HRDC minister has bungled a billion dollars. She has sat on
the audit for months and she has proven that manipulating these
truckloads of lists is really not beneath her. It is hardly a
stretch to think that documents could be changed, deleted or
fabricated.
Could it be that the next HRDC—
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to stay away from
words like fabricated. They just incite the House. I would ask
the hon. member to please put her question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, could it be that the next
HRDC grant will fund a brand new company called Shawinigan
Shredding Inc.?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members opposite are all the same. They get up and make
accusations which we have to tell them are not factual and we
give them the facts.
The people of Canada are very well aware that on this side of
the House we are a political party that has kept the same name
since 1863. We did not have to change the name of our party
three times in the last year like the opposition has done.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three
weeks ago, the Prime Minister said the problems at the
Department of Human Resources Development only involved an
amount of $251.54. Two days later, in Quebec City, that amount
had increased to $5,960. It is obvious that the Prime Minister
had made a mistake.
At this point, in North Bay, they are talking about $1.3
million. In Rosemont, it is $165,984. In Shawinigan, the mounted
police, as the Prime Minister says, is investigating CITEC
regarding an amount of $100,000.
Does the Prime Minister realize that we are now talking about
$1,572,000.54?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I said was that out of the $200 million, there are $33
million, or 37 files, that pose a problem. Out of these 37
files—I believe four have yet to be reviewed—payments totalling
$6,000 were found not to have been justified. That is what I
said.
As for the investigations, if there are other cases, if there
are people who violated the law and committed criminal acts, the
police—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
is of concern is the fact that the three cases that I submitted
are not included in the 37 cases referred to by the Prime
Minister. Two of these are being investigated by the mounted
police, as the Prime Minister says. I find this worrisome. I am
concerned that the scope of the problem is being discovered bit
by bit.
Is it not time to hold a public inquiry into what is going on in
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding, because we learn new
things every day and it appears the end is not in sight?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
people can make insinuations. It is like the request approved by
the member for Rosemont. That request was never approved by my
office. No one in my office was informed of that request.
1425
Perhaps something is not normal, but I know that, as regards the
riding of Saint-Maurice, no one in my office was informed of the
request made previously and approved by the member for Rosemont.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a press
release issued 9 p.m. Friday, the department announced that it
was engaging a Toronto firm to investigate the Rosemont case and
giving it one week to submit its report. What this boils down
to is the government having itself investigated by a firm of its
choosing. A sham investigation.
If this not a good old Liberal method of burying embarrassing
affairs?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally incorrect.
What we have done is look at the files. The officials have
identified this particular undertaking as being very complex and
as such have asked for the services of an outside forensic audit
team to go through all aspects of this file.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, the
Minister of Human Resources Development said that the company
had moved to Shawinigan because there were no sites available in
Rosemont. But there are charges filed against 3393062 Canada
Inc. showing that there were indeed sites.
What is the truth of the matter? Was the minister in the dark
or did she once again not tell the House the whole story?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have multiple representations from the
individuals involved in this file. As I say again, it is
extremely complex. The right thing to do was to call in an
outside forensic audit team to do an investigation of all the
aspects of this file. That is being done and we will take action
on its findings.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In September 1998 the Prime Minister bragged in the House that
nobody had asked him to appear before the APEC inquiry. In
November he said “I want the commission to ask all the questions
of anybody whom it wants to interview”.
Now that Commissioner Hughes has invited him to appear, will the
Prime Minister let the inquiry do its work? Will the Prime
Minister stop stonewalling and finally come clean with Canadians
about his role at the APEC summit and accept the commissioner's
invitation to appear before the commission?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): First,
Mr. Speaker, the judge said “I simply cannot see that the
voluminous evidence to date points to or suggests that the Prime
Minister may have given improper orders or direction to RCMP
members respecting security at the APEC conference”.
As he does not need me and as he has all the facts, he asked if
I wanted to go there. I looked at that possibility. Only two
prime ministers have been before an inquiry: Sir John A.
Macdonald more than 100 years ago and Prime Minister Trudeau in
camera on national security. The precedents are very clear and I
do not want to create a precedent that might cause problems for
my successors.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is showing absolute contempt for the
Hughes commission. The same Prime Minister said in November that
the government was willing to help the commission as much as it
wants because it had nothing to hide.
If the Prime Minister really has nothing to hide, and if he
refuses to appear before the Hughes commission, will he at least
agree to appear before the foreign affairs committee of the House
to answer questions about his role in the violent assault on the
basic charter rights of the students who were protesting
peacefully at the APEC summit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am in the House of Commons every week. You can ask me
any question and I will reply to these questions. I have never
run away and never been afraid of any question from this member
of parliament.
The Speaker: Please address all questions and responses
through the Speaker.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, of the small sample of grants examined by the HRDC
audit, the Prime Minister's low ball figures of mismanagement
have inflated from $243 to a whopping $4.5 million. We know of
at least three RCMP investigations in the jobs grants scandal.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House when these
investigations began and if he is aware of any investigations
pending or any more investigations coming up?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the RCMP has been advised that there was an
accusation of some wrongdoing with one file. As soon as my
office was informed of that, the RCMP was informed within
minutes. The RCMP will do its job well, as is well known in
Canada.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has tried to minimize this
scandal from the beginning, but the evidence of mismanagement is
mounting.
The government would have Canadians believe that it blew the
whistle on itself by calling the RCMP to investigate HRDC. The
minister herself would also have us believe that she was first
made aware of the audit in November.
What new evidence came to the minister's attention that led her
to call in the RCMP?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The audit talked about
seven large programs in my department and said that we could
improve our administrative practices. We have made that
information public to Canadians. We are now implementing a
program that will fix the problem.
That is what Canadians are asking us to do. They have quite
clearly been able to separate politics from substance and are
saying “Would you please fix the problem”. We will.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I hate to have to be in a position of instructing the
Prime Minister on the history of his own party, but the name of
the Liberal Party prior to 1867 was the Reform Party of Upper
Canada.
According to reports, on February 2 the PMO contacted the RCMP
because over $100,000 may have been misappropriated. We have to
wonder why the Prime Minister has spent the last three weeks in
the House telling Canadians that the problem involved a mere
$256.50.
Why does the Liberal government insult Canadians with attempts
to downplay a billion dollar boondoggle while taxpayers are
continuing to be ripped off?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is an insult to Canadians is what
was said by the leader of that party in his opening question when
he talked about wasting money. What he is saying is that it is a
waste of money to support Canadians with disabilities. What he
is saying is that it is waste of money to help Canadian youth who
have not been able to find that very important first job. What
he is saying is that it is a waste of money to help Canadians who
do not have the opportunity to work while our economy is
improving. That is the insult.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, shame on this minister for trying to bluster her way out
of her incompetence.
It is becoming painfully obvious that it is open season for
waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars from Ottawa. An audit says
that at least $1 billion was shockingly mismanaged by the
minister. A grant approved for one riding mysteriously turned up
in the Prime Minister's riding. The minister's explanation is
completely contradicted by the grant recipient. Now $100,000 may
have been skimmed from yet another grant in the Prime Minister's
riding.
Are Canadians to believe that the red flags flying over public
moneys going into Shawinigan are just pure coincidence?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no bluster on this side. Clearly
we are taking action on this problem. If they had looked at the
undertakings they would see that we are already making progress
on implementing the new plan.
1435
We are engaging an independent body of this House, the auditor
general, to review our grants and contributions.
One thing we know for sure is that the member and the Reform
Party will never speak out in support of Frontier College
students for literacy and will never speak out in support of the
Beddington Heights Community Association or the Alberta Centre on
Entrepreneurship and Disabilities because the member has not even
been to visit those community interests in her riding, and that
is where this money is going.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the case
of the Canadian Institute of Tourism is troubling to say the
least.
According to the Ottawa Citizen, a member of the PMO asked
Mr. Vallerand to stay quiet while the RCMP conducted its
investigation.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why Mr. Vallerand should stay
quiet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
minutes or hours after my office was informed, we asked the
police to investigate.
When an investigation is under way, we are not in a position to
make any comment. That is the position that all members of the
House would adopt. We let the police do their work. It is as
simple as that.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
October 1993, the Prime Minister said “I think that when
something involving Saint-Maurice ends up in a minister's office—I
need not say more”.
The Prime Minister may not need to say more to his ministers,
but does he not owe the House a bit more of an explanation of
what comes after “office”?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if I am not mistaken, it is called an ellipsis.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is up to his ears in alligators over the HRDC
issue. There are investigations going on in North Bay and in
Shawinigan as a result of the HRDC grant handouts. An associate
is being investigated for illegal lobbying of grants. Now, of
course, he is invited to the APEC commission for an interview.
The Prime Minister creates a shroud of suspicion on every file
he touches. Is that why he does not hold the HRDC minister
accountable, or is she simply following the leader?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would really like to know what could
possibly be more accountable than making public an internal audit
which said we could do a better job in a particular aspect of our
business. What could be more accountable than making that
information available to the Canadian public and promising them
that we will fix the problem?
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
she could resign, I suppose, because when she follows the Prime
Minister's lead the HRDC minister is on a very slippery slope.
There was the Somalia shutdown, the stonewalling at APEC and now
the handouts in Shawinigan. How can Canadians have any
confidence in this minister, this government or this Prime
Minister when all they see is a slithery shroud of suspicion over
all of these issues?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, accountability does not mean running away
from problems. Perhaps we should ask the hon. Leader of the
Opposition if he is being accountable when he seems to be running
away from the party he started.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the case of
the Canadian tourism institute established in Shawinagan, the
Prime Minister's riding, was revealed by a former Quebec Liberal
minister, whom one cannot suspect of being a separatist. He had
to make the facts public because the investigation was taking
too much time.
Is this not a source of concern to the minister?
1440
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that this has been an
active file for my department. It has been referred to the RCMP
and, as such, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every time
there is an investigation in that department, it is because
either the opposition or someone else has blown the whistle.
In other words, are we to understand that the Liberal money
management policy is basically: not seen, not caught, not
guilty?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect in her
assertion. I would say to her again that we are taking this
issue very seriously. We are now making progress on the
implementation of our plan. We are reviewing our active files.
We will do what Canadians want. We will fix this problem, as we
have fixed so many others.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
membership certainly does have its privileges. In Kenora—Rainy
River donations and hard work for the Liberal Party result in
Club L points, redeemable for grants and contributions from HRD
Canada.
Rick Smit is president of the Indian Affairs minister's riding
association, a good worker and a campaign donor. He received
federal loans for $150,000, which exceeded the limits by $25,000.
Can the minister explain why Mr. Smit got $25,000 more than the
rules allowed?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the House on
Friday, Treasury Board guidelines and the agreement with the
local organization allow for loans in excess of $125,000.
If the hon. member would do his work and not just read the
newspapers he would know that, or if he had bothered to listen to
question period on Friday he would have known that as well.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
know this. Don Barnard is another loyal Liberal in that same
riding and he received tax dollars. In fact, he told a business
associate that he would use his Liberal Party connections to
secure an HRD grant.
What do we learn? When Liberal Pierre Corbeil tied government
grants to Liberal Party donations he was convicted of influence
peddling. When the Prime Minister's personal representative,
Rene Fugere, secured grants for some unregistered lobbyists he
found himself in hot water with the RCMP.
When will the HRD minister learn that allowing Liberal members
to use their Liberal Party connections to get their hands on
taxpayers' dollars is wrong, wrong, wrong every time?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be very careful in
the kinds of allegations he makes. If he has proof of things in
this regard he should say them outside.
It is absolutely appropriate and part of our democratic process
for individuals to make contributions to political parties, to
this one and even that one. He should be very careful in the
kinds of allegations he makes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although the Minister of Human Resources Development
acknowledges her responsibility for the errors of her
department, she must realize that most of the questionable cases
brought to light to date happened in the time of her
predecessor.
Will the minister finally acknowledge that she ought to share
her heavy burden with her colleague, the Minister for
International Trade, who appears not to have been any more
efficient than she is in administering the department?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try this again, for the umpteenth
time.
I am the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada. I am
the minister who received the results of an internal audit which
said that we could make improvements on the administrative side
of our grants and contributions. I am the minister who made that
public and I am the minister who will work with my department to
ensure that we fix this problem.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three weeks
after the start of the torrential rains and four days after the
passage of cyclone Éline, Mozambique appears on the verge of a
humanitarian disaster, with 300 people having lost their lives.
Could the Minister for International Cooperation tell the House
how Canada will help these victims?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department has announced $1 million in
aid for the tragedy in Mozambique, which is also affecting some
nearby countries. As of yesterday I had announced $458,000. I
added $550,000 today because the situation is getting worse, and
we are monitoring the situation daily.
* * *
1445
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, aside from creating work for the RCMP, the HRD
department is certainly creating a lot of work for former Liberal
staffers.
In the Indian affairs minister's riding, his former senior aide
Victoria Scherban, has made a business out of acquiring grants
and loans for herself and other local businesses. The same with
René Fugère, the Prime Minister's former aide who has charged
hefty commissions for having his name attached to numerous
successful applications.
My question is for the HRD minister. If there is no political
interference for grant approvals in her department, why is it so
lucrative for former Liberal staffers?
The Speaker: My colleagues, we are starting to border on
questions about political parties. I will permit the minister to
respond to the question if she so wants as it deals with that
particular department.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member
that we are talking about investments in communities where the
unemployment level has been high. Significant numbers, more than
half of the grants and contributions have gone to opposition
ridings. In talking about transitional jobs fund numbers, in
areas of less than 12%, over half of the money went to opposition
ridings. How can the member make such incredible assertions?
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a lot more money went to the minister's riding than it
did to British Columbia.
Mike Clancy, a former HRD employee from Kenora, stated that he
and his coworkers were under intense pressure to become a cheque
writing machine for the Indian affairs minister. Clearly the
pressure got to Mr. Clancy. He ran for the NDP in the last
election.
If there is no political interference in HRD affairs, how does
the minister explain the pressure felt by her employees in
Kenora?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member made a statement that there was no money
going to the province of British Columbia. I would like to inform
the House of Commons that in the case of the riding of Vancouver
Island North the riding of the member has received $52 million in
HRDC grants. Among them is the North Island Fisheries
Initiative, Tourism Comox Valley, Beaufort Association for the
Mentally Handicapped, Community Adult Literacy and Learning
Society, Crossroads Crisis Centre. These are good programs that
we have put in his riding despite perhaps his opposition because
those people do not want us to help the poor and the needy.
An hon. member: Wrong riding.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst.
* * *
[Translation]
TRAINING
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Ottawa Citizen announced today that, according to the
government, learning is an “individual responsibility”.
On the heels of student debt and the enrichment of the banks
with Liberal cuts to education, we have the Liberal government
wanting to divest itself of its responsibilities for training.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development reaffirm the
federal government's commitment to training?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's own province we
clearly have a new relationship with the provincial authorities
focused on training. They are partners with the federal
government in terms of taking employment insurance part II
dollars, and providing training opportunities for those men and
women who need additional support to find renewed employment.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the same minister. How can the government ask
Canadians to save and pay for job training when the primary
responsibility for limited income families is food and shelter?
Will the minister pop the policy balloon today and invest
strategically in high unemployment regions by direct capital
investment to public institutions such as community colleges and
university access colleges, an investment that Canadians can rely
on for sustainable human and regional development?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw the hon. member's attention to our
past budgets where indeed we have focused on these important
undertakings. I would also ask the member to wait until 4
o'clock and see other undertakings of the government.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro
International and Hydro-Québec International both received money
from CIDA. Indeed, these two companies received a total of
$2.4 million.
1450
My question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.
Why did CIDA deem necessary to use taxpayers' money to make
contributions to these large corporations?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, these are not grants. These
are contracts that are given with specific requirements for
projects in developing countries. Companies only get paid when
they prove that the requirements have been met. Also, the same
companies and organizations that we use are world renowned for
the work they do in developing countries and they were used by
the same party that is asking the question today.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, how does the
minister explain that 37% of businesses did not file any report
to get contributions?
With a consolidated net income of $50 million for 1998-99, the
Canada Post Corporation is one of Canada's largest crown
corporations.
Could the Minister for International Cooperation explain why it
was necessary to make a $785,000 contribution to that
corporation?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is work that we do in developing
countries. By far the majority of companies that do work in
developing countries are small and medium size. There are also
very large ones.
In this case these companies are world renowned for the quality
of their work. We are doing projects in developing countries to
assist them. As I said before, the party to which the member
belongs used these very same companies when it was in power.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
It has come to my attention that many school age children in
Ontario are being denied entry to public schools because of their
immigration status, notwithstanding the fact that Ontario's
education act mandates compulsory education for all children.
What is the minister doing to ensure that all children have
access to Ontario schools regardless of their immigration status
in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue is very dear to my heart. I
firmly believe that no child should be denied an education.
I have reviewed the regulations which require school
authorization for post-secondary and vocational schools. I am
convinced that there is no barrier there to any child in Canada
whether they have been here for 10 minutes, 10 months or 10
years.
If that is not clear enough, I want to say again that I do not
think any kid should be denied an education. I intend to continue
to clarify that at every opportunity.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the ridings of Kenora—Rainy River and Saint-Maurice there is a
strange correlation between campaign donations and the allocation
of grants and contributions.
The HRD minister has stood up in the House time and again and
stated that there is no interference in the approval process. Yet
33% of the people who contributed to the Prime Minister's
political campaign got money from the government in the form of
grants and contributions.
How can the HRD minister explain this sleight of hand, or should
I say coincidence, to the Canadian taxpayer who finances her
spending schemes?
The Speaker: As I understand the question, it has to do with
donations to a political party. That is what I am hearing. As
such, that question is out of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development will not mind us helping her to
shed light on management in her department.
Let us now turn to the case of Canadian Aerospace Group
International in North Bay, which, after spending most of its
$1.3 million grant, shut down operations and laid off its
employees. The RCMP has been investigating since June 1999.
Can the minister tell us why she told the House that everything
was fine, when this particular case had been under investigation
by police for months?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the investigation is ongoing and I will
not make any further comments on that.
* * *
PLUTONIUM SHIPMENTS
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government has repeatedly promised Canadians
that there would be no plutonium flown into Canada but in January
this promise was broken when American plutonium was flown into
Chalk River.
Our head offices go south and American plutonium comes north.
1455
This was an act of stealth which occurred without warning or
consultation with the people whose health was put in jeopardy.
Canadian and American environmental groups say it was illegal and
they may go to court.
Will the Minister of Transport commit to an immediate moratorium
prohibiting any future shipments of plutonium by air?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me reiterate once again that this movement of MOX
fuel was fully consistent with all the requirements of the Atomic
Energy Control Board. It was fully consistent with all the
requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization and
fully consistent with all the requirements of the International
Atomic Energy Agency. It was completely in line with the
transport and packaging of radioactive materials regulations of
the Department of Transport.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, we all know
that today's budget will abolish the head tax on immigrants.
During the last parliament, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
introduced a bill that would have completely abolished this tax.
Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in agreement with
her colleague?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the
question. I would invite the member to be here at 4 o'clock when
the budget is read. He and I both know that is the time when his
question will be answered.
* * *
AMATEUR SPORTS
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was asked a very pointed question that I would like to
ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What is the state of
amateur sports in Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the state of amateur sports today is so good with
the gold medals that we won on the weekend in downhill skiing,
speed skating and Canadian football, commonly known as soccer. We
are hoping that the state is even going to be better after 4
o'clock.
* * *
DRUGS
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ind. Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa.
Recently at a summit meeting in Washington, D.C. on the topic of
war against illegal drugs, it was noted that in Canada we lose
two people every three days to drug overdoses. What is the
government doing with its international counterparts to address
this serious situation which threatens the health of many young
Canadians?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the losses are far too great as
my colleague knows. However, we are highly regarded in the world
for having a balanced approach, namely, enforcement and
education, and then reduction. In this hemisphere we have the
lead in the development of the multilateral evaluation mechanism,
an initiative by 34 OAS countries which is reducing the pressure
in the drug control area.
Our Prime Minister and foreign minister initiated the foreign
ministers drug dialogue, which has had enormous success during
the past year in dealing with our neighbours in this hemisphere.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when it is convenient for the Prime Minister when he talks about
the APEC public complaints commission, he says that he has great
confidence in the commissioner. Well, the commissioner has told
the Prime Minister unequivocally in his judgment on Friday that
there will be a cloud of public suspicion if the Prime Minister
does not testify.
Why does he answer the question as to whether he is going to
testify by running behind a smokescreen and saying he does not
want to set a precedent? What does the Prime Minister have to
hide?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should read all of the report. I gave a
very good explanation.
The judge clearly said that there is no doubt at all in his mind
that I was needed for the inquiry and he said it would be nice if
I could be there. It might be nice, but for me the problem is
that the Prime Minister of Canada is responsible in the House of
Commons for everything he does, and I do it on a regular—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
February 9 Ottawa Citizen we read that two years ago the
Liberal member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke asked Human
Resources Development Canada to stop giving grants to the Ottawa
Valley Adjustment Committee and to launch an investigation into
its operations.
1500
We also read that approximately $100,000 was apparently used to
pay the rent, rather than create jobs.
Was the minister aware of this case when she said that there was
no problem with her department's management of funds?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this file is being reviewed with the
member of parliament. I can confirm that there has been a review
of the particular grant and to this point things are in order.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Jan
Carnogursky, Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During question period you ruled out
of order a question put forward by the member for Calgary
Northeast.
The question was in two parts. The first was about the
correlation between the grants given in certain ridings and
political donations and the correlation between the amount of
grants given in the HRD department. I had asked a similar
question earlier in question period which was not ruled out of
order.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would review the blues. I know you
have to rule in the middle of question period, but it does seem
to me that the question really is about grants and the
inappropriate use of grants in a minister's department, which is
within her departmental responsibility.
The Speaker: I always seek advice from the House and I
will review the blues if the hon. member wants me to do so. If
it is necessary, I will get back to the House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when we are trying to get ready for question period every day we
go by Beauchesne's as to what is parliamentary language and what
is not and by the new M and M standards.
I can appreciate that you try to referee this whole thing while
it is going on, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, if that kind
of spending and giving of government grants does not fall under
the administration of government then we do not have a clue what
does. We need to know that before—
The Speaker: Order, please. As I said, I will review the
blues. I am sure hon. members do put a lot of time, thought and
energy both into the questions and into preparation for the
answer. I have to make a call up here, as the hon. opposition
House leader has said. I will review the blues and if it is
necessary I will get back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
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 50 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
second report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs.
The report deals with correspondence between me as chair and the
auditor general involving questioning at the national defence
committee by my colleague, the hon. member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. The committee dealt with this issue
recently and is expressing some concern about the auditor
general's letter and the possibility that there could have been a
breach of the rights and privileges of my colleague from
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.
I present the report on behalf of the House and ask that the
Chair deal with it accordingly.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-442, an act to amend the Employment Insurance
Act (section 15).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill I am introducing today at
first reading will go through second and third reading faster
than some of the bills, just as relevant, that were introduced
by my colleagues.
It is aimed at correcting what are known as
short weeks, which penalize seasonal or casual workers when they
apply for EI benefits with respect to a given period of time
during the year.
As we know, about six out of ten unemployed workers do not
qualify for EI even though they have paid into the plan. If
passed, my bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act and
remedy the situation of thousands of low income workers who,
because they unfortunately work on a seasonal or casual basis,
have to show proof of the number of hours they worked or be
penalized in their income.
On behalf of these workers and their families, I would
appreciate prompt passage of this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(reimbursement of costs following a free pardon).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with a totally different
topic. Unfortunately sometimes, luckily not too often, Canadian
citizens are victims of judicial errors.
One of my constituents, Michel Dumas—I can name him because he
allowed me to do so—was the victim of a judicial error. He spent
many years in jail and today he is probably going to be granted
a pardon under section 690.
1510
In introducing this bill to amend the Criminal Code, we are only
asking that, in the very rare occasions—is it necessary to
emphasize how seldom it happens—where an individual is convicted
and then pardoned pursuant to section 690 of the Criminal Code,
100% of the compensation goes to the victim of the judicial
error.
Unfortunately, it happens much too often that part of the
compensation money serves to pay legal fees. We believe, as do
the victims of judicial errors, that this is unfair.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(judicial review).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the last parliament I introduced a
similar bill which had the effect of repealing section 745 of the
criminal code. As hon. members know, that section allows
convicted killers, in particular those convicted of first and
second degree murder, to have their parole ineligibility dates
reduced.
The bill received the consent of parliament at second reading in
the last parliament. In light of the fact that parliament has
already adopted the bill at second reading, I ask that you seek
unanimous consent of the House to have this bill sent directly to
the justice committee.
The Deputy Speaker: We will deal with that later.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask that you seek unanimous consent of the House
to have the bill I just introduced referred directly to committee
and deemed to have been passed at second reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Is their unanimous consent to treat
the bill in the fashion outlined?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-445, an act to change the name of the electoral
district of Rimouski—Mitis.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I must introduce this bill because last
year the government introduced another bill that permitted the
members who wanted to change the name of their riding to do so.
Further to public consultation, two town hall meetings, a
resolution from my executive and from the members' general
assembly, plus a public meeting of a few mayors and aldermen of
the Mitis, Mr. Fiola, mayor of Mont-Joli and Mr. Tremblay, mayor
of Rimouski, two Liberal supporters, contacted the great
democrat who serves as Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons to ask him to block the bill supported by all the
Canadian members of parliament who wanted to change the name of
their electoral district. What they requested was agreed to. It
was done on behalf of two Liberals who acted on their own.
At the public's request, I would like my constituency to be called
La Mitis-et-Rimouski-Neigette. It is easy to understand why those
two mayors would rather call it Rimouski et Mont-Joli, after
their own municipalities.
Some democracy.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-446, an act to amend the Employment
Insurance Act (insurable employment).
1515
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill whose
objective is to correct a serious injustice affecting a great
majority of students.
This bill aims at allowing full time students at secondary,
college and university levels to decide whether or not they want
to pay employment insurance premiums.
Many of these students do not work enough hours to qualify for
the program. Thus, they pay premiums for nothing because they
cannot get the benefits they would normally be entitled to if
the system were based the number of weeks, instead of the number
of hours of work.
Through this bill, students would be able to pay premiums if
they considered it necessary to do so, or not to pay them if
they thought they would not work enough hours to qualify. In
this way, we would not deprive students who are able to get
enough hours of work from being entitled to the benefits of the
system.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-447, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(false documents, etc. respecting a franchise).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I also introduce a bill whose purpose is
to amend the Criminal Code in order to protect persons from
purchasing a franchise about which material facts have been
falsified or not divulged.
To that end, this bill makes it a criminal offence to induce a
person to purchase a franchise by circulating false material
information about the franchise or by deliberately omitting to
give the person material information about the franchise.
This bill is aimed at striking a balance in the relations
between the franchisees and the franchisers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. First
of all, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that my
colleague, the hon. member for Québec, had informed the table
that she would be introducing a motion today. Perhaps you did
not see her, but she was rising when you called for motions, and
then you immediately moved on to petitions.
I ask you to recognize her, as is her right as a member of
parliament.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not see anyone rise when I called for
motions. I am sorry, I looked, but I did not see anyone.
If the hon. member for Québec has a motion, I will hear her.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I think the moral of the
story is that one must rise before the Speaker—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to move a motion
on the notice paper?
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I will put the motion to the House.
* * *
1520
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I move that
the First Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities,
presented on Wednesday, December 15, 1999, be concurred in.
Today it is important to debate this motion because it deals
with children and with all the measures that should be taken by
the government on their behalf. It also deals with child poverty
in society.
The committee was mandated to deal with child poverty and youth
at risk and reviewed the issue of children in Canada. During the
last decade, the Liberal government neglected its
responsibilities in this regard. The past 10 years can be summed
up as a missed opportunity. The report of this committee is a
perfect example, because it never mentions any of the various
changes that should have been included in the government
strategy.
This committee submitted three reports.
Members of the opposition, including the members of the Bloc,
tabled a minority report, because those three reports do not
fully explore the issue and do not explain all the elements that
cause poverty and the lack of nurturing of children.
On December 14, 1999, the Bloc Quebecois presented a minority
report on the government's policies on children. Throughout the
report proposed by the Liberal Party, it was clear that the
federal government wanted to take the lead in a area not under
its jurisdiction, according to the constitution. It should
avoid a repetition of past mistakes and it should would with the
provinces and provide fair financial support to them, as they
really need it. This is the first conclusion that the Bloc
reached.
Several personalities from Quebec and Canada want the social
transfer reinstated at $18 billion and want to see an end to the
cuts made since 1993. As of today, cuts to the social transfer
stand at $21 billion. Last week, the Association des médecins
requested that the social transfer be given back to provinces.
The provinces have less money. They must meet some urgent needs
but do not have the money required to respond to people and to
parents. When we speak about the problems of children, we must
say that it is the parents' responsibility to guide their
children on to adult life.
In the first report, it was obvious that the Liberals wanted to
invade some provincial jurisdictions. We also see that there is
a tendency towards program homogenisation.
Homogenisation means no flexibility to adapt the programs to
different realities in different provinces and to the
willingness of different provinces to help the children.
I am now on a tour to look at poverty, and community groups,
which are very close to the children and to families with urgent
needs, often tell us that there is not one solution but several
solutions and there should not be only one measure but several
measures. The across the board programs of the Canadian
government are seldom applicable to our communities.
Every federal approach was harmful in terms of synergy and
logical integration of government action.
1525
Another thing we noted was that the report tabled in December
1999 put the emphasis on a national action plan or an integrated
federal policy, with no room for flexibility for the provinces.
An integrated social policy must come from the provinces, not
from Ottawa, in my opinion.
Ottawa is there to financially support certain policies, not to
implement programs that often interfere with provincial
programs. The integration of a federal program with those of the
provinces is a complex accounting operation.
The report on children and youth at risk said that existing
financing channels were deficient. We wanted to use other
financing channels. We could also see that, often, the federal
government announces policies for children that will be
applicable only in two or three years, or just before an
election, or according to some part of the Liberal government's
political strategy.
In order to fight effectively against poverty and help our
children better, I believe we must have a long term strategy
instead of a fragmented one that is dependant upon the good will
of the government. We have seen this in the past and we are
seeing it again with the scandal at HRDC, which shows how poor
the government's performance is.
It is a performance characterized by a lack of transparency,
where the taxpayers' money is being used for completely partisan
projects and not to help communities, parents and children have
access to a better quality of life.
I want to come back to the Canada health and social transfer
because I think it is of the utmost importance for provinces, to
help them meet children's needs adequately. What does the Canada
health and social transfer do? It helps provinces better meet
the needs of families in education, health services and income
security.
In Quebec in particular, we know that a march will be organized
in October 2000, where the people will ask the Government of
Quebec to take social and political measures that will be more
humane, better focused on the problem of poverty.
To help those families, those parents, the federal government
must first fulfil its responsibilities under the Canada social
transfer.
The present situation does not make sense. Since 1993, there has
been $21 billion in cuts. This is a lot of money. I will give an
idea of what could be done with $21 billion. It could be used to
hire 3,000 physicians, 5,000 teachers, 5,800 nurses. It would
also allow to increase each and every income security cheque by
$500. This is how it would affect the everyday life of each
citizen. They would get better support.
Last week, I read a newspaper article about the shortage of
assistants, counsellors and psychologists in schools. The only
way to access those resources is to provide better and more
stable support from the Canada social transfer, which finances
education, health and income security.
In the committee dealing with the issue of children and youth at
risk, it did not seem to bother them in the least. There was no
call for the government to restore the Canada social transfer,
to provide better support and help to children and families.
1530
Another aspect that was completely ignored as a means of better
supporting children was the issue of the restrictions applying
to unemployment insurance. The access issue was not raised in
committee, despite the fact that a huge number of families are
subject to such restrictions and that six out of every ten
persons are currently ineligible for employment insurance
benefits.
If I understand correctly, employment insurance should allow
fathers and mothers to obtain money that is owed to them, money
that could help them to feed their children and help them to
have a better life.
All this was ignored by the committee.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development rejected
out of hand any study of this new reform on the quality of life
in our society.
The committee never raised the issue of social housing either.
We know that a child living in poverty is also a member of a
family that has to spend between 30 and 50% of its meagre income
on housing. It is clear then that the committee on children and
youth at risk does not really deal with the various measures the
government should put forward to really help children and youth
at risk.
I am a concerned about the advice the Liberal government will
receive from the committee. I know that the government often
brags about the new national child benefit, which, by the way,
is a good measure. However, I believe that the government will
have to implement a whole series of measures to support children
and not just one single measure.
Since 1993, we have been in a major social deficit. What is
going on now is totally absurd; society as a whole has been
crippled by the federal government cuts. Families, especially
poor families, are the ones who are suffering.
What I can say, following the tour I did on the issue of
poverty—I had brought with me a working paper on the federal
investment, or disinvestment, in social policies in terms of
financing in conjunction with the provinces—is how much that had
a negative impact in the communities. They told me that now they
understand the impact the federal government is having on the
increase in child poverty. That impact can be seen every day.
Therefore it is totally unacceptable that, in the committee, no
figure has been put on measures so that we can have a real
strategy.
In 1989, maybe the intentions were good. Every member of the
House had signed a resolution saying that child poverty would
have decreased within ten years. What happened? We had a sad
anniversary on November 24, 1999.
That is not very long ago, just before the Christmas season. It
was a sad anniversary because it was announced that there were
1.5 million children living in poverty in Canada, an increase of
500,000. This is the result of ten years of social
disinvestment. Ten years that, under the Liberal administration,
have been catastrophic.
In the committee on children and youth at risk, there might be a
concern, which is to have and create new programs and duplicate
what is already being done in the provinces. There is no vision
of what some provinces have already put in place. There is no
figure put on that strategy, and that is dangerous. Ten years
from now, will we find ourselves with a problem that we will
deplore as members of parliament?
1535
I find it unacceptable that a committee given the mandate to
study children at risk did not show a willingness to remedy the
cuts in social programs or put an end to this vicious
centralization. In fact, we heard in committee how centralizing
the government party was. According to some federalists, this is
not what federalism is all about.
Instead of being of assistance to the provinces, helping them
with their initiatives, what is being done with regard to $5-a-day
day care? Not a word, but the government is pocketing $70
million.
I believe it is time the government understood that Ottawa's
action hampers Quebec's initiatives. It hampers local
communities' initiatives. Sometimes we hear in the corridors
that it is unconscionable that one might even think about
establishing new programs. Do you know what some ministers tell
us? They say “Communities are asking us to get involved. We want
to get involved”.
I tell them there is a difference between involvement and
investment. To invest is to give back to the provinces the money
they are entitled to. To invest is to respect the provinces'
areas of jurisdiction. To invest is to decentralize and allow
the provinces to better help communities and understand what
they are doing.
I know the federal government would like to go over the heads of
the provinces, it is obvious.
I understand why the Quebec government wants to lump several
initiatives into one family policy, namely to better help
children. It needs room to manoeuvre in its budget.
If the federal government really wants to, the Quebec government
will be better able to help children and their families.
In conclusion, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, I must inform the hon. member
that her second motion is out of order, because she cannot
adjourn her own debate. Having moved the main motion, she cannot
move that the debate be adjourned.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On Friday, I put in an application for an emergency debate
regarding three Canadian children who are being held by the state
of California. They are facing a possible hearing for adoption
which is illegal and a violation of international protocol. They
ought to be returned to Canadian authorities.
As I was not able to make my application on Friday because of
procedural obstacles, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the
House to have that application heard today.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member to present his application for an emergency debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I would seek a
ruling from you.
1540
Standing Order 52 states that I must bring the matter up after
Routine Proceedings but I was not allowed to do that on Friday.
Since I was not allowed to do that, it stands to reason that my
application would carry over to the next sitting day. This is
common sense because all our rules in the House follow that
logic. When votes are deferred they are held over to the next
sitting day, even if it is months later, and so are motions.
There is no reason why an application for an emergency debate
should not be dealt with in the same way instead of being
arbitrarily deleted. It cannot just disappear into thin air.
The Deputy Speaker: With great respect to the hon.
member, they can disappear into thin air. Applications for
emergency debate are by their nature for emergencies. What may
be an emergency on Friday may not be an emergency on Monday.
Those applications traditionally have had to be resubmitted. If
a member wishes to make the application a second time, another
request for such an application must be made to the table and
delivered on a timely basis in writing in order to comply with
the rules.
I know the hon. member is frustrated by the fact that we have
not completed Routine Proceedings either on Friday or today, but
sometimes this place works in strange ways and this is one of
those days.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I respect your decision.
However, I have one other matter.
I seem to be the victim of a procedural quagmire. This is
unrelated, but when I introduced my private member's bill, Bill
C-436, the Speaker said that it would be read a second time on
Thursday, February 24. I have reviewed the order paper for that
day numerous times and it is not listed in the order of
precedence.
I simply seek unanimous consent that Bill C-436 be placed
immediately on the order of precedence.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that Bill
C-436 be placed on the order of precedence?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the members comments on the subcommittee report of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on the Status
of Persons with Disabilities, she raised the question of EI
benefits and particularly made a point that six out of ten
persons are restricted from qualifying for benefits or do not
receive benefits.
It appears to me that this includes a large number of people who
in fact do not technically qualify under the provisions of the EI
Act. I wonder if the member would qualify for the House, of
these six out of ten people who do not get benefits under the EI
program, how many of those persons do not even qualify for
benefits?
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the government tightened
the eligibility criteria. The problem is that these criteria are
very difficult to meet. To be eligible, more hours of work are
required. This is the first thing we noticed. Given the
$26 billion surplus it has accumulated in the EI fund and what it
has done to tighten the eligibility criteria, the government has
nothing to brag about.
Let us look at where the money came from. It was taken from the
support that could previously be given to parents to help them
raise their children. I cannot understand why the government
member would ask me this question.
He knows very well that six people out of ten are not entitled
to employment insurance benefits because the criteria have been
greatly tightened and it is now very difficult to qualify.
Indeed, I wonder why it is called employment insurance, because
it is no longer an insurance, according to workers who have lost
their jobs, since no assistance is available after losing one's
job until another one is found.
My colleague and several other members have proposed a series of
changes to be made to the department. For example, the
Employment Insurance Act could be improved by eliminating the
two week waiting period before becoming eligible to EI benefits.
The so-called black hole of spring could be remedied.
1545
People are no longer able to accumulate the number of hours
required to get EI benefits until they start a new job. This is
particularly true for seasonal workers.
One of my colleagues represents the Gaspé region, where seasonal
workers in the fishing industry have a hard time qualifying for
employment insurance until they can start their seasonal jobs
again. This is also the case with forest workers in the riding
of Matapédia—Matane, who are confronted to the same kind of
problem.
We have been very vigilant with respect to the relaxing of
eligibility criteria.
It is also very difficult to qualify for parental insurance,
particularly for women who work part time. They are required to
accumulate inordinate hours of work to be eligible.
We in the Bloc Quebecois were calling for a reduction in the
number of hours worked to qualify for parental leave, asking
that it be reduced to 300 hours. We wanted to reduce the
eligibility requirement from the present 700 hours to 300 hours.
Too many people are excluded under the present criteria.
There is also a problem with employment insurance, and with the
POWA program as well. We all know that this program does not do
anything for the workers over 55 years of age because of a lack
of funding.
We all saw how, over the years, this government has reduced the
workers' share.
It is no wonder that people are getting poorer by the day. It
comes from the restraints on social policies and the lack of
support from this government.
I remember the remarks of a minister opposite, saying “When the
provincial governments are forced to cut back and to turn down
requests of citizens, we will show Canadians that, with our
social safety net, we in the federal government are able to meet
their urgent needs”.
They can brag about health care programs and programs for the
homeless, but we all know that it amounts to a drop in the
bucket compared to the money taken from the provinces.
I would like to conclude by saying that I am expecting questions
from colleagues.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
heard a little sigh of exasperation, as if I were using up too
much time of the House. Please bear with me, because this was an
excellent speech. I am sure all the members of the House will
want to thank this noble-hearted woman and pay a glowing tribute
to our colleague from Quebec.
We have seldom seen in Parliament a woman so totally dedicated
to the cause of the poor. We know there is no stopping the hon.
member for Québec once she has started off in a direction.
I would like to ask her a question in three parts. Since the
hon. member for Québec is a practical woman, who has always
sought concrete solutions to the problem of poverty, drawing her
inspiration from the judicious advise of my friend, the hon.
member for Chambly, I will ask her the following questions.
Can she tell us how a commissioner of poverty—since this is an
issue that she is taking to heart—could make a difference?
Then, could she tell us how greater involvement from the banks,
through community reinvestment legislation, could make a
difference for the poor?
Given that I know she has worked on this issue, how could making
social condition a prohibited ground of discrimination—not sexual
orientation, but social condition—make a difference if it were
included in the Canadian Human Rights Act?
I suggest that she take her time, answer the questions one by
one and think hard. We will be happy to listen to her.
1550
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I think I would need your
permission to go on for another 20 minutes to answer these three
questions.
I believe a poverty commissioner is a valid request and a
desirable measure. We know that in 1989, all members in this
House unanimously expressed the desire to see a reduction in
child poverty. Unfortunately, the number of children in poverty
went up instead of down. Right now, we hear about the scandal
with the way grants are distributed and the programs approved at
the Department of Human Resources Development and it raises
questions about government management.
What I am asking for, for better effectiveness in the
application of programs and in their impact on communities, is
for a poverty commissioner. He could keep track of successive
governments—right now we have a Liberal government but there
could be another government—to know how the big bureaucratic
machine implements the measures adopted by the government.
We know that some measures taken by the government do not have
the desired impact on society. We need only look at the scandal
at the Department of Human Resources Development. However, the
same party was at the heart of another scandal in 1984. At that
time, there was an R and D tax credit for companies. In the end,
many billions went because of money given to numbered companies.
Companies were disappearing, but some of them had never done any
research and development.
A real poverty commissioner could track all the policies of the
federal government on poverty. This afternoon, we will hear a
budget speech. There will probably be applause. But we should
track every measure the government will implement this afternoon
to see if this speech will really contribute to reducing
poverty.
Today, every member of the Bloc Quebecois is wearing a heart at
the request of associations in our constituencies, which want
the Canada health and social transfer to be restored to the
provinces, the unemployedto get—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon.
member, since her time has expired. The hon. member for
Mississauga South.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure on this budget day to comment on the report of the
Sub-committee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities. I am particularly pleased to discuss
this report because of its impact on families and children. The
report has laid out some excellent observations for members of
the committee and for all members of parliament to consider and I
would like to note four of them.
Under the public policy framework the committee suggests that to
address the situation facing children and youth at risk
governments must make a firm five-year fiscal commitment to
develop an integrated public policy framework for families and
children. We have certainly commenced on that road and the
recommendation that we continue with a comprehensive five-year
fiscal program for families and children is very appropriate and
is supported by all members of the House.
In the area of income and services there is strong agreement
that there should be two simultaneous tracks to deal with
families and children, one which focuses on income support for
families and one which focuses on services for families and
children.
The committee also pointed out the need to make some
modifications to the income tax system. Members will know that
this is an area in which I have had substantial activity. Some
of my private member's bills and motions have dealt with things
like the Canada child tax benefit, the child care expense
deduction and the caregiver credit. Motion No. 30, which passed
in this place in the last parliament, would provide a caregiver
benefit to those who provide care in the home to preschool
children, the chronically ill, the aged and the disabled. I
think these are important areas for us to look at.
The fourth area that I would like to note is that the committee
felt an immediate $1.5 billion improvement to the national child
benefit was important and should be extended to low income
families, including those on social assistance.
As part of the work I have done with regard to families,
particularly those who are on social assistance, it is very
obvious to all that it is very difficult financially for
Canadians who are on welfare to make the transition to the
workforce.
1555
The benefits which people on social assistance and welfare
receive are often not available to those who leave welfare to go
into the paid labour force. We can take medical or dental
expenses as an example. There are certainly a number of social
assistance features which are not available. That was one of the
reasons the national child benefit, which is part of the overall
program of the Canada child tax benefit system, was introduced.
It was introduced in conjunction with the provinces, and the
understanding clearly was that the provinces were in a position
to decide whether they were going to reduce the transfers to
people on the overall child tax benefit and the national child
benefit for those who were on welfare.
The whole idea of the national child benefit program was to help
people to make the transition from welfare and social assistance
to the paid labour force. I raise that point for discussion with
the House. It is important that we understand that where
unemployment is very high and the prospect of new jobs in the
near term for people on welfare and social assistance is much
lower in some provinces, as a result, in two cases, the provinces
decided they would not offset the transfer from the federal
government against the welfare payments and in fact give the
additional amounts.
Those are provincial decisions. Those were part of the
negotiations of the federal government with the provinces to
ensure that the right things happen.
The member from the Bloc Quebecois raised a couple of issues
which bear some comment. First, she commented with regard to the
CHST, the Canada health and social transfer. She basically
claimed that the cuts in the CHST have to be restored. The
member will well know that the Prime Minister outlined for the
House several times last week that today the combination of cash
and tax point transfers to the provinces is greater than it was
in 1993. That is an important point.
Canadians have to understand that the federal government has
given the authority to the provinces to collect taxes. As their
economies grow, the amount of tax revenue which they collect on
that growing economy also means that the provinces will get
additional revenues. The combination of cash transfers and tax
points is the important element.
The member also talked about social housing and homelessness.
She will well know that this is not a simple problem. One aspect
of this has to do with children. Of the homeless recognized in
the Anne Golden report in Toronto, 28% of the homeless were
youth. Of those, 70% had experienced physical or sexual abuse
while they were in the family home.
It is important to understand that social housing and
homelessness are separate issues.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor when we
take up this debate again, whenever that is, and he will have 14
minutes.
1600
It being 4 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration
of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 5 concerning the budget
presentation.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the budget documents,
including notices of ways and means motions. The details of the
measures are contained in the documents. I am asking that an
order of the day be designated for consideration of these
motions.
I am also announcing that the government will, at the earliest
opportunity, be introducing bills to implement the measures
announced in this budget.
Before I begin, I want to express the Government's appreciation
to the Standing Committee on Finance and the many committees of
caucus for their invaluable contributions in the lead-up to this
budget.
Most importantly, on behalf of this parliament, I want to thank
Canadians from all walks of life and all parts of the country who
shared their ideas and insights with us.
The experience of the last few years has confirmed beyond a
doubt that an open budget process is a better budget process.
[English]
Throughout our country's history each generation has undertaken
the great task of building Canada. Today, at the dawn of a new
century, we are fortunate indeed to live in a land of promise, in
a world of change and in a time of opportunity. Are there
problems? Yes, there are and there is much to be done. That
being said, we are in a better position today to chart our own
course than we have been in many a decade.
Canada's economic growth is among the strongest of the G-7
countries. The size of our economy will surpass the trillion
dollar mark this year. The deficit is a matter of history.
Indeed today we project the third, fourth and fifth balanced
budgets in a row, something that has not been done in over half a
century.
Inflation remains in check. The government debt burden is
declining. Canada's foreign debt burden is declining. Consumer
and business confidence are at near record levels. Most
important, after a number of difficult years these positive
economic indicators are now beginning to be reflected in the
lives of Canadians.
In 1999 there were more than 425,000 new jobs created in Canada,
a pace unmatched by any other G-7 country.
As a result our unemployment rate now stands at 6.8%, its lowest
level in nearly a quarter of a century.
1605
In the early and mid-1990s Canadians saw their real after tax
income shrink. Three years ago that trend began to turn around.
Based on the information that is just out today, disposable
incomes are now some 4% higher than they were in 1996 and, of
even greater moment, private sector forecasters project that
incomes will rise much more significantly in the years ahead.
This is clearly good news. However, while the progress of
recent years is a record on which Canadians can be proud to
stand, it is not a record on which we are prepared to rest.
Canadians do not want to dwell on the past. They want to focus
on the future, and indeed that is the message of this budget.
In 1993 we established a plan to eliminate the deficit, turn our
economy around and create new jobs. That plan has worked. Now,
two months into the year 2000, we must take Canada further. We
must create a greater prosperity and see to it that the benefits
of that prosperity are shared widely.
Our challenge now is to build on our new-found strength.
Canadians know that this is the time to act. They know that
globalization and the rush of technology will not wait for us.
Nor will these forces pause for us to prepare. The challenges
are here and the opportunities are now.
[Translation]
In last fall's fiscal update, we asked ourselves three
fundamental questions:
First, what will it take to secure our position as a leader in
the new economy?
Second, how can we provide every Canadian with an equal
opportunity to succeed?
And third, how can we ensure the best quality of life for all
Canadians, not simply a fortunate few?
In this budget, we outline our response to those questions.
First, we will continue to provide sound fiscal management.
There will be no slipping, no sliding: the days of deficit are
gone and they are not coming back.
Second, we will lower taxes to promote economic growth and to
leave more money where it belongs—in the pockets of Canadians.
As we said last November, Canadians are entitled to keep more of
the money they earn. After all, they worked for it. It's theirs.
Third, in order to ensure equality of opportunity, we will
invest in providing Canadians with the skills and knowledge they
need to get the jobs they want.
And fourth, together we will build an economy based on
innovation. For that, ultimately, is the only means by which a
modern nation can control its future.
[English]
These four elements speak to our economic framework, but our
plan must do more than that. It must reflect not only the value
of our economy but also the values of our society. The success
that we have achieved as a nation has come not only from strong
growth but from an abiding commitment to strong values: caring,
compassion and insistence that there be an equitable sharing of
the benefits of economic growth. These are the bedrock of our
nation and they must be the cornerstone of our plan.
For this reason the first announcement of the first budget of
the 21st century is that we will increase funding for
post-secondary education and health care.
These are the highest priorities of Canadians and they are ours.
1610
We have already acted three times to strengthen the cash
transfers to the provinces through the Canadian health and social
transfer. Indeed last year for health care alone we made the
single largest investment in this government's history. At that
time we also said we would do more as resources permit, and we
will. Today we are making good on that commitment. We are
announcing the transfer of a further $2.5 billion to the
provinces to use over four years for post-secondary education and
health care.
Furthermore, to meet pressing needs in our universities, our
colleges and our hospitals, the provinces will have the
flexibility to draw upon this new cash sooner should they choose
to do so.
[Translation]
We have already acted three times to strengthen the cash
transfers to the provinces through the Canada Health and Social
Transfer (CHST).
Today, we are announcing the transfer of a further $2.5 billion
to the provinces to use over four years for post-secondary
education and health care.
Furthermore, to meet pressing needs in our universities,
colleges and hospitals, the provinces will have the flexibility
to draw upon this new cash sooner—should they choose to do so.
As a result of this and last year's budgets, the cash component
of the CHST will rise from the 1998-1999 level of $12.5 billion
to $15.5 billion next year—an increase of almost 25% over just
two years.
Therefore, the total annual support provided through the CHST—tax
points and cash—will reach close to $31 billion next year—an
all-time high.
We had guaranteed the provinces stable and growing funding for
health care and post-secondary education. Today, that is what we
are continuing to do. Nor is that the end of the story.
Equalization payments to the provinces will be $500 million
higher this year than projected in last year's budget.
As a result, equalization transfers as well are now at an
all-time high. This means more money for less prosperous
provinces for health care, education and other programs.
Mr. Speaker, let me now turn to our plan for building a stronger
economy. Prior to the fall update, we consulted with a number
of economists from Canada's major chartered banks and four major
forecasting firms.
This invited a national debate on our longer-term objectives—a
debate based on a series of projections about the size of the
budget surplus for each of the next five years. These
projections were sound. But we also know, especially for the
later years, that they are just that—projections. They are bets
on the future, not money in the bank.
Therefore, while we must always set longer-term objectives, we
will continue to make decisions only on a rolling two-year basis.
We will also continue to build additional prudence into our
planning and to set aside a $3-billion Contingency Reserve to
protect against unforeseen events.
1615
Let there be no doubt, this government will not repeat the
mistakes of others and spend money we might not have, or raise
expectations we cannot meet.
Nor will we abandon the balanced approach we have adopted from
the beginning—an approach which recognizes that debt reduction,
tax relief and spending on health, post-secondary education and
other key priorities are not competing claims, but complementary
components of a fair and effective plan.
[English]
Let me now turn to the debt. Canada has not just eliminated its
deficit. We are one of the few countries that is now reducing
the absolute amount of its debt and we will continue to do so.
Indeed over the past two years we have paid down the debt by more
than $6 billion resulting in interest savings of more than $300
million a year each and every year.
As well, market debt, the debt issued in financial markets has
fallen even further. By the end of this fiscal year we will have
reduced our market debt by close to $20 billion.
More importantly, Canada's debt to GDP ratio, which measures the
amount of the debt against the size of the economy, has improved
markedly; the lower the ratio the more manageable the debt. In
1995 Canada's debt ratio was 71%. Today it has dropped by 10
percentage points and it should fall below 50% by the year 2004.
Beyond this the downward track must continue. We are still a long
way from the 25% ratio Canada enjoyed in the late 1960s, the last
time our books were in the black.
Economic growth has played an important role in Canada's falling
debt ratio. So has controlling government spending. We have
previously pointed out that federal government spending as a
percentage of our gross domestic product is at its lowest level
in over 50 years. The fact is that even after taking into
account the measures to be outlined in this budget, program
spending next year will be $4 billion lower than it was when we
took office in 1993.
Let there be no doubt, we will control spending. For instance,
beginning with the time we balanced the books and looking ahead
to the year 2001-02, growth in program spending is projected to
be in line with inflation plus population growth, the standard
that is used by most economic commentators. Having said that,
the standard of living that we enjoy as a country does not come
free. For instance, fully two-thirds of all of the new spending
measures since we eliminated the deficit have been in the areas
of health care, post-secondary education and innovation.
Furthermore there are other fields where the government must
take action, areas where we have fundamental responsibilities at
home and essential obligations abroad. The crisis faced by farm
families in communities across the country is real and better
short and long term solutions are required. The RCMP faces new
challenges in the area of organized crime and international
terrorism. The demands upon our military whose men and women
contribute so much at home and abroad are increasing. Within our
borders we must strengthen our immigration system. Beyond our
borders we have an obligation to help the poorest of the world's
poor. In each of these areas we are providing additional funding.
1620
Let me now turn from the responsibilities of the present to the
opportunities of the future. Let us address the new economy. At
this the beginning of the 21st century, we have a unique chance
to take hold of our destiny. The basic question we have to
answer is what are the choices that we must make today that in
five, ten or twenty years time will be seen as having made a
critical difference in making Canada the land of opportunity?
Powered by the information revolution and a cascade of new
technologies, distance is disappearing, borders are collapsing
and the world once divided is now connected as never before.
Microprocessors and microchips, satellites, fibre optics and the
Internet are changing the way we live. They are changing the way
we work. They are changing the way we communicate. The result
is the most significant economic transformation of our time.
Today the strength of a nation is measured not by the weapons it
wields, but by the patents it produces; not by the territory it
controls, but by the ideas it advances; not only by the wealth of
its resources, but by the resourcefulness of its people. In such
a world, successful nations will only be those that foster a
culture of innovation. There will be those that create new
knowledge and bring the product of that knowledge quickly to
market.
Our goal as a nation must be to lead the way. Our goal must be
to inspire a spirit of entrepreneurship, one that asks our people
to reach higher, to look farther, and one that encourages us to
see the world as our market, but Canada as the place to live.
As a country we are well placed, far better than most, to seize
the opportunities of the 21st century. But there is nothing
inevitable about our progress. If we are to capitalize on the
opportunities of the new economy, then both the private and the
public sectors have their roles to play.
The private sector must change its concept of risk. It must
improve access to capital. It must give greater priority to
start up companies. It must exploit the full potential of new
technologies, like the Internet, to capture markets in every
corner of the globe. Government in turn must reduce the
regulatory burden. It must help fill the gaps in an economy that
is increasingly moving from brick to click.
What must government do? It must equip Canadians to succeed.
That means an education system second to none; basic research,
the raw material of the new economy; secure social programs that
recognize that real progress is made by reaching for the top, not
racing to the bottom; and a tax system that is both fair and
competitive.
If we are to talk about a more innovative economy, we must begin
with people. Skills and knowledge join the ambitions of the
individual with the potential of the country. They are the
meeting place between social and economic policy, the best means
available to us to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
That is why in 1998 we introduced the Canadian opportunities
strategy, a multi-part plan to expand access to knowledge and to
skills. Last year built upon that foundation and today we build
further.
First, as we have already discussed, this budget increases
support to the provinces for post-secondary education by
increasing the cash available through the CHST.
Second, we will follow through on the commitment made in the
Speech from the Throne to create new 21st century chairs for
research excellence. These will be new research positions in
Canadian universities designed to attract the best researchers
from around the world and to retain the best from across Canada.
Half of these positions will be directed to Canada's leading
scientists and half to the very best of the next generation of
young Canadian researchers.
In October the Prime Minister said: “This investment will make
Canada a leader in the knowledge based economy and will truly
brand Canada as a country that values excellence and is committed
to success”. This initiative will help Canadian universities
not only to meet the opportunities and the standards that have
been set by others today, but to set new standards that others
will have to meet tomorrow.
To this end, this budget provides $900 million of funding over
five years for 2,000 new research chairs.
1625
Third, as Canadians, especially young Canadians, turn more and
more to the Internet as a source of information, it is important
that they see their own reflection, that they hear their own
stories. Therefore, in this budget we are providing the
necessary funding to enhance the presence of Canadian cultural
material on the Internet in both official languages.
Finally, scholarships are an important part of expanding access
to higher learning. Therefore, in order to ensure that more
students receive their full value, we are increasing the tax
exemption of scholarships and bursaries from its current level of
$500 to $3,000.
[Translation]
Research and development is the foundation for new products and
processes. It is what smart companies always do. It is what smart
countries must do.
Quite simply, we must ensure that within our borders we have a
research capacity that is constantly pushing forward the
frontiers of human knowledge.
In the 1997 budget, this government created the Canada
Foundation for Innovation (CFI).
To date, it has awarded $450 million to help post-secondary
institutions, research hospitals and not-for-profit organizations
to modernize their laboratories, their equipment and their
technologies.
Almost half of its funding has been directed at health research.
The CFI is one of the cornerstones of our plan to support the
new economy but if we do not act now, its funding will run out
within two years.
Therefore, in order to enable it to extend its awards into the
year 2005, this budget provides $900 million to the CFI, raising
the Government's total investment to $1.9 billion.
Because health research holds such potential to contribute not
only to the quantity of our knowledge, but also to the quality of
our lives, last year's budget announced the creation of the
Canadian institutes for health research, an initiative that will
transform the way research is done in this country.
Today, we take another important step.
Understanding how genes function opens the door to substantial
progress in advancing the treatment of cancer and other
life-threatening diseases.
Gene research will save the lives of many. It will enhance the
lives of still more. It will surely form the basis for many
advances in biotechnology, which many believe will be as
important in the new century as computer technology was in the
last.
For this reason, we are announcing today that we will commit
$160 million to create the Genome Canada project—with five
centres across the country, providing laboratory facilities for
researchers from universities, government and the private
sector.
1630
Canada is one of the world's leaders in the field of
biotechnology. However, we recognize that biotechnology, for all
its potential, also raises concerns.
Canadians want to know that we understand and can manage its
risks, that health, environmental and ethical limits will be
identified and respected.
Therefore, this budget will provide funding over the next three
years to ensure that as we receive the benefits of
biotechnology, we also have the ability to ensure its safety.
[English]
For Canadians of all ages, protecting the environment is not an
option, it is something we simply must do. It is a fundamental
value beyond debate, beyond discussion. For this reason, this
budget provides additional resources to further clean up the
Great Lakes, to ensure environmental enforcement, to protect
species at risk, to reduce organic pollutants in the north and to
provide development assistance to deal with greenhouse gas
emissions in developing countries.
Furthermore, we are announcing today that in order to preserve
national habitats and species we are cutting by half the capital
gains tax arising from the donation of ecologically sensitive
land.
In 1998 we, along with the other orders of government, NGOs and
the private sector, launched the process required to develop the
national climate change strategy. These consultations are
concluding and the strategy should be unveiled by the end of the
year.
However, within the context of a budget seeking to prepare our
economy for the 21st century, there are a number of things that
we can and must do now.
The unequivocal fact is that climate change, indeed the entire
environmental spectrum, will provide challenges, but for an
innovative economy it presents many more opportunities. Those
nations which demonstrate how to truly integrate environmental
and economic concerns will forge new tools. They will develop
new technologies that others will have to adopt. Tremendous
rewards await those nations that get there first and for those
that do it best.
Given the importance of natural resources to our country,
because of the severity of our climate, leadership in this area
of the new economy is not a matter of choice for Canada. Quite
simply, we must apply the same innovative thinking, the same
spirit of enterprise, the same technological ingenuity to
protecting and enhancing our environment as we have in becoming
world leaders in the field of telecommunications, transportation
and so many others. Technology is key, make no mistake.
If we are to successfully tackle climate change, to cut costs
and boost productivity and to transform ourselves into the world
leader in the fields of clean energy, then we have to employ
every bit of the skill and knowledge that we possess.
Accordingly, this budget takes a number of targeted actions.
First, we are announcing today the creation of a sustainable
development technology fund. This fund will foster innovation by
helping companies develop new technologies and bring them to
market in areas such as clean burning coal and new fuel cell
development.
Second, we are announcing that we will create the Canadian
foundation for climate and atmospheric sciences, a network of
institutes that will link researchers from across the country in
order to further our understanding of the impact of climate
change and air pollution on human health.
Third, the government is beginning to change its procurement
policy to move as much as possible to more environmentally
friendly energy stimulating market demand for green power.
1635
Fourth, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and la
Coalition pour la renouvellement des infrastructures du Québec
have worked on excellent proposals in the area of green
infrastructure. These allow us to extend the hand of friendship
to those in the front lines of a fight for a cleaner environment.
One of these proposals is a green municipal enabling fund to
help communities assess where their environmental needs are
greatest. The second is a revolving fund leveraging private
sector investment in areas such as waste management and water
conservation at the municipal level. This budget gives effect to
both proposals.
Finally, as we move to more fully integrate economic and
environmental policy, we must come to grips with the fact that
the current means of measuring progress are inadequate. Therefore
we are announcing today that the national round table on the
environment and the economy and Environment Canada, in
collaboration with Statistics Canada, will be provided funding
over the next three years to develop a set of indicators to
measure environmental performance in conjunction with economic
performance. In the years ahead these environmental indicators
could well have a greater impact on public policy than any other
single measure we might introduce.
When all these measures are taken together, this budget will
invest $700 million in environmental technologies and practices.
We are making this investment because protection of the
environment is a fundamental value of our country, but let us
understand as well it is also good economic policy. It is a key
element of our plan to build a more innovative economy. Make no
mistake, far from being a cost that we cannot afford,
environmental protection is an opportunity we cannot forgo.
There is another aspect of our plan that is of critical
importance. To succeed in the new economy we must ensure that it
takes root in every part of our country. This perspective was at
the heart of “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”, a report that was
prepared by our Atlantic caucus. Let me just say that we have
heard them loud and clear.
A similar point has been made by other members of our caucus in
a very different context. They point out that while we must
ensure that all provinces participate in the benefits of the new
economy, even within provinces there are major differences
between urban and rural communities. The concerns of rural
Canadians are those shared by all Canadians: quality health
care, the best education for their children, a good job. The
difference is that in the case of rural Canada, a hospital
closing, the school setback or the loss of a major employer
threatens the very life of the community. Therefore, we must
expand economic development in smaller communities right across
the country, north and south, east and west.
We also must recognize that in the years ahead all orders of
government have to come together as never before to broaden
opportunities right across the country.
As only one example of the kinds of things we must do, last week
we said that in addition to the moneys that were previously
announced to meet farm needs across the country, that we would
commit a further $240 million for farm families on the prairies.
This, combined with an additional $160 million from the concerned
provinces, provides an immediate relief package of $400 million.
[Translation]
We can also enhance opportunities across Canada by strengthening
the basic physical infrastructure which underpins so much of the
economic activity of both rural and urban Canada.
1640
Whether it is urban transit, a grain road on the prairies or the
highways of our country, the capacity to move people and goods
safely and efficiently is key to an innovative and productive
economy.
Affordable housing and green infrastructure are also essential
elements of a modern society. They are critical to meeting the
21st century needs of our municipalities.
To these ends, the government has announced that we will work
with other orders of government and, where applicable, the
private sector to reach agreement on a plan to improve
provincial and municipal infrastructure in cities and rural
communities across Canada.
We hope to have an agreement by the end of the year. For its
part, the federal government is prepared to commit $450 million
over the next two years and $550 million in each of the
following four years.
[English]
Having spoken about what it will take to succeed in the world of
tomorrow, let me now turn to the authors of that future: our
children. Let there be no doubt that assisting families is not
only the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do. An
important key to our children's success is the strength of the
communities in which they live. That is why the federal and
provincial governments agreed to develop a national children's
agenda, to expand the capacity of governments, voluntary
organizations and our communities to provide the services and the
support upon which so many of our families and their children
rely. This agenda is critical and it simply must be advanced.
As the next step, the Prime Minister invited all governments to
reach agreement by December of this year on an action plan for
early childhood development. Our objective is simple. Whether
it be further services or income support, all orders of
government must be prepared to do more for our children.
In the same respect, in the Speech from the Throne the
government committed itself to improving support for children by
extending maternity and parental benefits under the employment
insurance program from the current six months to one year. This
budget honours that commitment.
I would like to take this occasion to congratulate my colleague,
the Minister of Human Resources Development, for her tremendous
effort. These initiatives focus on the needs of children. They
deal with the services and the programs their families require.
However, let there be no doubt that one of the best things we can
do is to leave parents with more money at the end of each month
to invest in their children's well-being.
It was with this very much in mind that the government sought to
design its tax reduction plan. The principles underlying that
package are as follows.
1645
First, while tax reduction must benefit all Canadians, it must
primarily benefit those who need it the most: middle and low
income earners, especially families with children.
Second, broad based tax reductions should focus initially on
personal income taxes.
Third, our business tax system must be internationally
competitive.
Finally, broad based tax reductions should not be financed with
borrowed money.
In the 1997, 1998 and 1999 budgets we lowered the average
personal tax burden of Canadians by 10%. That is over $16
billion. Today, with surpluses projected for the coming years,
the time has come to do more. For this reason we are setting out
a five-year tax plan so that individuals, families, small
businesses and others will know for certain that their taxes will
fall this year, next year and in the years to come.
The plan we are presenting today provides real and significant
tax relief. It is anchored in two fundamental structural
changes.
First, Canadians know that taxes cannot start to come down in
earnest until they stop going up with inflation. Inflation
should not force lower income Canadians on to the tax rolls and
others into higher tax brackets. Nor should inflation erode the
real value of the Canada child tax benefit and the goods and
services tax credit. Nor should it erode the real value of the
age credit for Canadian seniors, nor the income level at which
old age security begins to be reduced. Therefore, we will make
the most important change to the Canadian tax system in more than
a decade. We will restore full indexation to the personal income
tax system immediately.
Second, it has been over 12 years since the actual tax rates of
Canadians have come down. In practical terms this has hit middle
income Canadians the hardest because the federal tax rate jumps
by 9 points, from 17% to 26%, as soon as someone's income reaches
$30,000. Therefore, over the next five years we will lower the
middle tax rate from 26% to 23%.
Most importantly, we are announcing that two-thirds of that
reduction, down to 24%, will go into effect on July 1st of this
year.
Reindexing the tax system and lowering tax rates will provide a
significant benefit for all Canadians, but as well we will go
further. Over the next five years we will increase the amounts
Canadians can receive tax free to at least $8,000 and we will
raise the income levels at which middle and upper tax rates begin
to apply to at least $35,000 and $70,000 respectively.
Furthermore, while these amounts provide significant relief,
they are only the start. In future budgets when we can do more,
we will.
[Translation]
We will make the most important change to the Canadian tax
system in more than a decade. We will restore full indexation to
the personal income tax system and we will do so immediately.
1650
Second, it has been over 12 years since the actual tax rates of
Canadians have come down.
In practical terms, this has hit middle-income earners the
hardest, because the federal tax rate jumps by 9 points—from 17%
to 26%—as soon as someone's income reaches $30,000.
Therefore, over the next five years, we will lower the middle
tax rate from 26% to 23%.
Most importantly, we are announcing today that two-thirds of that
reduction—down to 24%—will go into effect on July 1 of this year.
Re-indexing the tax system and lowering tax rates will provide a
significant benefit for all Canadians but as well, we will go
further.
Over the next five years, we will increase the amounts Canadians
can receive tax-free to at least $8,000 and we will raise the
income levels at which middle and upper tax rates begin to apply
to at least $35,000 and $70,000 respectively.
These amounts will provide significant relief but they are only
the start. In future budgets, when we can do more, we will.
These structural changes mean substantial tax relief for all
Canadians.
For families, we are doing more.
I hardly need to remind this House that the cost of raising
children is a significant expense.
Ask any parent about the price of new shoes, or snowsuits. Ask
any parent whose child plays sports or takes music lessons. Ask
any parent trying to save for their child's education.
The purpose of the Canada child tax benefit, the CCTB, is to help
with these costs.
In July 2000 the maximum payment for a family's first child will
rise to $1,975, a level at which it was to remain in 2001 and
subsequent years.
[English]
The cost of raising children is substantial. Therefore, we are
announcing today that the Canada child tax benefit, which is to
be increased this July, will be further increased next July to
$2,265 and to $2,400 over the next five years. Amounts for each
additional child will keep pace with these increases. Most
significantly, nine out of ten Canadian children will benefit
from these improvements.
[Translation]
At the present time, the Canada child tax benefit is of greatest
value to lower income Canadians. The measures we are introducing
today will add to that benefit while extending it more fully for
middle-income families.
For example, a single mother earning $25,000, with one child,
will see her benefits increase by 22% by 2004.
A typical family with two children, earning $60,000, will
receive $200 in additional benefits in 2001. By the fifth year,
their benefit will more than double—from $733 to $1,541.
1655
[English]
The challenges of raising a family are compounded when a child
has a disability. In some of these cases full time home care by
a parent is necessary. Therefore, we will assist these families
by increasing the disability tax credit by up to $500 per year.
In addition, for families with disabled children we will
increase the maximum annual child care expense deduction from
$7,000 to $10,000.
We will also introduce a number of other tax measures to further
assist persons with disabilities. We will make permanent the
opportunities fund, a pilot project to assist persons with
disabilities prepare for, obtain and keep employment.
[Translation]
Our government inherited three major legacies in the area of
income tax which had been introduced to help reduce the deficit.
In 1999 we eliminated the 3% surtax.
This budget restores indexation of the personal income tax
system.
Today we are also committing to eliminate the last of these
legacies.
Effective this July we will eliminate the surtax for
middle-income Canadians on earnings up to $85,000. Over the next
five years we will eliminate it altogether.
Since 1994 employment insurance rates have been reduced each and
every year from $3.07 to $2.40. In the future, these rates will
keep coming down to the point where they cover just the costs of
the EI program itself. For planning purposes, we have assumed
that they will fall to $2.00 in 2004.
Adequate incomes in retirement are a critical requirement for
any society. Diversification of registered retirement savings
plans and registered pension plans, in turn, is an important
part of ensuring that income.
Accordingly, we will increase the foreign content allowed in
retirement plans to 30%, beginning with a 5-percentage-point rise
in the year 2000, followed by another 5-point rise in 2001.
[English]
To sustain the growth which underpins our economy we need a
corporate tax system that is internationally competitive. At the
moment a number of Canadian industries enjoy competitive tax
rates of about 21%. But there are others, where much of the new
job creation is occurring, such as high tech services, which
shoulder tax rates that are much higher, yet they are up against
companies operating around the world that pay lower taxes in
their home countries.
If we are to unleash the creative energies of our economy, if we
are to encourage innovation and expand job creation, then these
tax rates must be brought down to allow our companies to compete
vigorously.
Therefore, we are announcing that over the next five years we
will lower the rate for these higher taxed industries from 28% to
21%, putting all sectors of the Canadian economy on an
internationally competitive footing. As a first step, the rate
will drop on January 1, 2001 to 27%.
We have talked about the importance of innovation in developing
a modern economy. Just as we are making investments to that end,
we must also introduce tax measures that encourage
entrepreneurship and risk taking.
This budget proposes action on three fronts. First, we will
reduce the taxation of capital gains by lowering their inclusion
rate from three-quarters to two-thirds, effective immediately.
1700
Second, we will allow up to $100,000 in stock options granted
annually to be exercised with the tax being paid only when the
shares are actually sold.
Third, a key factor contributing to the difficulty of raising
capital by new start-ups is the fact that individuals who sell
existing investments and reinvest in others must pay tax on any
realized capital gains. Therefore we will allow a $500,000 tax
free rollover for qualifying investments, thereby increasing the
amount these investors can put into new ventures.
Finally, this budget proposes a measure which specifically
benefits small but growing businesses, a major engine of both
innovation and job growth in our economy. Small business has
told us that the most important steps we can take to assist them
would be to lower personal income taxes, provide for rollovers,
remove the 5% surtax and reduce the tax on capital gains. This
budget does all of these. It also, however, includes one further
measure.
At the present time the corporate rate rises dramatically from
12% to 28% once non-manufacturing small businesses reach $200,000
in income. We are announcing today that the reduction in the
corporate rate to 21%, which is being phased in for large
businesses will fully apply to all small business on income
between $200,000 and $300,000 effective January 1, 2001.
The five year tax plan, both personal and corporate, which we
have outlined today is far reaching in terms of the structural
direction it outlines. It is substantial in terms of the size of
the tax relief it permits. This budget provides a minimum of $58
billion in cumulative tax relief for Canadians over the next five
years.
This budget cuts personal income taxes by an average of 15% and
for many much more than that. For low and middle income
Canadians, for instance, taxes will fall by some 18% on average
and for families with children by an average of 21%.
[Translation]
The five-year tax plan, both personal and corporate, which we
have outlined today, is far-reaching. This budget provides a
minimum of $58 billion in cumulative tax relief to Canadians over
the next five years.
It cuts personal income taxes by an average of 15% and for many,
much more than that. For low and middle income Canadians, for
instance, taxes will fall by some 18% on average, and for
families with children, by an average of 21%.
Let me give you some specific examples of how this budget will
benefit Canadians.
First, indexation will help lower income Canadians most. Indeed,
they will receive almost 40% of the tax reduction it affords.
They will receive more than $500 million by the fifth year in
additional GST credits. They will automatically receive increases
in child tax benefits and the seniors credit.
Second, two seniors with a family income of $30,000 will see
their net federal taxes fall by 45% by 2004.
1705
Third, a one earner family of four earning $40,000 will see its
net federal taxes reduced by 17% next year and by 48% by 2004.
That is a savings of more than $1,600.
[English]
A one earner family of four with income up to $32,000 will
receive more in benefits than they will pay in federal taxes. As
a result they will pay no net federal tax next year and by 2004
this family will be able to earn up to $35,000 a year and still
pay no net federal tax.
A single parent earning $30,000 with one child will see his or
her net federal benefits increase from $32 to over $1,000 by the
year 2004.
A two earner family with two children and an income of $40,000
will see their net taxes cut almost in half next year, and they
will pay no net federal tax by 2004. This represents a savings
of $1,244.
Finally, a two earner family with two children and $60,000 in
income will see their taxes cut by almost 9% next year and by 27%
by 2004. That is a savings of more than $1,500.
One further point, at the beginning of this presentation I said
that while we would set out five year objectives we would make
our decisions based on a rolling two year time horizon. This is
particularly important when hearing these examples because it
means that as substantial as they are the tax cuts outlined in
this budget reflect the least, not the most that we will do.
Indeed, what is not even reflected in these examples is that the
15% average tax cut on which all of those examples were based
does not take into account the 22% average tax relief when this
budget is combined with its most recent predecessors.
Let me just say that in subsequent budgets, as resources permit,
we will do more. That is how we eliminated the deficit and that
is how we will reduce taxes.
[Translation]
This is a budget with many elements but a single theme: creating
better lives for Canadians in a rapidly changing world.
It is a budget that makes innovation the driving force of our
economy. It puts more money into post-secondary education and
health care. It acts to preserve our environment and to capture
the opportunities it affords. It speaks to our values by
recognizing the importance of children.
[English]
This budget restores indexation to the Canadian tax system. It
cuts federal tax rates for the first time in more than 12 years.
It supports job growth by making Canadian business more
internationally competitive.
It is a budget that says you can cut taxes and invest in
tomorrow at the same time. It is a budget that sets its sights
firmly on the future and charts the course to take us there. It
is a budget that recognizes that while we cannot imagine the
world our children will live to see, our responsibility to their
future is clear.
We must lay the foundation on which they will stand. We must
preserve the values on which they will build. May it be said of
us that we in our time laid that foundation and preserved those
values. May we embrace the future with confidence, the
confidence of a people who knows that for all of our achievements
as a nation, for all of the greatness of our history, the best of
Canada is yet to come.
1710
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in about three minutes I will formally move adjournment
of the budget debate until tomorrow. Before doing so I want to
thank the finance minister for his presentation, a presentation
which is more remarkable not for what it contains but for what it
fails to disclose.
I find it absolutely astounding that this budget statement
contains no reference whatsoever to the $1 billion boondoggle at
human resources development. It does not answer the question of
taxpayers as to why we should give the government more money to
spend when it wastes what we already give it.
If the vice-president of a large public company had a $1 billion
boondoggle in one of its divisions and even failed to mention it
in the annual statement to the shareholders, the stock of that
company would be driven through the floor, heads would roll and
the vice-president of finance would end up in a federal
institution, and I do not mean the Senate.
Five years after the official opposition called for eliminating
bracket creep the government has finally agreed to do so, and we
commend it for doing so. While the budget loudly proclaims a
number of other so-called tax breaks, it buries and obscures
every provision in the government's financial plan for tax
increases like the prescheduled increases in CPP premiums that
take about $38 billion out of the $58 billion profit.
Far be it from me to cast a shadow over this day. Let our
Liberal friends retire to the captain's table as the Liberal
Titanic sails into the night. Let them eat, drink and be
merry and celebrate while they may the illusions of this budget
while the band plays Amazing Grace, and then let us
reassemble tomorrow to commence the budget debate where the
omissions, the half-truths and the illusions of this budget will
be exposed in the clear light of day.
Therefore I move:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2) the motion
is deemed adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1715
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed from February 25, consideration of Bill C-2,
an act respecting the election of members to the House of
Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making
consequential amendments to other acts, be read a third time and
passed, and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the amendment in the name of
the hon. member for Vancouver North to the motion at third
reading stage of Bill C-2.
Call in the members.
1740
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wayne
| Williams – 86
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 158
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
1745
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1750
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marleau
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Cummins
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams – 99
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.51 p.m.)