36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 93
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 9, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1010
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1015
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1020
1025
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1030
1035
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1040
1045
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1050
1055
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1100
1105
1110
| Division on motion deferred
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-24. Second reading
|
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1115
1120
1125
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1315
1320
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1325
1330
1335
1340
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1345
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1350
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1400
| WOMEN OF DISTINCTION
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| TEAM CANADA ATLANTIC
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| ADVENTURE IN CITIZENSHIP
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| PREMIER OF NEWFOUNDLAND
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1405
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| ST. JOHN'S WEST BYELECTION
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| HIBERNIA
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| FOREST BIODIVERSITY
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1410
| CANTONNIERS DE MAGOG
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| MANITOBA
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| YOUTH
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| OPERATION DECODE
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ACOA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1420
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ACOA
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1430
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1440
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1445
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1455
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1500
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Amendments to Bill C-3
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1505
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-24. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1510
1515
1520
1525
| Mr. Ted White |
1530
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. John Bryden |
1550
1555
| Division on motion deferred
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1620
1625
1630
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1635
| Mr. Ted White |
1640
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1645
1650
1655
1700
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1725
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1735
1740
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1745
1750
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1755
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1800
1805
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1810
1815
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1820
1845
1850
(Division 1287)
| Amendment to amendment negatived
|
1855
1900
(Division 1288)
| Amendment agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1905
| Training
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1910
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1915
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 93
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 9, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 20
petitions.
1010
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there does
not seem to be a quorum in the House.
[English]
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I
have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the report of the Canadian group of the Canada-France
Interparliamentary Association, which attended the meeting of
the Standing Committee of the Association in Paris from March 6
to 10, 2000.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 29th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,
and I move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, additionally, if the House
gives its consent, I move:
That the following members be added to the list of associate
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:
Scott Brison, Tony Ianno, Benoît Sauvageau, Paul Szabo and John
Williams.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions today from
the good folks in southern Alberta.
The first petition deals with child pornography. The
signatories are horrified by pornography which depicts children
and are astounded by legal determinations that the possession of
child pornography is not criminal.
They call upon parliament, which has the duty to enact and
enforce the criminal code, to take all measures necessary to
ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence.
BILL C-23
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition has to do with the definition of
marriage.
These petitioners pray that parliament withdraw Bill C-23,
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition on behalf of 200 people in St. John's East.
1015
The petitioners, citizens of Canada, draw to the attention of
the House of Commons that because the British Columbia court of
appeal did on June 30 dismiss the appeal to reinstate subsection
(4) of section 163 of the criminal code making possession of
child pornography illegal in British Columbia, that by upholding
a lower court decision on the issue of possession of child
pornography that possession is now legal in British Columbia and
that the well-being and safety of children are put in jeopardy.
Therefore the petitioners request that parliament invoke section
33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override the
B.C. court of appeal decision and reinstate subsection (4) of
section 163 of the criminal code making possession of child
pornography in B.C. illegal and by doing so reinforce and
reaffirm their objection to the B.C. court of appeal decision.
BILL C-23
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I present two petitions pertaining to Bill C-23 in which
the petitioners ask that the bill be withdrawn and that the House
affirm marriage as an opposite sex relationship. I think at the
time that these petitions were prepared the petitioners did not
realize that in fact the government did insert a definition of
marriage that would please them enormously. Nevertheless I submit
these petitions and observe that they also note that they want to
see the government advance legislation that defines dependency
relationships as being entitled to benefits in the same sense
that Bill C-23 extended the benefits to opposite sex
relationships and same sex relationships.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed from December 1, 1999 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before giving the floor to the hon. member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I wish to inform the House that
speeches on this bill will now be ten minutes, with no questions
of comments.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I appreciate your
informing us of that, Mr. Speaker, because, as you are well
aware, I am always ready to share my ideas with my colleagues,
particularly under your skilled leadership from the Chair.
I was very pleased to accept the invitation of my colleague from
Témiscamingue to take part in this debate. He is the one who
has managed the debate for the Bloc Quebecois, and he has done
the committee work. He is one of the most dynamic members of
our party.
In caucus, he pointed out to us that we would be greatly ill
advised to support such a bill. I will have an opportunity to
speak of our position in detail, but I would like to start by
setting out the general principle.
On the Bloc Quebecois side, we all know that the federal
government has launched a vast nation building campaign. All
excuses are good for this government which is looking for
visibility. It is seeking visibility in an excessive, obsessive
and even pathological way.
Fortunately, within the caucus, some ministers are not following
the flock. For the most part however, we do not understand why
it is so important to adopt or propose a Canadian tourism
commission. If ever there was one area that should be handled
by the communities, it is certainly tourism.
I feel quite comfortable speaking about this issue because, at
the beginning of the 1990s in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a riding
with an extremely important working-class background, we chose a
development based on what we call neighbourhood tourism.
1020
At that time, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve went through a process of
industrial dequalification. While the main employers in that
district were the textile, shoe and clothing industries and the
Vickers shipyard, from the early 1980s until 1990 or 1992, we
lost a considerable number of jobs. We must remember that there
were 30% too many ships on the seas, and the shoe and textile
industry lost some momentum. I must admit that the textile
industry recovered slightly in Montreal after it was
restructured and reengineered.
However, I did understand that, in the district of
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, we would never again be the working-class
district we had been. We benefited from the presence of the
Olympic stadium. We will recall that in 1976 the Olympic Games
were held in Montreal. With the construction of the Olympic
stadium, my district became one of the five major tourism growth
poles in Montreal.
Of course there is also the Old Montreal. Some of our hon.
colleagues might have come to visit Quebec in the past and spent
a few days in the Old Montreal, which is a very important
tourism centre.
There is of course another tourism centre that the hon. member
for Laval Centre visits regularly: the St. Joseph's Oratory and
Mount Royal. That is a very important tourism centre. Another
tourism centre that has emerged is the Maisonneuve area, which
is comprised of the Olympic stadium, the Biodome, the
Insectarium and the Olympic facilities.
In the 1990s, I was personally involved in my community. A few
years later, my constituents gave me the pleasure of trusting me
with their confidence when they choose me as their elected
representative here in the House of Commons. I have always seen
it as a privilege that had to be renewed from day to day, always
keeping in mind that the only way to live up to that duty
properly and carry out our function as members of Parliament was
to keep a great proximity with our constituents and remain very
close to their concerns.
Within the tourism growth poles that have emerged in Quebec, the
district of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve found its place, and we live in
the shadow of the Olympic stadium.
The Olympic Stadium is located on Pierre-de-Coubertin Street. I
had proposed in the 1990's the establishment of a functional
link in the south of this neighbourhood, between the Olympic
stadium and Ontario, Adam and Sainte-Catherine streets. That
strategy has been adopted by the economic decision makers.
Why do I talk about that? First of all, because very interesting
things are happening in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I take this
opportunity, before moving to the substance of the bill, to say
that Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is a neighbourhood—and it is in
moments like this one that the member for Charlesbourg's
hospitality and enthusiasm are precious—a neighbourhood that
has a rich industrial heritage.
We have for example the east end art and cultural centre, which
is like a flagship for the community groups. During the summer
months, from Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day until Labour Day week-end,
there are activities on the marketplace. Let me give you a
scoop, Mr. Speaker. This is a piece of information that I would
like to share with all my colleagues and the viewers at home.
This summer, starting on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, we will have “la
Bolduc” on the marketplace.
I would like to remind members that “la Bolduc” was born on
Létourneau Street, in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I would be tempted
to sing one of her songs, but the presence of the deputy whip in
the House prevents me from doing so.
The roaring twenties brought us the wonderful Bolduc. One cannot
imagine the impact this singer had on our folklore. She was one
of the first artist to penetrate the American market.
This summer, in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, there will be an
interpretative tour presenting the life of “la Bolduc” through
various monuments and architectural artifacts.
1025
I ask all my colleagues, especially the member for Ahuntsic and
the member for Windsor—St. Clair, to visit Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
this summer and discover how alive the past is there and how
tourism is thriving in a working class neighbourhood in an
industrial setting—everyone knows that Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is
located between downtown and the end of the island. The
interpretation trail, which gives expression to the best of
Bolduc's repertoire draws people from New England.
Something happened, and I will digress a little to tell you
about it.
From the beginning of the 19th century until the 1930s, 500,000
Quebecers left the province to pursue their career in the United
States. There are those who say that, if these people had not
been forced to leave, to move to the United States, we would no
doubt have won the 1995 referendum.
I wanted to point out this fact of history, and I also want to
tell you that our premier, Lucien Bouchard, is one of the best
to have served Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have only a minute left.
I have not said even a fifth of what I wanted to say about this
bill.
I have to say that we oppose the bill, because we believe there
already exist appropriate structures within the provinces and
the various communities. This is especially true in Quebec,
because the society there has integrated tourism into its
economic development. It did so, naturally, because tourism
generates revenues of $5.4 billion.
I do not know if any of you saw the report on RDI yesterday.
The member for Charlesbourg, partial to this sort of
information, will remember that last year was the best year of
the decade for tourism in Quebec. Quebec, with its tourism
offices, succeeded in creating stakeholder groups with enough
resources so that people in North America and Europe find
pleasure in discovering tourism there.
I close by inviting all my fellow citizens, all those watching
and my colleagues here to take advantage of the season of
tourism in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which will be both colourful
and lively.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who spoke on Bill C-5 to
explain how well tourism is working in Quebec and our concern
that this bill might establish a Canadian tourism commission
that could create problems for agencies that are now working
very well.
In Quebec, the agency known as Tourisme Québec was established
and is working very well. Of course, we want to fully encourage
tourism because it is now one of the primary industries, if you
will, in Quebec. We have considerable attractions.
Quebec City, where I am from and which is in my riding, was
recognized by UNESCO as part of the international heritage.
Tourism in Quebec has grown considerably in the last few years,
partially because of the attractions, but also because of the
involvement of the Quebec government. Indeed, I could mention a
series of actions taken and of mandates reinforced by the
government for Tourisme Québec.
1030
These actions were successful. I must say that Tourisme Québec
has consolidated the efforts. Tourisme Québec is comprised of
almost all tourism associations in Quebec and several private
interests to take joint action in the development of this
sector.
Indeed, this is a sector that does not necessarily require the
involvement of the federal government. Of course, since this is
an extremely important industry, any effort to improve tourism
is appreciated by those who work in this sector. What concerns
us is that the establishment of the Canadian tourism commission
will be another form of intrusion in sectors that are working
well in Quebec.
Not only is this an intrusion into the activities of an agency
that is working well in Quebec, but it could also be an
encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction over tourism. Why bother
an agency that is working well? I fear that the federal
government wants to expand this commission's mandate—because it
already exists with more limited powers—and through Bill C-5 to
expand its spending powers, among others.
We know very well that its basic purpose is more propagandizing
in Quebec. Of course, Quebec is considered as a threat to Canada
because of its sovereignist vision. In fact, the federal
government has, for some time now, not responded to Quebec's
justified demands. Quebec has long been asking for recognition
within Canada, which should have gone without saying and should
have been given a long time ago, but was refused.
On the contrary, a whole series of agencies have been set up
essentially to promote the federal government.
That is all this commission is. Certainly, it can have some
beneficial effects, but essentially its purpose is to invest
more in areas where federal visibility can be ensured.
I would like to make two quotations, including one by Pierre
Elliott Trudeau. He said “One way to offset the attraction of
separatism is to use time, energy, and vast sums of money to
promote federal nationalism”.
Mr. Trudeau believe in using English-Canadian nationalism,
federal nationalism, to thwart Quebec's nationalism. He used
this attitude, these means at the federal level to counter
Quebec nationalism.
In fact, the idea was to set up agencies spending as much money
as possible to give great visibility to Canada and its flag and
to show that, in fact, Canada is working well.
I have another quotation from the current Prime Minister who,
quite recently, on February 16, 2000, said “It is very important
in every riding in Canada that the people of the ridings know, when there is
a subvention coming from the taxpayers of Canada, that the money is
coming from the taxpayers of Canada, particularly in areas where
some people want to quit Canada because they do not know
the good that this government is doing for its citizens”.
First, the money that the government is using comes from
Quebec taxpayers; it is Quebec's money that the federal
government is using. There are huge amounts of money sent back
through programs.
In this regard, Quebec receives more than its share. If there is
one area where Quebec receives more than its share, it is for
propaganda on national unity.
It is a well known fact that in other areas, such as research,
job creation, industry, et cetera, Quebec does not get its fair
share, but in that area we receive a lot.
1035
For several years now, since 1993, the government
has worked relentlessly to set up agencies such as the CIO or
Canada Information Office, which every year gets $20 million,
most of which, namely 60% to 70%, is spent in Quebec.
There is also the one in a million flag project launched by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. Responsibility for this
propaganda campaign focused on Quebec was removed from that
minister. The Department of Public Works and Government Services
is now responsible for this project and, because of that, the
spending authority has been increased in several areas,
including in public works.
In addition to this, there are also a series of agencies and
offices.
It is unbelievable. It is mind-boggling to see all the money
spent by the federal government specifically for Quebec. Again,
this is money for propaganda. All this money is being spent to
create an image, not jobs. This money is being spent by agencies
close to this government.
For instance, what does Attraction Canada do? It makes signs
that can be seen here and there, such as along highways. These
signs, and there are many of them in Quebec, suggest a nice
visit to a national park.
In fact, of the $12 million allocated for 1999-2000, 60% was
spent in Quebec. One wonders why 60% of Attraction Canada's
publicity was spent in Quebec. It is to attract people to
anything that symbolizes Canada.
For instance, the Council for Canadian Unity has spent most of
its $6 million budget in Quebec.
Why was 65% of the budget for Canada Day, which is
organized by Heritage Canada of course, spent in Quebec? Of the
$5.5 million spent last year for Canada Day, $3.5 million was
spent in Quebec.
The list goes on and on. We could add the spending by the Canada
Information Office, by the Council for Canadian Unity, as well
as the one in a million flag project. The amounts are huge.
There is also Operation Unity. If we were to add up all the
money spent on propaganda in Quebec, the amount would be
staggering. It is unfortunate, because that money could have
been spent for a good cause instead of being used to create an
image in Quebec.
We have the same fear with regard to the establishment of the
Canadian tourism commission. By establishing this agency, the
government has found another way to spend millions of dollars in
Quebec to pitch national unity.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could not disagree more with the Bloc Quebecois in
terms of its assessment of the bill.
Tourism is one of the greatest galvanizing agents in the country
which encourages Canadians to travel from coast to coast and to
interact coast to coast. It is an instrument that pulls us all
together. It is an instrument that helps us to understand each
other in a better way.
When we think of it logically the separatists would not want to
support an enhanced tourism commission, especially one that has
had the success of our tourism commission over the last few
years. It would work against the separatist ideology.
1040
I want to focus today on tourism as it pertains to my
constituency in downtown Toronto. We are going through a massive
renewal of the waterfront in downtown Toronto. I have a document
in front of me that was recently released entitled “Our Toronto
Waterfront: Gateway to the New Canada”. I am sure members have
read assessments in the papers of some of the work of the author,
Mr. Fung, in recent weeks not just in Toronto but in different
parts of the country.
This will be the biggest infrastructure renewal project in our
country's history. In terms of dollars it will probably be more
than what we spent on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Some members of
the House might feel a little uncomfortable about the fact that
all three levels of government are considering a major investment
in the centre of downtown Toronto, but at the anchor and core of
this thinking is the whole tourism realm.
The tourism industry is the fastest growing industrial sector on
the planet. When we talk about tourism we are not only talking
about leisure tourism. We are also talking about business
tourism. In other words, when a city wants to compete today for
trade shows and business events it must have not just the
convention facilities and hotels that are part of the business
experience, but it must also have all the supplementary
activities if the city is to be considered a world class tourist
destination location.
I am appealing to the House, as we look into the whole realm of
tourism, that consideration in time be given to the notion of
revitalizing the waterfront in downtown Toronto. It is not a
waterfront that is used exclusively for the residents of the
greater Toronto area. It is a tourism destination which
economically benefits the entire country.
In other words, there are times when certain cities in our
country have to compete on the world stage. For example, when
Calgary put in its bid for the Olympic Games, it was not just a
benefit to Calgary when it staged the Olympic Games. It was a
benefit to every part of our country.
What we are attempting to do in Toronto with our waterfront is
primarily a tourism objective, tourism that will serve in an
economic sense every region of the country. That is how we have
to look at major projects like this one, especially around
tourism.
The multiple spinoffs that happen in tourism are something that
we tend to forget at times. We will see only the initial capital
investment, but we will not see all the ancillary benefits of
businessmen and women coming to a city. It might be for a
convention or a trade show. Inevitably, if they have the
opportunity of to enjoy other components within the particular
destination, it can have a dramatic effect on business
investment.
It can have a dramatic effect on reputation as we deal in a
global market more and more, as our life and business experience
evolves.
1045
When we look at capital investment today we tend to want the
immediate return to be the driving force as to whether we make a
decision in terms of investment. It is the responsibility of the
House to not just look for the short term, but to look for the
long term effects.
In a beautiful city like my own city of Toronto, where it would
cost a lot of money to revitalize and renew the Toronto
waterfront, the temptation would be to forget about tourism and
raise money by selling parcels of land so that we could build
condominiums. This would do a number of things. It would take a
beautiful jewelled location in downtown Toronto and allow only a
few people to enjoy it. Whereas, if we think of tourism, not
only could all of Canada enjoy it, but as well all of those
visitors who want to enjoy not just the hotel room or the
convention centre, but all of our community.
One of the models for rejuvenating a downtown area for tourism
is the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen. As one member of parliament
for the downtown area, I would love to see a Tivoli Gardens
treatment in our downtown waterfront corridor because when we as
a community show all Canadians and anyone who is visiting our
country our respect for the environment, our respect for all of
our community having access to special areas, that has a profound
long term tourism impact.
With this legislation we are renewing our commitment to the
Canadian Tourism Commission. I appeal to all members to continue
to support the good work that the Canadian Tourism Commission has
been doing over the last five years. I continue to urge all
members to reinforce not only their budgets, but to use their
influence in cities across the country which have the potential
to be world class tourism jewels. I urge them to use their
experience in tourism to ensure that those spaces are there not
only for the good of the whole country, but for the benefit of
all those people who visit our cities.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased, albeit somewhat surprised, to address Bill C-5, an act
to establish the Canadian tourism commission.
As we know, tourism is a rapidly expanding industry all over the
world. This is a result of globalization, because as
transportation modes become faster and more accessible, people
who previously did not have access to international tourism are
now deciding to visit various countries, and this is of great
benefit to people the world over.
Tourism is also important for various regions of the country,
particularly the federal riding of Charlesbourg, which will soon
be called Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, after the senators have
heard me. I cannot understand why they have summoned me to talk
about the name of a riding, as they are not elected, but this is
another matter. As I was saying, the federal riding of
Charlesbourg is one of the nicest ones in Canada.
It includes eight municipalities and most of the green belt
around Quebec City.
1050
From Saint-Gabriel-de-Valcartier in the west to
Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval in the east, this greenbelt is one of the
finest assets of the tourist industry in Quebec and Canada, an
industry that is in full expansion.
People from all over the world, particularly Europeans but also
many Asians, want to come to Quebec and to Canada to see our
wide open spaces and to commune with nature, because they often
live in countries which, unfortunately, are not as fortunate as
Quebec in this regard.
The greenbelt around Quebec City is located just a few minutes
from downtown, from the Old City, which is one of the finest
world heritage sites.
It is only a 15 minute drive on highway 73 from the Old City,
with its atmosphere that goes back to the 17th and 18th
centuries—my colleague from Québec East agrees with me—to the
wilderness. People around the world are increasingly aware of
this.
I have had a pamphlet published which I will bring for
distribution on my trips abroad. In a few weeks I will be going
to Australia to promote the federal riding of Charlesbourg for
investors and vacationing tourists.
In my riding of Charlesbourg, tourism has been targeted as one
of the most important themes of economic development. Tourism
can be seen from different angles.
We have the park along the Jacques-Cartier River, which is really
exceptional, with its deep canyons.
I formally invite members to visit the canyons in this park. They
will be stunned by their beauty. Activities include boating,
kayaking, climbing, hiking or picnicking. This is an
exceptional site, and I want to point out the excellent work
done by Marie-Michelle Parent to develop the park.
There is also the Stoneham ski resort, which is in full
expansion and will also be a major tourist attraction for my
riding and the whole Quebec City area.
Another ski resort is Le Relais. This excellent resort, which is
drawing more and more people, is also just 20 minutes from
downtown Quebec.
Work is underway on the Trans-Quebec trail, which is intended to
be a northern version of the famous Appalachian Trail in the
United States, and which will help us discover, in Quebec, and
Charlesbourg in particular, some of the most breathtaking
landscapes that a hiking enthusiast may see. In the wintertime,
activities such as snowshoeing, skiing and snowmobiling are
possible.
The federal riding of Charlesbourg is exceptional for tourism.
One of the main attractions in that riding could be the
Charlesbourg zoo, the development of which has been considered a
priority by social and economic stakeholders in the greater
Quebec City area. I notice the chief government whip is nodding
in agreement and listening to me intently.
All the stakeholders in the greater Quebec City area have asked
the federal government to invest in the Aqua-Zoo project—the
aquarium in Sainte-Foy and the zoo in Charlesbourg—as an
important tourist attraction.
The Government of Quebec has made a firm commitment to help
finance that project, but, unfortunately, the answer from the
federal government is late in coming, as always.
I invite the Minister of Revenue, who is responsible for the
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec,
to announce very soon that the necessary investment will be made
to revitalize the Aqua-Zoo.
This is just an introduction to show the importance of tourism
to us, in the Bloc Quebecois, and to myself, as the member for
Charlesbourg.
1055
Unfortunately, Bill C-5 does not meet the many demands and the
many needs of that growing industry, as I was saying earlier.
The federal government is at war with the Government of Quebec
and wants to impose at all costs its vision of a united Canada,
or should I say of a standardized Canada from coast to coast.
Bill C-5 is just one element of this shameful project on which
millions and millions of dollars are spent. Bill C-5 is just
aimed at increasing the federal government's visibility. Its
sole purpose is to buy the loyalty of Quebecers, whether as
individuals or as members of organizations.
The backdrop to all this is an incredible fiscal imbalance.
The federal government has already announced a $95 billion
surplus over the next five years. Bloc Quebecois members and
the rest of the House know only too well that these surpluses
will be more on the order of $137 billion to $140 billion over
five years, while the provinces—all of them, not just Quebec—are
having trouble keeping their heads above water.
The federal government has decided to use the huge surpluses
it has built up on the backs of the provinces, on the backs of
the most disadvantaged and the unemployed, so that it can
increase its visibility and invade normally provincial
jurisdictions.
Let us be clear that everything this government does is dictated by
the desire to stop the rise of the sovereignist movement in
Quebec.
It is afraid because it is only too aware that the next
time Quebecers are asked whether they want their own country,
the majority will answer yes. There is one objective behind
all the government's actions and that is to put a stop to the
inexorable growth of the sovereignist movement, whatever the
financial or social cost.
One might wonder why it came up with this particular bill, Bill
C-5, when most provinces, and especially Quebec, already have
infrastructures, well developed tourist networks and strategies
much better suited to their own situation than Bill C-5 could be.
I must wrap up my remarks because time is unfortunately running
out. The Bloc Quebecois is firmly opposed to the federal
government using Quebecers' tax dollars in order to promote in
all areas, including tourism with Bill C-5, its vision of a
Canada that is united from coast to coast in order to stamp the
maple leaf on everyone's forehead when that is not what
Quebecers want.
We are strongly opposed to this bill and never—this government
had better listen up—never will Quebecers be bought with their
own money, never will they allow their vote to be bought by such
a pathetic government.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleague, it is with some surprise that I address Bill C-5
today. Come to think of it, as I read this bill this morning, it
is with great pleasure that I do so.
Bill C-5 aims more particularly at establishing the Canadian
tourism commission. It is quite clear that in Quebec's own
economic life, tourism has always been an important driving
force of economic development.
1100
Tourism is not only an important economic development factor in
Quebec, it is also an employment development factor. The jobs
are not limited, as they are in other industries, to a few areas
or cities. On the contrary, for us Quebecers, tourism is an
economic and employment development tool in each of the regions
of the province.
Given that Quebec has spent many years developing an expertise
in tourism, developing the appropriate infrastructure and
putting in place a tourist services supply, and that Quebecers
have spent many years developing a foreign marketing network, I
find that the government has a lot of nerve to put forward today
an act to establish the Canadian tourism commission.
It is important to remind hon. members of a number of things
that have been accomplished up to now in the province of Quebec
and some of the success stories that have brought tourism
development in Quebec where it now stands. In the last 25 years,
the tourist services supply has changed considerably in Quebec.
Several years ago, when people were talking about the tourist
infrastructure, they meant the big tourist complexes only.
However, to respond to the demand of the new clients who are
looking for specialized tourist services, Quebec had to adapt
its tourist products.
For example, since Europeans are coming to Quebec in greater
numbers, we had to develop tourist products tailored to their
needs. But what do Europeans and Americans like about Quebec?
The great outdoors, which Claude Gauthier described as made up
of lakes and rivers. Quebecers have always been proud of the
great outdoors, which still constitute an important tourist
product.
Besides the wide open spaces, there is also adventure. Adventure
is now an important tourist attraction.
This was developed in the regions by small businesses who,
through our network overseas, work day in and day out to attract
tourists who would like what Quebec has to offer.
The bill is rather odd. Its objective is to establish a Canadian
tourism commission but we already have an agency called
Tourisme Québec. I worked there for a few years. I know that
tourism is a priority for Quebec. Furthermore, the Parti
Quebecois government established the Department of Tourism in 1994.
At first there was just a junior minister in charge of tourism
policy, but later on a senior minister was appointed to head a
full department with all the necessary powers to develop tourist
products. Tourisme Québec was given an impressive mandate to
promote Quebec's tourist products, including facilities,
infrastructure and tourist attractions.
1105
I want to mention one of the mandates of Tourisme Québec. It
must, among other things, guide and co-ordinate public and
private initiatives on tourism. This is important. Unlike what
happens in all other sectors, this does not imply a fragmented
marketing strategy.
To attract clients, there must be co-ordination in the marketing
of the projects, in the way what is available in the tourist
industry is advertised. Tourisme Québec co-ordinates this tourist
supply and how it is marketed.
Another important element is to promote awareness of tourist
products and knowledge of tourist clienteles.
We know that we must do more than simply develop tourist
products; we must ensure that specific clients are made aware of
the tourist products developed in our regions. All the Tourisme
Québec advertising campaigns abroad were aimed at ensuring
development of tourist products. That is the role of Tourisme
Québec.
Another mandate of Tourisme Québec is to support the improvement
and development of Quebec's tourist supply. Another is to
organize and support the promotion of Quebec and of its tourist
products on various markets. This is another important element
in the mandate of Tourisme Québec. Tourisme Québec must also
inform clients on tourist products in Quebec and build and
operate public tourist facilities.
Tourisme Québec has a very clear mandate.
It contributes to developing the tourist product, to guiding and
co-ordinating the supply, to organizing and supporting the
promotion of Quebec as a tourist destination. I fail to see why
the Canadian government wants to establish a Canadian tourism
commission when Tourisme Québec is doing a fine job promoting
tourist products and tourist supply in Quebec, under a well
designed marketing strategy.
I remind the House that we have developed what we call in Quebec
the Associations touristiques régionales to co-ordinate, to organize
and ensure adequate development of tourism in Quebec. For
Montreal, where my riding is, the situation is somewhat
different. We do not have an Association touristique régionale
but we have an office du tourisme, as does Quebec City. Big
cities have an office du tourisme to promote them.
In conclusion, I have to say that I am rather worried. There
will be overlapping in the activities of this new commission and
those of Tourisme Québec. The new commission will duplicate work
done by a public organization with a clear hospitality and
clientele co-ordination marketing strategy.
The commission's goal also worries me. If Tourisme Québec is
doing a good job, why establish the Canadian tourism commission
if not to set up a federal promotion and propaganda machine?
That also worries me.
Why fix what is working in Quebec? Why establish a new structure
when the most recent figures released by the Quebec tourism
minister and department are very interesting? Tourism in Quebec
is doing well.
We have no need for a new structure to reach new objectives when
we are already reaching the existing ones.
1110
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the vote will be deferred until tomorrow,
Wednesday, May 10 at the conclusion of the time provided for
Government Orders.
* * *
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
Hon. Hedy Fry (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related
act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation
Act, 1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court
of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to
speak at second reading of Bill C-24.
I think most hon. members would agree that few issues are more
timely and few areas of action more compelling than taxation.
The operation of our federal tax system affects virtually every
Canadian and every family, each company and organization. It
impacts our standard of living as individuals and our ability to
compete and grow as a nation.
[Translation]
That is the reason why, having put the country's financial house
in order and eliminated the deficit, our government adopted
concrete measures to start reducing the personal tax burden of
Canadians.
[English]
Broad based income tax reduction is not and cannot be the only
arena for action. From the start of our first mandate, this
government has been active in ensuring that we provide a tax
system which is fair, a system which eliminates unnecessary
loopholes and confusion, and a system which provides targeted
assistance to sectors and groups, such as charities and persons
with disabilities, that deserve our assistance.
These are the goals and opportunities underlying the legislation
before us to make our tax system more simple and fair not only
for individual Canadians but for Canadian businesses as well.
Another goal we have consistently pursued is to sustain and
enhance our federal tax system in a manner which promotes
federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization. This bill
does just that.
Hon. members will recall that when the harmonized sales tax, the
HST, was implemented in 1997 with three Atlantic provinces, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, it was a
successful example of federal-provincial co-operation. It also
presented creative solutions to some of the challenges that we as
Canadians will face together as we head into a new century. This
bill builds on the spirit of that initiative.
[Translation]
Even if this bill is specifically designed to improve the GST,
the goods and services tax, and the HST, it also contains
important proposals concerning the tax on certain products.
[English]
In this regard Bill C-24 contains measures with respect to the
taxation of tobacco products.
I trust that hon. members are aware of the government's
commitment to reduce smoking rates, particularly among younger
Canadians. One of the concrete planks in this commitment has
been the national action plan to combat smuggling which we
launched in 1994. This plan has had a significant impact on
contraband such that we have been able to increase taxes on
tobacco products in 1995, 1996 and 1998 in co-operation with the
participating provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.
1115
Today's legislation puts in place another increase of 60 cents
in federal excise taxes per carton of 200 cigarettes for sale in
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island, the five provinces that are action plan partners. These
provinces are also increasing their taxes on cigarettes by
comparable amounts.
Excise taxes on tobacco sticks will also be increased in
Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island,
re-establishing a uniform national tax rate on tobacco sticks for
sale in all provinces and the territories. Furthermore, the bill
proposes to make permanent the current 40% surtax on the profits
of tobacco manufacturers.
[Translation]
In a related matter, as it was mentioned in the federal budget
of February 1999, Bill C-24 contains measures intended to
implement a reduction of the tobacco export tax exemption.
[English]
The intent of this measure is to reduce the supply of Canadian
made tobacco products intended for export but which are
potentially available to smugglers.
The proposals contained in the bill relating to the taxation of
tobacco products reaffirm the government's commitment to reduce
tobacco consumption in Canada while maintaining vigilance in
combatting the level of contraband.
An important component of Bill C-24 is that it reflects the
government's responsiveness to the health and social needs of
Canadians. For example, the government recognizes that many
Canadians are providing care for family members, very often an
elderly parent or disabled child.
[Translation]
Bill C-24 proposes an exemption from sales tax for these respite
care services. This would mean that services—care and
supervision—for persons who have limited capacity for
self-supervision and self-care due to disability would be exempted
[English]
This proposal will enhance federal support for those Canadians
who are striving to meet the growing demands of caring for family
members with an infirmity or disability.
With respect to individuals with disabilities, I trust that hon.
members would agree that these Canadians face many challenges. In
past budgets the government has introduced numerous measures to
assist these individuals. The bill builds on such actions and
the significant level of tax assistance that is already
available.
The proposals contained in Bill C-24 extend sales tax relief to
the purchase of specially equipped motor vehicles for
transporting individuals with disabilities. The proposed sales
tax rebate will ensure that all individuals and organizations get
tax relief on the additional cost of purchasing vehicles that
meet their special needs.
Other measures in the area of health care that are contained in
the bill include the continuation of the goods and services tax
and the harmonized sales tax exemption for speech therapy
services. Under the GST and HST, harmonized sales tax, the list
of exempt health care providers is limited to those regulated as
a health care profession in at least five provinces. The
proposals contained in the bill will allow the speech therapy
profession more time to meet the eligibility requirements for the
provision of tax exempt services.
The bill also ensures that providers of osteopathic services are
exempt from sales tax. In addition, Bill C-24 corrects an
inequity with respect to providers of psychological services by
ensuring that the sales tax does not discriminate against duly
qualified psychologists.
[Translation]
As I indicated in my introduction, the government is committed
to making the taxation system more equitable for Canadians.
Bill C-24 shows that commitment in a number of different areas.
[English]
In recognizing the important role played by charitable
organizations in assisting Canadians and enriching our
communities, the bill addresses the special circumstances faced
by designated charities whose main purpose include the provision
of care, employment, employment training or employment placement
services for individuals with disabilities. Specifically the
bill provides these charities the capacity to compete on an equal
footing when selling goods or services to GST registered
businesses.
1120
Bill C-24 also refines the rules for the streamlined accounting
method for charities. In addition, it implements the decision by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to extend the 50%
rebate of the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax,
which is already available to charities in that province and to
certain public service bodies such as hospitals that are also
charities. The extended rebate would be available to those
entities in relation to the activities undertaken in their
capacity as charities.
[Translation]
Thus, a hospital board in Newfoundland, operating as a
charitable institution, might also manage a care home. The
proposed amendment would enable them to apply for a 50% rebate
of the HST paid on expenditures relating to the care home.
A number of the amendments proposed in Bill C-24 are aimed at
clarifying and enhancing application of our sales tax systems.
[English]
For example, the bill contains amendments aimed at clarifying
the sales tax treatment of transactions between natural resource
producers and exploration companies. Amendments such as these
will ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the
goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax in a number of
key areas.
I should like to take a moment to point out that the amendments
in the proposed legislation were developed in response to
representations from tax professionals, business communities and
Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, this reflects the
government's ongoing commitment to making the tax system fairer,
more efficient and easier for businesses to comply with.
As a result of the collaborative process between the federal
government and businesses in the energy sector, the bill proposes
a number of changes which streamline the operation of the goods
and services tax and the harmonized sales tax in that sector.
[Translation]
For example, the measures proposed facilitate export
transactions which involve exchanges of gas and oil between
Canadian and foreign suppliers.
[English]
These changes will help to ensure that Canadian businesses
remain competitive in the international marketplace. With
respect to other international commercial transactions, the bill
also proposes to make air navigation services provided to
carriers tax-free in relation to international flights and refine
the rules for exports of goods by common carriers.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to state that the federal
government acknowledges the importance of the travel and tourism
industry to the Canadian economy.
The government has contributed to promoting Canada as a tourist
destination and to supporting the tourist industry as a source
of employment.
[English]
Hon. members are no doubt aware that the federal government
provides rebates of the goods and services tax and harmonized
sales tax to non-residents on eligible goods exported from
Canada, short term accommodation and certain goods and services
used in the conduct of a foreign convention.
In consultation with the tourism industry the visitors rebate
program was reviewed. These consultations highlighted the fact
that the program is generally seen as an important tool in
promoting tourism, in particular the accommodation and convention
measures.
As a result of the review the 1998 budget contained several
proposals to improve the visitors rebate program. Bill C-24
proposes further enhancements to the design and delivery of the
visitors rebate program to better promote Canada as a destination
for tourists and a site for conventions, for example by reducing
the the GST and HST costs associated with providing conventions
to non-residents.
On the subject of tourism the bill also proposes changes aimed
at providing consistent tax treatment between tax-free
international transportation services and various separate
charges that relate to such transportation.
[Translation]
Another change will eliminate the requirement that payment for
air travel from the United States to Canada be tendered outside
Canada for the transportation service to be tax free.
[English]
I emphasize that the federal government will continue to consult
with the business community to improve the operation of our sales
tax system.
1125
In that regard Bill C-24 contains a number of proposals to
improve the rules relating to certain business arrangements and
ensure that the legislation is consistent with the policy intent.
As well as clarifying certain sales tax issues in the area of
financial services, Bill C-24 provides a more level playing field
in the retail debt sector by repealing bad debt relief for
closely related financing companies.
In response to industry concerns, the bill also proposes an
important measure that will correct an inequity with respect to
multi-employer pension plans. The bill proposes that a rebate be
provided to trusts governed by such pension plans, which will
place them on a comparable footing with single employer pension
plans in relation to the sales tax they bear.
[Translation]
Our government is continuing as well to improve the
administration and application of our sales tax system. Bill
C-24 amends a number of provisions in these areas to ensure their
conformity with existing administrative practices.
In addition, the bill proposes greater harmonization between
certain administrative and application provisions in the various
laws on taxes and charges.
[English]
It also contains proposals to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the assessment, appeals and corrections
provisions overall.
I mentioned earlier that Bill C-24 contains measures relating to
other specific levies on certain products. In accordance with
the 1997 decision of the World Trade Organization, the bill
contains the amendment that repeals the provisions relating to
the excise tax on split-run editions of periodicals.
With respect to customs tariffs the bill implements proposals to
increase certain duty and tax exemptions for persons returning to
Canada after a minimum period abroad. These proposals will make
it more convenient for travellers to clear Canadian customs. This
is just another example of the steps we have taken to improve
service for visitors and for Canadians returning to Canada.
The government remains committed to enhancing aboriginal
self-government and has often reiterated its willingness to put
into effect taxation arrangements with first nations interested
in exercising tax powers. In this context through the budget
implementation acts of 1997, 1998 and 1999 the government
introduced legislation enabling certain first nations to impose
GST-like taxes on specific products such as alcoholic beverages,
fuel and tobacco.
[Translation]
This bill proposes that technical amendments be made to the laws
I have just mentioned to increase the harmonization of the sales
tax of first nations with the GST and to ensure the definitions
in these laws are consistent with the definitions used in other
federal laws.
[English]
In closing, the measures contained in Bill C-24 I have outlined
today propose to refine, streamline and clarify the application
of our tax system.
[Translation]
This bill also tackles social issues that are important to
Canadians.
[English]
I therefore urge hon. members to consider the bill and give it
their full support.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to stand to give my point of view with respect to
Bill C-24. It is important for everyone who is listening, both
in and outside the House or perhaps someone who may be reading
Hansard some time in the future, to know what is going on
here.
Bill C-24 is actually a budget implementation act. I begin my
speech by saying that a very strange thing happens in Canada when
it comes to the implementation of budget measures. There is the
day when the Minister of Finance stands and there is a bunch of
hoopla. All the media come and set up their big tractor trailer
units with their dishes. The cables that run into this place are
twice as thick as usual.
It is called budget day. On that day, the minister announces all
the determinations that are going to appear in the new budget
rules which, for all intents and purposes, means this is how we
are going collect money from Canadians and this is how we are
going to spend it for them. That is the big picture of the
budget. Of course, everyone pays close attention to it and
wonders how it will impact on them.
1130
What I find difficult to understand and accept is that the
budget is announced prior to any real input from Canadian people
or from parliamentarians. I know that all the Liberals in the
House would protest that if they were so inclined. They would
say that we have had prebudget consultations, we have listened to
the people and we are implementing the things that the people of
Canada want. I think most of the members in the House presently
would probably be silent.
I would however point out that this really is a very one-sided
affair. The Minister of Finance in conjunction with the top
people in the finance department actually write that budget
speech and determine the budget provisions well in advance of the
budget being made. When it is announced in the House of Commons
instantly becomes de facto law. We can call that a democratic
process if we want to but I seriously question that because of
two things.
First, the one I have already mentioned, is that there is no
meaningful input or debate in the House prior to the budget. We
go through some machinations of doing that but we very seldom see
the actual minister or his departmental officials. How it is
transmitted to them I do not think is much beyond some political
considerations. These decisions are made behind closed doors and
then it becomes de facto law.
The second part, which shows that this is very one-sided and
dictatorial, is that there is to my knowledge no record of a
parliament ever reversing anything that the Minister of Finance
has said on budget day. In other words, what he says is then
law. When we come to vote on the budget, the government members
are all whipped into voting for these measures. Whether they
agree with them or not and whether they understand them or not,
they just do it. We have new rules imposed on Canadians without
any real input.
Traditionally the members on the opposition side will speak and
vote against those parts of the budget that they find
objectionable, and in our party, we will speak in favour of the
things that we support. We are then asked to vote, usually on
its entirety.
One of the dilemmas we face with the bill before us today is
that with one vote we will have to either vote for some of the
things we agree with, thereby giving our assent to those that we
profoundly disagree with or, on the contrary, we will vote
against Bill C-24 because of the objectionable parts of it. The
political spin from our opposition on the other side will be that
we voted against giving a tax break to people who have extra
expenses because they are handicapped.
I have a great dilemma. I in fact would like to say yes. I am
in favour of those provisions in the bill that provide for
reduced taxation for those who have special costs because they
are physically or mentally handicapped or whatever their needs.
However, it is as if I had gone to a restaurant where the waiter
brings me a beautiful steak and instead of having it surrounded
with potatoes and vegetables, it is surrounded by gravel.
1135
I now have a beautiful steak with gravel around it and I have to
ask myself “Am I going to take it or not?” As good as the
steak may appear and as hungry as I may be, I can look at the
plate and say “That steak is so appealing. Yes, I would love to
eat it but the gravel, the sand and the other garbage around it
makes it unpalatable. I have to send it back to the kitchen and
maybe the cook can try again”. That is probably what will happen
with Bill C-24.
As I have said, there are some admirable and commendable things
in this bill. I would like to be on record as being in favour of
it but I do not think that will be an option because of the
objectionable things.
About 1994, if I remember correctly, the third party, as we were
called at that time, brought forward a motion on the budget.
During that parliament, as in this one, the Liberals had a
majority and could do pretty well what they wanted to do. The
Reform Party at that time moved some amendments to the budget
which were truly not substantive but very symbolic.
One of the motions we moved would have reduced the expenditures
of several departments by a small amount. As I recall, our
motion called for the expenditures to be reduced by $20,000. I
hesitate to say that is a small amount because people in my
riding and elsewhere in Canada are being taxed to death by the
government and to them $20,000 is by no means a small amount.
However, in comparison to the billions that the government taxes
out of Canadians and spends, sometimes very foolishly, $20,000 is
a very small proportion of the total budget.
We therefore moved a motion that one or two departments have
their total expenditures reduced by $20,000 as a symbolic
statement simply to demonstrate that parliament did have control
over the budget. We thought that was an important first step. If
that could have been established, we would have proceeded to the
next step and taken some real control as parliamentarians over
the budget process. We would have been able to tell the
bureaucrats how much money they could spend instead of them
telling us how much they were going to take from Canadian
taxpayers and spend in government departments.
I believe that every Liberal member at that time voted against
our motion. We gave the Liberals an opportunity to demonstrate
that parliament had control over the budgetary process but they
chose to vote against it. They said that they would not reduce
departmental budgets even by $20,000 because they wanted to
continue the dictatorship that comes from the Minister of
Finance.
There is another reason that it is very difficult to hold the
government accountable. I will illustrate this by taking one of
the cases in the particular act that we are studying today. We
have an issue in Bill C-24 where the government proposes to
exempt from taxation part of the accommodation costs made by
people who come into Canada as visitors.
This simply exempts and adds to the exemption people who are
coming in as tourists and who are using the campgrounds as
accommodations. Up until now campgrounds were not included in
this.
1140
I want to read this clause in the bill because it illustrates to
Canadian taxpayers, and to people who happen to be listening to
this debate or who will be reading it later on, how difficult it
is for us to keep the government's feet to the fire so to speak
because of the convoluted language that is used even in such a
simple matter. I refer to section 252 of the act which is being
amended by clause 68 of Bill C-24. It states that section 252 of
the act is replaced by the following:
“camping accommodation” means a campsite at a recreational
trailer park or campground (other than a campsite included in the
definition “short-term accommodation” in subsection 123(1) or
included in that part of a tour package that is not the taxable
portion of the tour package, as defined in subsection 163(3))—
That is how it starts. I will go back and read the first part
again but I will miss the brackets this time. It reads:
And then we have this parenthetical phrase:
—that is supplied by way of lease, licence or similar
arrangement for the purpose of its occupancy by an individual as
a place of residence or lodging, if the period throughout which
the individual is given continuous occupancy of the campsite is
less than one month. It includes water, electricity and waste
disposal services, or the right to their use, if they are
accessed by means of an outlet or hook-up at the campsite and are
supplied with the campsite.
“tour package” has the meaning assigned by subsection 163(3),
but does not include a tour package that includes a convention
facility or related convention supplies.
That is how this thing starts but then it becomes convoluted.
Perhaps I should not read all this but it now begins to define
“non-resident”. I previously said that this is the part in
Bill C-24 that proposes to exempt from taxation the taxes on camp
fees that are charged to non-residents. It states:
a non-resident person is the recipient of a supply made by a
registrant of short-term accommodation, camping accommodation or
a tour package that includes short-term accommodation or camping
accommodation,—
It further states:
Mr. Speaker, do you know what I said? Do you understand what I
just read? I hate to admit this publicly but I am not sure I
know what this means. However, I will vote on it and so will all
the Liberal members afterwards. Of course it is easy for them
because they will just stand when their string is pulled.
However, as a member of the opposition I have to somehow try to
make sense of this and figure out whether this is a good thing or
not.
I would like to urge people out there in the real world to get
on the Internet and call up Bill C-24. They just have to go to
the parliamentary site, www.parl.gc.ca, look for government
business, look at the bills, pull up Bill C-24 and try to read
it. I defy them to read it.
I know there are not many Liberals listening to me right now but
maybe there is an accountant listening.
Maybe that accountant could phone me back and say “I read that
and I understood it perfectly”. I would like to meet that
person. That is only one example. It goes on and on. I
hesitate to punish our interpreters, whom I value so highly, by
reading more of this. These are really strange things. It goes
on and on for four or five pages.
1145
There is another strange thing that happens. Different parts of
the bill come into effect on different dates. Subparagraph
252.1(13) states that subsection (1) is deemed to have come into
force on February 24, 1998, which is a little over two years ago.
There are other parts of the bill which I scanned through while I
was sitting here that have implementation dates all the way back
to 1990. Even though this is a bill that primarily implements
the provisions of the budget in the last year or two, or three,
there are some sections which go back further than that. For
example, the top of page 98 states:
(5) Subsection (2) is deemed to have come into force on November
26, 1997”.
(6) Subsection (3) is deemed to have come into force on April 1,
1997.
(7) Subsection (4) is deemed to have come into force on December
17, 1990.
That is over 10 years ago. We are implementing a budget
provision that, when the bill is passed, will retroactively be
deemed to have come into force on December 17, 1990. Most of us
cannot even remember where we were on that day.
I do this to illustrate how convoluted the Income Tax Act is.
The whole bill is full of this.
If there is anything that has urgent need, it is the
simplification of the Income Tax Act. I despair of a government
which has as its goal to fleece Canadians of as much money as it
can and then selectively, through all of these different
provisions of the Income Tax Act, make provisions from which one
person or another is exempt.
I resent the tax exemption on camping facilities. I resent the
fact that non-residents can come into Canada and rent the same
space that I and my fellow Canadians can rent and pay a lower
price for the same space. If the space is worth it, we should
all pay the same amount. Non-residents are exempt because it
helps to make us competitive in the travel industry. It is
ironic that the bill discussed prior to this was the tourism
bill. Tourism is very important to Canadians. It is a large part
of our economy and it must be competitive.
In Bill C-24 we have a move to make it more competitive, but
what about Canadians who choose to travel in their country, to
enjoy their parks? They are priced right out of it. After they
have finished paying their income tax, property tax, sales tax
and their daily expenses, Canadians scarcely have enough money
left to even consider going on a vacation. If they do go on a
vacation they pay taxes on everything that happens when they go
to different places, including parks. They pay huge fees now to
the Government of Canada to enter a national park and then they
pay the GST on top of that fee.
1150
Speaking of the GST, I distinctly recall that the Liberals, when
campaigning for the 1993 election, made some statements about not
liking the GST. In fact, there were some members of the Liberal
team who campaigned on trying to get rid of it.
I do not know if you were one of those, Mr. Speaker. I know
that you ran under the Liberal banner and, of course, due to the
neutrality of your position I am not able to draw you into these
partisan debates. However, I think of all those other Liberals.
Should I call them the green foreheaded Liberals over there? At
least I see a lot of green, so that must reflect their foreheads.
Many of them ran under the campaign which said “We will kill
the GST. We will eliminate it. It will be gone”. In fact, the
hon. member who is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who in
the last parliament was the Deputy Prime Minister, was actually
forced to resign because day after day the press and the
opposition kept reminding her of how she had said she would
resign if the GST did not disappear. Finally, one day she had
that critical moment when she went to her banking machine and it
gave her a tinge of conscience. It said to her “You had better
resign because you said you would if the GST was not gone, and it
is not gone”. The Canadian taxpayers in her riding got to fork
out another approximately $100,000 to run a byelection. They
paid for the fact that she and all of her colleagues broke that
election promise. They paid again. They paid for the election
campaign.
Of course, it was well reported at that time that prior to her
making this decision which showed that she had such a deep
conscience there was some polling done, paid for by the
taxpayers, which determined in advance that if, having resigned,
she were to run again that she would be re-elected. Then she was
able to fulfil her tinge of conscience and resign.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if that poll had
said that if she had resigned over this GST issue she would not
have been re-elected. I wonder if she still would have followed
through on that deep pang of conscience. I wonder if maybe she
would have just invented more excuses in order to hang on to
power.
The point I making is this. There was a commitment to kill the
GST, to eliminate it. It would be gone, the people were told, if
they voted Liberal. I sometimes wonder how many Canadians voted
Liberal in the 1993 election based on that promise alone. I
think there were many of them.
The Conservatives brought in the much hated GST in 1990. I have
never before in my life—and I have lived quite a long time—seen
a tax which has gained such enduring hatred of Canadians.
Every week there are advertisements in the papers in Alberta
where one store or another has a big sale and the biggest banner
on the sale announcement is that there is no GST, but in smaller
letters it says that the store will have to pay the GST because
it is a legal requirement.
Instead of saying there will be a 7% reduction in prices, which
would bring in only a few people, they put up a big banner that
says “No GST” and the people flock there to avoid the GST. The
stores find that they get more people coming to storewide sales
when they have a no GST event than if they were simply to say
they would reduce the prices by 7%.
The GST is a very much hated tax.
I sometimes think that the Liberal government sits in the
position of power in Ottawa based on, dare I say it—and it is
not attributed to any individual—based on a fraud.
1155
The people on the government side in the election campaign said
they would eliminate the GST if elected. That is why Canadians
voted for them. The government turned around and not only kept
the GST, but harmonized it in those provinces participating. It
is now a 15% tax instead of a 7% tax. We all know it is a
harmonized tax and some of the revenue goes to the province, but
I think it is also fair to say that instead of eliminating the
GST in the participating provinces the government effectively
doubled it.
That is the Liberal record on the GST. Bill C-24, which we are
debating today, has included in it a number of GST provisions. I
said at the beginning of my speech that I am not opposed to some
of those provisions. There is an increase in tax on cigarettes,
which is another topic. Bill C-24 reduces or removes the GST on
a number of health care related services.
I would like to share this with hon. members. We recently had a
funeral in our family. My beloved sister passed away about a
month ago and we had the funeral. We did not pay much attention
to this issue that I am now going to mention at the time of my
sister's funeral, but I had a grieving constituent phone me
because his wife had just passed away and he said “In the middle
of my sorrow, I go to buy a casket for my wife, and the casket is
$3,000 and the government wants another $210 in taxes, in GST, on
the casket.” He was very upset. I was not able to comfort him
in his loss, nor was I able to promise him that there would be no
GST on caskets tomorrow, because there is, the government has
arranged it.
I noticed in Bill C-24 that there is a change concerning burial
plots and the GST as well, but I do not quite remember what it
is. It is one of those convoluted things that I tried to read,
but could not really figure out from the bill whether the GST
will be increased on burial plots or whether it applies to
non-residents, or what it was. However, there are some
revisions.
The GST is everywhere. It is there when you are born, it is
there when you live, and it is there when you die. The
government has no intention of reducing or removing it. It loves
the revenue. There is nothing that the government does not like
to tax.
Here is an interesting one. I want to say a bit about the tax
on cigarettes. It was about three, four or five years ago that
cigarette smuggling was a huge issue, so the government decided
to reduce the taxes on cigarettes to make the price differential
between smuggled cigarettes and those purchased at the store less
so there would be less demand for the black market, thereby
reducing smuggling. The government tells us that this has had
some effect.
Bill C-24 will once again increase cigarette taxes. It also
provides for a rebate system to retailers in the cigarette
marketing industry, but I will not go into that detail. However,
I have to ask the question: If high taxes were part of the
reason for developing the smuggling industry in the first place,
would it not be possible that by increasing these taxes, as Bill
C-24 will do, the problem will return? I think that is something
the government should think about.
1200
I want to talk a little about some of the other provisions in
Bill C-24. One that comes to mind has to do with non-residents,
cross-border transactions and the work of conventions. This bill
talks about provisions for collecting taxes on gas and other
utility transmission and generation. The bill also provides for a
tax rebate for charities. Charities can get a tax rebate on the
money they raise in bottle drives and things like that.
The real thing happening is that we are meddling. We are once
again increasing the complexity of the Income Tax Act. There is
no real change here. Nothing here will substantially change the
tax level of Canadians. That is what is regrettable.
I would like to see the Liberals actually implement their
election promise. Perhaps we should have a motion again in the
House calling for the elimination of the GST. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to ask for it right
now, perhaps we could get unanimous consent that the GST be
eliminated. I would ask for that. Sure, why not?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Elk Island has requested unanimous consent to move a motion. Does
the hon. member for Elk Island have the unanimous consent of the
House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. When I tried
to fulfill their election promise, Liberal members came out of
the bushes and said they did not want to do it. I am really
surprised. They ran on that election promise. I thought they
would be quite willing to accept the motion that the GST be
eliminated because that is what they ran on. It would have been
done and they could have gone home and said, “Look, we have
fulfilled our promise”, just by staying in the bushes behind the
curtains when a member of the official opposition moved that
motion.
I also have a general statement about Bill C-24. It is
illustrative of the things the government does. The budget is
much more of a PR exercise than most people are aware. The
announcements made in the budget every year by the Minister of
Finance are numbers which are really designed to make people feel
good.
There were announcements in last year's budget for example
restoring $13.5 billion to health care. Canadians felt so good
about that. Wowee, after all the money that has been taken out
of health care. We all know how our health care system is
suffering and now the government is putting back $13.5 billion.
That is the messaging the Liberals do. What people do not know,
and I guess it is the job of the opposition to point this out to
Canadians and we need to repeat it over and over again, is that
is a cumulative total over five years.
In my humble opinion it is bordering on dishonest in a one year
budget to use numbers like that. It implies that $13.5 billion
per year is being restored to health care when that is not true.
It is $2.5 billion in the budget year, $2.5 billion the next
year, $2.5 billion the year following, and then a couple of other
payments in the next two years. Over five years the government
will manage to put $13.5 billion into health care.
It makes us wonder why the government did not say $20 billion
spread over 10 years or $40 billion spread over 20 years.
Why did it not do that? The government could have got a bigger
kick out of saying $40 billion instead of $20 billion or $13.5
billion.
1205
Bill C-24 very much illustrates this because over and over it
talks about implementing measures that were introduced in the
1999, 1998 and 1997 budgets. By voting in favour of this bill,
if anybody does, they are simply saying to the Liberal government
that it is okay for it to lie to the Canadian people and to
totally misrepresent the budgetary facts by putting these things
into place and talking about them.
Way back in 1997 there was the announcement of the millennium
scholarship fund. The government got three years of kick out of
it but did not put any money into it. The students' lives were
not made any easier; their tuitions and costs did not go down.
Meanwhile the government had this $3 billion millennium
scholarship fund and all of the young people said, “The Liberals
must truly be wonderful because they are giving us $3 billion”.
But they did not. Over the objections of the auditor general,
they billed it to that year's expenditures but they are simply
taking it, hoarding it and putting it aside somewhere to spend in
the future.
The same thing is true with many of the other issues the
Liberals come forward with. What about the tax cuts? In this
year's budget the Minister of Finance said that there would be
$58 billion of tax cuts. Even Canadians like me feel like
jumping up and kicking our heels because $58 billion of tax cuts
is pretty exciting. Those are the words they used.
Let us look at our pay stubs. Is there any effect there? No.
Our total taxes have actually gone up because the CPP premiums
went up. The reductions are way down the road, five years from
now. It is very presumptuous of the finance minister to do
things like that. How does he know if he will even be in power
five years down the road? The Liberals' mandate ends in the next
year or two. It is very presumptuous of him to make promises of
accumulated tax cuts. However, he gets the PR kick out of it and
people feel good.
Unfortunately, feeling good does not affect our economy. It is
only when we physically leave more money in the pockets of the
taxpayers that our economy gets the real kick. Only then can
Canadians buy the things they need for their families thereby
promoting the economic well-being of businesses in their
communities and the economy takes off. That only happens when
they actually get the tax cut.
Meanwhile the Liberals are so interested in all of this spinning
that we end up on May 9, 2000 implementing parts of the 1997
budget speech. Finally we are implementing the things that they
promised three years ago.
The conclusion is simply that Bill C-24 is not good enough. It
is a bill that has one or two good provisions as I said. I would
love to vote in favour of them, but I cannot because of the other
things.
The overriding issue of course is that in many areas we are
revisiting and revising the implementation of the GST provision
when in fact the government promised that it would eliminate,
kill and destroy the GST. It has not happened. The Liberals who
stand up and vote in favour of Bill C-24 will once again be
standing in front of Canadians and saying “You cannot trust us.
You cannot really believe what we say because we are implementing
exactly the opposite of what we promised in the election
campaign”.
1210
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to pick up on the conclusion of the Canadian Alliance
member. We too are unable to support Bill C-24, which implements
the 1997, 1998, and 1999 budgets, or certain important measures
contained in them, for reasons similar to those of the Canadian
Alliance member.
I would like to go over the key features of the three budgets
mentioned in Bill C-24. First, we characterized the Minister of
Finance's 1997 budget as lazy and blatantly election-minded. We
do not normally resort to this sort of vocabulary over nothing.
With respect to the 1997 budget, we said that the Minister of
Finance could have done much more than he actually did to combat
the unemployment and poverty at the time, particularly when he
rose in the House, placed his hand over his heart and said that
he was full of compassion for the thousands of Canadian children
living in poverty and that he was prepared to do all sorts of
things for them.
In the 1997 budget, with forecasts already pointing to large
surpluses, we expected the Minister of Finance to immediately
take stock of the increasing poverty, especially of Canada's
children, and use these surpluses to help these children and
particularly their parents.
We kept telling the Prime Minister that in 1997 the federal
government would not be facing a deficit as large as he was
saying, but rather a surplus.
I remind the House of what the Minister of Finance was saying at
that time. He said he was anticipating a $14 billion deficit for
1997. Guess what he got at the end of the fiscal year. We were
telling him that the surplus could be close to $4 billion, and
that is in fact what happened. At the end of the 1997 fiscal
year, the surplus was $3.5 billion.
By hiding the truth behind the figures, by hiding the surplus,
the Minister of Finance could say “Listen, we still do not have
the means this year to relieve poverty and to improve conditions
for the unemployed, to substantially lower employment insurance
premiums and also to increase benefits. We will wait till next
year”.
In reality, and this is why we had called the 1997 budget a
blatantly election-minded budget, all the good news announced in
the 1997 budget were for the 1998-99 fiscal year. A few weeks
after the Minister of Finance brought down the 1997 budget, the
Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice called an election.
This demonstrated that the criticism we voiced on budget day was
right. The Bloc Quebecois' contention that this was a blatantly
election-minded budget was confirmed, as we were entering an
election campaign.
The Liberals fought their election campaign on promises to
reduce taxes, to improve the employment insurance plan and to
reduce EI premiums. They said that they had to be re-elected.
The 1997 budget gave us a preview of what this government
intended to do in the following years with the huge surpluses
generated by making cuts at the expense of the provinces,
particularly in the Canada social transfer, which is designed to
allow the provinces and the Government of Quebec to fund social
assistance, higher education and health, and also with the money
that the government had been collecting year after year in the
employment insurance fund, to which it contributed nothing. The
EI surpluses were generated by the contributions of employers
and workers.
We began to see how the Minister of Finance would behave once he
had all these surpluses.
The 1997 budget was also a lazy budget, as the minister had
promised a tax reform. He had told us in this House “Wait.
I am setting up a committee that will make recommendations and I
will start a review process of all the Canadian tax provisions,
which have not been reviewed since 1967”.
We expected the Minister of Finance to come up with something in
the 1997 budget. But no.
1215
True to his proverbial laziness, the Minister of Finance
preferred to stay put, to miss an opportunity and do nothing to
eliminate the existing inequities in the tax system,
particularly for low and middle income earners. Incidentally,
these inequities still exist, even though the minister announced
in the last budget that full indexation of tax tables would be
restored.
We are being asked to support Bill C-24, to support measures that
will implement large parts of the 1997 budget. Members will
understand that we cannot support this bill, since we soundly
rejected the 1997 budget, which was a smoke and mirrors budget,
a blatantly election-minded budget, and also a lazy budget.
Let us now turn to the 1998 budget. We cannot support the
measures this budget implements either. I remind the House of
what the Bloc Quebecois said about this budget “Once a Liberal,
always a Liberal.” Why did we say that?
In 1998, budget surpluses began to grow a bit, even if the
Finance Minister did not yet acknowledge the existence of
staggering surpluses and was bold enough to make a real farce of
this budget by referring to a balanced budget, or zero surplus
for the following three years.
The government was beginning to have quite interesting
surpluses, which could have been used to restore the Canada
social transfer payments to provinces in order to finance social
assistance, post-secondary education and health, which had been
drastically cut by the Minister of Finance two years before in a
plan, in effect until 2002, which provides for annual cuts of
several billion dollars in social transfer payments to the
provinces.
Instead of giving back the money which it had stolen from the
provinces, the Minister of Finance, who had also robbed the
poorest, the sick and students, preferred to start implementing
policies which were then seen and still are seen as unacceptable
encroachments on provincial jurisdictions.
In other words, they rob provinces of their money and they use
it to duplicate, overlap and encroach on provincial
jurisdiction. There was a gross example of such an intrusion in
the 1998 federal liberal budget, and that was the famous Canada
millennium scholarship fund, worth $2.5 billion.
Never before had a federal government dared to encroach so
blatantly and on such a way on an area, namely education, which
is clearly a provincial jurisdiction.
The Liberal government decided to encroach in a heavy-handed way
on an area which was clearly Quebec's jurisdiction, a
jurisdiction recognised in the constitution. They seem to have
acted in this manner to flatter the Prime Minister's ego.
Everybody has an ego; some have a big one, some have a smaller
one, but generally we all have one. The Prime Minister's ego is
gigantic. He wanted to leave his mark with the millennium
scholarships and chose to interfere in an area under provincial
jurisdiction, thereby creating endless quarrels. I think this is
typical of this Prime Minister, whose career is based on
quarrels between the Quebec government and the federal
government, constitutional and jurisdictional quarrels,
quarrels about the federal government's interference in areas
under provincial jurisdiction.
With the millennium scholarships, which were introduced in the
1998 budget, the Prime Minister showed that he was on an ego
trip. He wanted to leave his mark. I suppose he is hoping that
his face will appear on a bank note one day.
Negotiations with the Quebec government lasted several months.
The quarrelling lasted several months.
At the end of the day, the students are the ones who had to wait
and who had to pay because of this interference by the federal
government and because of the Prime Minister's ego trip.
No distinction has been made between the situation of students
in Quebec and of students in Canada. There has not even been any
recognition of the existence of a loans and scholarships system,
which was consolidated at the 1964 constitutional conference
between Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage.
1220
The benefits of this thematic system of loans and grants in
Quebec were not even recognized. The Prime Minister claimed that
the federal government had a say in the education sector.
That budget also reinforced the federal government claims on
surpluses accumulated in the employment insurance fund. That
year, surpluses were over $6.4 billion. And the federal
government, and particularly its Minister of Finance, who wants
to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, shamelessly
took this money and put it in their pockets, as though it
belonged to them.
The government did something else instead of compensating the
unemployed, which would normally be the ultimate objective of
this fund.
I remind the House that we started getting quite disturbing
statistics that year about the employment insurance coverage,
with fewer and fewer unemployed people being entitled to
employment insurance benefits. More and more people were
marginalized from the labour market and were driven to poverty,
although they had been employed before being laid off, because
they were not entitled to any benefits.
The following year, statistics were appalling: 43% of the
unemployed were entitled to employment insurance benefits.
I repeat it, and the Bloc has also said so numerous times and
has fought an extraordinary battle in that regard, when a system
does not serve the majority of the clients it is supposed to
serve, we must toss it out and start all over again, go back to
the drawing board and take our responsibilities. This important
system is supposed to help workers temporarily affected by the
economic conditions who need help and support. It is not
intended to push them aside, marginalize them or threat them as
abusers.
Let us not forget that it is not only because the EI qualifying
criteria have been tightened that 43% of the unemployed now
qualify and, more importantly, that there is a $6 billion dollar
surplus. It is mainly because, since 1997 and particularly 1998,
the unemployed have been considered as potential abusers.
They have been hunted down. Some even received calls as early as
5:45 in the morning, checking if they would be available for an
interview that same day, to see if they were ready to re-enter
the job market. They have been hunted down like criminals.
This is what the 1998 budget was all about. And now the
government is asking us to support the measures that give effect
to this budget. We will never do that. It would be a shame and
we would lose sleep over it. If the Minister of Finance can
still look at himself in the mirror after the drastic cuts that
he has made in the social programs and after the role that he
has played in exacerbating the problem of rising poverty in
Canada, good for him. But on this side of the House, we have too
much social conscience and sense of duty to be able to do so.
We will never support this budget, nor others of the same ilk,
nor any Liberal party measure that is not in the public
interest.
Let us move on to the 1999 budget, for Bill C-24 contains some
measures which concretize part of the 1999 budget. It goes from
bad to worse. I will repeat the main thrust of our analysis
from that time. When the Minister of Finance introduced his
budget, we described it as being evidence of one thing: the
federal Liberals were not ones to keep their word. Why such a
severe judgment once again? As I have already said, we in the
Bloc Quebecois do not make such statements lightly. This is a
documented fact. This time there was no shortage of
documentation.
As we said back in 1999, the Liberals do not keep their word.
Why? Because, with no warning, the Minister of Finance decided
to change the formula for determining the distribution of funds
under the Canada Social Transfer to the provinces and the
Government of Quebec. He did so unilaterally, without any
warning, without any advance notice.
So, contrary to what had been the practice in the past, when
provincial need was the main criterion, when for instance a
poorer province was entitled to more funding for welfare and the
criterion of provincial need was self-evident, the decision was
made to change this, with the stroke of a pen, in favour of
solely population size.
It is ridiculous, shameful—if somebody could die of shame, the
Minister of Finance would be long dead; of course, I do not wish
anyone dead, this is just a figure of speech—to have changed from
this method to a strictly population-based approach, which will
mean that, in the next few years, Canada's most heavily
populated province.
Ontario, which is also richest province, will receive
approximately 47% of the new transfers allocated by the Minister
of Finance in the 1999 budget and the 2000 budget.
Of the additional $11.2 billion dollars allocated in 1999, 47%
will go to Ontario, while Quebec will get 8.3%, because the
formula takes into account adjustments in cuts already planned,
as well as various criteria that will evolve between now and
2002.
1225
So, under the new formula, which takes into account the relative
population of the provinces instead of other criteria, which
balanced population with the needs of the provinces, Ontario
will end up with 47% of this new funding and Quebec 8.3%.
With this unilateral change in the method of allocating funding,
we have the following situation. Quebec will absorb about 50%
of the unilateral cuts planned by the federal government between
1995 and 2001, 2002. In addition to not getting any new funding
from the federal government and having a proportion
corresponding to one-third of its demographic weight, Quebec will
absorb about 50% of the cuts announced by the Minister of
Finance and the Liberal government.
This decision reinforces our opinion that the Liberals are not
true to their word, that they honour neither their word nor their
signature, and that we are witness to a real attack against the
Government of Quebec. I remember very well that the President of
the Treasury Board, sometime in 1997 or 1998, said, as reported
in Le Soleil that what the federal government most do is hurt
the Government of Quebec.
The President of the Treasury Board said, speaking for
his government, that “when Bouchard has cut in health care,
social transfers and education, the federal government will come
along as the protector and show itself to be the great social
democrat in this country, full of compassion and having a better
fate for the most disadvantaged at heart”.
This is what lies behind the three budgets of the Minister of
Finance. All of this was behind that, nothing more, nothing less.
The 1999 budget is also the budget of shame, because in 1999,
the Minister of Finance had the means to immediately initiate a
reform of the tax system so that the people and families who
should be in the middle income bracket did not find themselves
below the poverty line, once federal income tax was paid. He
could have corrected this injustice. He could have had the tax
thresholds raised. Let me explain.
He would have had the means in 1999 to ensure that a single
income family of two adults and one child, paying federal tax on
an income above $13,700 only, would pay income tax when it had an
acceptable income. In Quebec, a family pays taxes only on an
income of over $30,000. At the federal level, it is $13,700.
1230
The Minister of Finance could have corrected that situation in
1999. He could also have corrected it in the last budget, the
year 2000 budget. He did not do so. Why? Why do we have a
situation where federal taxes in this supposedly wonderful
country are so high that they turn what should be a middle income
into a low income, an income below the poverty level? This does
not make any sense.
In the 1999 budget, the budget of shame, the minister told us
“A tax reform is underway. I can already tell you that there
will be tax cuts”. Yes, but what exactly are these tax cuts?
This is what we have to look at.
The Minister of Finance is a millionaire and a shipowner who
passes laws that benefit him, or at least we suspect so. He
proposes tax cuts that benefit his buddies, that benefit the
millionaires of this country. He told us he would eliminate the
5% surtax on personal income. He was very proud to announce that
measure, because it was going to provide relief to taxpayers, who
would have a little more leeway.
But those who have more leeway are not the taxpayers who are
experiencing real problems. Rather, it is those who earn $250,000
or more annually. In 1999, these people enjoyed a $3,800 tax cut.
They are the lucky ones.
By comparison, that same year, those who earned $30,000 or less
got a $90 tax cut.
There is talk of fair taxation, there is great pride in
announcing tax cuts to benefit the most disadvantaged, when in
fact the target group is the millionaires. Is this normal?
Is this a budget whose implementation could be acceptable, when
it is totally unacceptable as far as its main principles are
concerned, condemnable and fit for the trash can?
Very few people here recall the latest statistics on the
increase in poverty in Canada, which came out in 1999. At that
time we learned that there were no longer in excess of one
million poor children in Canada, as there had been in 1993. The
number had increased to 1.4 million, that is 400,000 additional
cases because of this government, because of the harsh measures
taken by a harsh and heartless minister, the Minister of Finance,
and his shameless government.
There have been three shameful budgets: 1997, 1998 and 1999. Any
others could have been described in the same way. It was clear
that there was only one way the Minister of Finance could find to
put this country's finances back on an even footing: the
provinces were asked to contribute 60% of the effort via deep
slashes to the transfer payments used to fund health, higher
education and social assistance.
The taxpayers of Canada were asked to contribute 30%. As hon.
members are aware, in four years, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, by
not reforming the tax system, the Minister of Finance ended up
with close to $25 billion extra in taxes in his coffers, among
other things by not indexing the tax tables. That is how the
country's finances were put back on an even footing.
It was not his talent or intelligence. A puppet could have done
the same thing.
It is easy to sit down and watch the train go by, to do nothing
to correct the injustices in the tax system and to see that these
injustices translate into billions of dollars in revenue going
into the federal coffers.
It is easy to sit on one's fanny, watch the train go by, pinch,
steal, money from the employers and the employees in the
employment insurance fund, to stuff that in one's pockets and to
create a good impression. It is easy to sit and keep the
expected adjustment of the government machinery, the talk was of
19% in reduction of the machinery, to 8%.
That is the supreme intelligence of the federal Liberals in the
management of public finances.
No one is to be congratulated on these three budgets. We
certainly do not have to support them. If I did, I could never
sleep, I could not look at myself in the mirror, because I would
always be ashamed. I wonder how they manage.
I would now like to give a little dry and somewhat technical
demonstration, which is worth the trouble. It represents $2
billion for Quebec.
1235
In Bill C-24, there is also a clause that implements the
agreement reached April 23, 1996 between the federal government,
the Minister of Finance in this case, and three maritime
provinces—New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
On April 23, 1996, the Minister of Finance signed a memorandum of
understanding with these three maritime provinces so they would
harmonize their provincial sales tax with the federal GST. In
this process of harmonization, it was clear that some would have
to adjust their tax system, because in some provinces the sales
tax was 12% or 14%. They had to bring this provincial tax down
to 8%.
In direct terms, looking at the tax revenue from provincial
sales tax, these three provinces came up short. The Minister of
Finance therefore decided that they should be compensated.
Admittedly, this is a political decision. Nevertheless, it is a
decision which, based on the formula used, is unfair to Quebec,
and I will explain.
In 1991, the Government of Quebec, which did not wait for
Canada's other provinces to make the move, decided to harmonize
the GST with the TVQ for reasons of operation and cost to
businesses in Quebec. Ultimately, it was about making Quebec's
businesses competitive.
In fact, the then Progressive Conservative government had
appealed to the provinces to harmonize their PST with the GST so
that all Canadian businesses could face the music, be
competitive and efficient, as well as enjoy the benefits of a
harmonized regime, which is less difficult to manage. In short,
there were all sorts of good reasons.
The Government of Quebec did not wait, and immediately began the
process of harmonization. But when it did so, it had to adjust
its tax structure. How did the Government of Quebec do that?
By increasing certain taxes payable by businesses in Quebec.
Let me give an example.
Following the harmonization of the GST and the QST in 1991, the
tax on profits generated by small and medium size businesses
rose from 3.45% to 5.75%, a rather drastic increase of 66%,
because of the shortfall suffered by the Quebec government as a
result of that harmonization. Taxes on the profits of these
businesses had to be adjusted. That was a necessary measure to
maintain a stable tax base.
Taxes on profits in general were also increased, from 6.3%
before harmonizing the GST and the QST in Quebec, to 8.9%. Taxes
on gasoline and cigarettes also had to be adjusted. If that new
tax had been added to the existing excise tax on cigarettes and
gasoline, the rate would have been so high for gasoline that it
would have been too big a shock for the Quebec economy.
So, because of the adjustments that had to made to the Quebec
government tax structure, some costs were absorbed partly by
Quebec and partly by the companies, through the tax increases to
which I referred.
These adjustments are estimated at about $725 million a year for
the Quebec government and businesses. That was achieved by using
the same bases for calculation that the Minister of Finance used
with the maritime provinces, but by looking at all the
adjustments that had to be made to the whole tax structure, and
not only the adjustment at the provincial sales taxes level.
This is where the fundamental difference lies. When the Minister
of Finance signed the MOU, he looked at the shortfall directly
related to the reduction of provincial sales taxes in the three
maritime provinces and determined a compensation on that basis.
1240
As far as compensation is concerned, they were saying that any
shortfall in excess of 5% between provincial sales tax receipts
as they existed in the maritime provinces before harmonization
and afterward was compensated for by the federal government, but
only when it exceeded 5%. When the calculations were done for
the maritime provinces, the figure reached was $964 million for
the next four years.
When we do the same calculation, taking into consideration that
the federal government would have to compensate for 100% of the
shortfall in excess of 5% the first two years, followed by 50%
for the third year, and 25% for the fourth, the figure we get for
the first year is a loss of $725 million, taking into account the
whole adjustment to the taxation system. The second year, taking
into consideration the payment that should come from the federal
government, which is again 100% reimbursable by the federal
government after the first 5% of the harmonized tax as compared
to the original tax, the figure would be an additional $725
million. The third year it would be $363 million and the fourth,
corresponding to 25% of the shortfall, would be $181 million, for
a grand total of $1.9 billion, or very nearly $2 billion.
These calculations were presented to specialists outside of the
federal and Quebec governments, and they agreed with us. As well,
in 1997, the provincial premiers supported the Government of
Quebec in its crusade to obtain justice in this matter. The
federal government turned a deaf ear. At the 1996 summit in
Quebec, there was unanimity. Along with talk of the battle
against the deficit, there was also talk of the $2 billion the
federal government was obstinately refusing to pay the Government
of Quebec.
This led to another problem. The fact that we were not entitled
to compensation to which we were legitimately entitled—and our
calculations are above reproach—had another result. When
harmonization of the GST with the Quebec sales tax was carried
out, the harmonization was not complete. This would have cost the
Government of Quebec and the businesses of Quebec too dearly,
given the shortfall, and given the lack of federal government
contribution to this harmonization.
Even though the Government of Quebec manages the collection of
its harmonized provincial taxes and the GST for the federal
government, and Quebec businesses have only one form to
complete, they have, however, different calculations to do when
the time comes to claim the input tax credit at the federal
level or in the harmonized provincial sales tax system.
The list of input credits for some industries is not the same as
the list of items that permit a return for federal government
input tax credit. So that Quebec businesses cannot fully
benefit from the harmonization of the GST and the provincial
sales tax.
If the federal government would stop being obtuse, if it paid
attention to our analyses, our demonstrations, if it
acknowledged we were right—because we were right and it was
wrong—we could conclude this harmonization. Quebec businesses
would be a lot more competitive in an environment where the talk
is of liberalization and globalization. This is an important
factor when we are talking about taxation and red tape and
especially when we are talking about returns for input tax
credits that Quebec business is entitled to.
We are therefore not pleased to support a measure that treats
Quebec and, more importantly, Quebec business, unfairly and
unjustly in connection with the harmonization of the GST and the
QST, with the provincial sales tax of these three maritime
provinces.
We support the principle of harmonization since Quebec was the
first, oddly enough, without asking for anything, to harmonize
or at least to try to harmonize its provincial sales tax totally
with the federal GST. Afterwards, when the time came to claim
some support for this adjustment, like it did with the three
maritime provinces, it sent Quebec packing. How are we supposed
to support Bill C-24, which implements this memorandum of
understanding of April 1996? We cannot.
1245
It cannot be said that businesses from the maritime provinces
increased their competitiveness compared to their Quebec
counterparts, in spite of the help of federal funds to which we
did not have access, even though we had a right to such funds.
We have no choice but to oppose this provision of Bill C-24, just
like we were opposed to the Liberal mismanagement displayed in
the 1997, 1998 and 1999 budgets, for the reasons that I
mentioned earlier.
I want to say a word on the year 2000 budget. That budget did
not solve any of the problems that I mentioned.
The federal government turned a deaf ear, in spite of the fact
that opposition parties in the House were unanimous in asking
for employment insurance reforms, for leaving the employment
insurance surpluses in the EI fund for the unemployed, for
respecting contributors by not stealing their contributions,
particularly since the government contributes nothing. The
federal government also turned a deaf ear in spite of the
unanimity among opposition parties regarding the level to which
social transfers should be restored.
In the year 2000 budget, the government announced the
elimination of certain cuts. However, by the year 2002, the cuts
that were originally expected to total $40 billion will be
around $33 billion. And we should thank this government for
cutting social transfers, transfers for education and health,
when it continues to make cuts and when it is making
election-minded announcements about bogus increases in transfers.
The government did not solve any taxation problems in Budget
2000, any more than it did in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 budgets.
Since our arrival here in 1994, since the first budget, we have
been calling for this taxation reform. We have good reasons for
doing so. Federal taxation is antiquated, unfair to low and
middle income earners and too generous to certain big
corporations, which take advantage of loopholes. These
corporations have the resources to hire the best tax experts,
who know the ins and outs of taxation and who put them to work
for their clients.
If we look just at the clause having to do with taxes deferred
by these large corporations, and at another clause concerning
the accelerated depreciation of technological inputs, we find
ourselves with a situation where businesses will never pay any
taxes.
These businesses are proud of the fact.
However, the money that they do not contribute in taxes is
squeezed out of individual taxpayers, the families I mentioned
earlier, with two adults, one child and a single income, who
start paying federal taxes at $13,000. This is the family that
is making up for what big corporations like Bell Canada or Bell
Canada Enterprises, Mr. Monty's business, are not paying. I keep
thinking about Mr. Monty and I do not know why. Probably for a
number of reasons, but for that one in particular.
I was looking at the latest statistics available on Bell Canada
Enterprises compiled by the CTC, which show that BCE has
deferred taxes owing and unpaid. Normally, over the years, it
should have paid these taxes, but it owes around $2 billion or
$2.5 billion.
BCE owes $2.5 billion in back taxes, which it will likely never
pay, because of the clause to which I have referred: accelerated
capital cost deduction and tax deferral.
That $2 billion is precisely what it took to acquire CTV. Hon.
members will recall that Mr. Monty made a $2.3 billion offer to
acquire CTV. This prompts me to comment that, if Bell Canada
Enterprises were to acquire CTV, it would belong to everyone.
It would belong to the families made up of two parents and one
child who pay federal tax starting at $13,000. They would own a
piece of it because they are the ones paying to compensate the
big guys, BCE and the like.
This is unfair. The minimum taxation levels are unfair. The
Government of Quebec did an excellent job in this area.
In the last three years in particular, we have brought the
minimum tax level down to a reasonable level. A family of two
adults, one of them the wage earner, with one child will start
paying taxes at the $30,000 annual income level. The federal
cutoff is $13,700.
1250
Our millionaire financier, and manager of the state, he whose
pockets are overflowing, finds himself in the situation of being
too lazy to initiate a true tax reform in order to bring about
fair taxation.
For all these reasons, we are going to continue to speak out
against this Liberal government management and we will most
certainly vote against Bill C-24.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-24, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997,
the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation
Act, 1999 and the Income Tax Act.
Here we are in May 2000 debating amendments to the budget
implementation act dating back to the 1997 budget. It should be
noted that in reviving parliamentary democracy the Liberal plan
for the House of Commons and electoral reform from the 1993
Liberal platform stated:
In addition, the credibility stretching tradition of not passing
actual tax measures until many months after a budget, often even
after the measures have come into effect, must, within the
context of a suitable system of consultation, be ended.
What we have here is another example of a broken Liberal
promise. In this case it is one of parliamentary reform to
provide a more reasonable time period within which budgets would
be implemented, as opposed to talking about these changes three
years after an actual budget is presented by the Minister of
Finance.
Another area of the specific legislation which magnifies some of
the broken Liberal promises is the fact that we are discussing
some measures relative to the changes to the GST. Everyone in
the House remembers, particularly the Liberal members opposite
who ran in the 1993 election, campaigning on a Liberal commitment
to get rid of the GST.
The current government promised at various points during the
1993 campaign to eliminate, to scrap, to abolish the GST. The
finance minister in 1989 once said in the House of Commons that
the GST was a stupid, inept and incompetent tax. As a candidate
for the Liberal leadership he was quoted as saying that he was
committed to scrapping the GST and replacing it with an
alternative. Since then the Prime Minister during foreign travels
has not just embraced the GST but has actually told foreign
dignitaries that it was his idea in the first place and that it
is a great tax.
For the Liberals today to embrace the GST after campaigning
vociferously against it qualifies them for the award of the
patron saint of hypocrisy in the Canadian parliamentary system.
For Liberals to have fought against the GST and now take credit
for it and benefit as a government from the proceeds of the GST
is one of the reasons Canadians are so skeptical and cynical
about politics in general.
The Economist magazine 1998 year preview stated quite
clearly that credit for the deficit reduction in Canada belonged
largely to structural reforms made by the previous government.
The Economist magazine went on to list them. They included
free trade, the GST, deregulation of financial services,
transportation and energy. If I remember correctly, the Liberals
campaigned vociferously against all those policies in previous
elections. The current government has utilized those policies to
eliminate the deficit.
I am not suggesting that I would have been happier had the
government reversed those policies. In fact I am quite pleased
that it maintained them. The only thing worse than the Liberals
blatantly stealing Conservative policies and taking credit for
the results would be if they were to implement Liberal policies
which would probably be far more deleterious for the Canadian
economy.
Instead of trying to creatively develop Liberal policies we are
pleased that they had the good sense to embrace and support the
sound policies of the previous government.
1255
I could go further and say that this is a government of sound
and original ideas. Unfortunately its original ideas are seldom
sound and its sound ideas are never original.
Although the GST was an appropriate tax measure and appropriate
tax reform at the time, we have not seen any meaningful level of
tax reform under the current government. We could look at other
countries with which we are competing and the degree to which
they are using tax reform and tax reduction as vehicles to create
greater levels of economic growth. I suggest that we look at
what Izzy Asper, former leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba,
the CEO of CanWest Global Communications Corporation and head of
the Global Television Network, said when he spoke recently at the
BCNI meetings in Toronto.
He said that the Canadian tax system we were living under was
last reformed 32 years ago, that it was obsolete and that the
world it was designed to deal with no longer existed. He went on
to say that the system was a nightmare of complexity and a sea of
uncertainty, and that the tax system was anti-business,
anti-private sector and anti-entrepreneurial.
He asked a question of the Minister of Industry who spent some
time speaking to corporate leaders. The Minister of Industry
responded by saying that there could be no significant level of
tax reform in Canada and that tax reform would require a complete
consensus.
Obviously we will never have complete consensus on tax reform or
on any other major public policy reform or issue. The industry
minister and the whole government are so focused on poll driven
incrementalism and focus group economics that they cannot really
embrace the courageous visionary changes and steps toward the
more competitive economy which is necessary now because it would
involve political risk.
We have an industry minister who is credited by some as being
one of the most commonsensical in terms of his recognition that
the private sector plays a role in the economy. He actually
believes there cannot be any tax reform unless there is 100%
complete consensus on tax reform issues. I think that is a sad
state of affairs.
Canada needs a significant level of tax reform. Such reform
should be used as a vehicle for tax reduction. It is not just
personal taxes. We need a significant level of corporate tax
reduction.
The most recent budget reduced corporate taxes somewhat over a
period of years. However, prior to this budget we had the second
highest corporate taxes in the OECD. After the full
implementation of budget measures over a five year period we will
still have the fourth highest corporate taxes of 31 OECD
countries.
It is not really a very significant step in the right direction,
particularly given that 27 of the 31 OECD countries have stated
plans to further reduce their corporate taxes. While we are
taking baby steps in the right direction on some of these issues,
other countries with which we are competing are taking gigantic
leaps.
On the hypercompetitive global information highway upon which
individual Canadian companies are trying to compete and succeed,
we run the risk of becoming road kill unless the government
actually embraces some of the realities of the future as opposed
to always dealing with reforms around an economy that no longer
exists. That is part of the difficulty in discussing and making
these types of changes so long after a budget is introduced.
1300
Right now the rate of economic change has never been greater.
Now is probably the worst time in Canadian history to have a
caretaker, cruise control kind of government that is more focused
on next week's polls than on the challenges and opportunities for
the next 20 or 30 years. My fear is that Canadians will continue
to be held back by this weak leadership that is not focused on
the real issues facing the private sector and all Canadians.
We should be moving more significantly toward reducing and
ultimately eliminating capital taxes in Canada. The taxation of
capital in itself is of dubious benefit. It creates significant
disadvantages to accumulating capital in Canada and some
significant competitive disadvantages for our Canadian financial
services sector and banks. Some 7.5 million Canadians are
shareholders of those banks directly or indirectly.
The capital gains tax issue needs to be addressed. The
government's recent budget would reduce capital gains inclusion
rates from 75% to 66.6%. That is a step in the right direction
but it still leaves Canadian entrepreneurs with a 13%
disadvantage in terms of effective capital gains tax rates over
the U.S. A 13% disadvantage is certainly not something to crow
about.
The capital gains tax issue particularly in the new economy is
important because of the degree to which stock options are used
as compensatory assets. There is no reason to suspect this will
not continue to be the case even with the recent volatility. The
new economy is going to continue to depend on stock options as a
very important compensatory vehicle.
As such, when we maintain a 13% disadvantage over the U.S. in
terms of the way we tax capital gains, the resultant gain from
exercising a stock option, we are driving entrepreneurial talent
from Canada. We are sending the risk takers and the great minds
who are capable of building better companies and better
opportunities and thus a better country, somewhere else. That
better country may not be Canada. It may be the United States of
America or somewhere else because of the wrong-headedness of the
government and its inability to get with it in terms of embracing
the realities of the new economy.
There are several revenue neutral changes in Bill C-24 which
relate to the goods and services tax, the GST, and the harmonized
sales tax, the HST. These measures were announced on March 20,
1997. Most of them relate directly to Atlantic Canada and Nova
Scotia in particular. It is notable that these were introduced
on March 20, 1997, just a few short months before the Liberals
were turfed from Nova Scotia. I am not suggesting that the
unanimous decision in ridings across Nova Scotia to remove the
Liberal representatives from their seats was a reflection of this
issue specifically, but I think it did play a certain role.
By and large the measures are revenue neutral changes. Some of
them are positive. Assistance to charities that employ
individuals with disabilities and charities that are involved in
bottle recycling, enhancements to visitor rebate programs and
changes benefiting small businesses that sell products to direct
sellers are positive measures and we in the Progressive
Conservative Party can support them.
The general tax direction not just of this legislation but of
any Liberal government legislation in recent years has been so
flawed by a fundamental lack of vision and initiative that it is
very difficult to support almost any tax package brought forward.
1305
There have been some changes on the tobacco tax regime and also
the tax regime on split run magazines.
I would like to speak to some of the things that are not
addressed in this legislation and which I would like to see more
of in Liberal fiscal and economic policies.
It is time to significantly raise the basic personal exemption
in Canada. It is absolutely atrocious how much people are being
taxed. The most recent budget would have raised the basic
personal exemption to $8,200, the amount at which the government
feels it is appropriate to start taxing Canadians. In the U.S.
the basic personal exemption is not hit until someone earns
approximately $11,000 Canadian. Here we are in Canada which
supposedly is a less harsh country and we actually tax people at
$8,200 per year. That seems fundamentally unfair and needs to be
addressed, but the government clearly has not set that as a
priority.
Canada needs to redefine its middle class. Currently the top
marginal tax rate is hit at $60,000. The most recent budget
would increase that to $70,000. The fact is in the U.S. an
American does not hit the top marginal tax rate until he or she
is making $420,000 Canadian. As a result, we are taxing at
$60,000 and the government with the full implementation of the
most recent budget would increase that to $70,000.
Using $70,000 as the amount, at $70,000 the government feels it
is appropriate to tax Canadian families as if they are rich. That
creates immense pressure for those people earning $70,000 to
$100,000 to be drawn south of the border to greater opportunities
and lower taxes.
For example a software designer or a knowledge based worker in
Vancouver making $70,000 per year will pay 52% of his income in
combined federal and provincial income taxes. Less than an hour
and a half away in Seattle, a software worker or a knowledge based
industry worker making the same amount of money, about $70,000
Canadian, will pay 26% of his income in combined state and
federal taxes. An hour and a half away in the United States, the
same individual in the same industry will pay half the level of
taxes that he would pay in Canada.
The argument that is used quite frequently, and to a certain
extent there is some validity to it, is that of medicare. That
argument has been reduced significantly in recent years as the
government particularly since 1993 has cut, slashed and decimated
the Canadian health care system which for a long time defined
Canadians. The health care system played a large role not just
in protecting the health of Canadians but also in defining to a
large extent the Canadian psyche.
The government through its draconian cuts since 1993 has created
immense havoc in every province in the country. Every province
has had to deal with the significant level of cuts for health
care funding that the government has perpetrated. As a result of
the cuts, the percentage of federal commitment to health care has
declined steadily to a point that some estimates are that the
federal government is paying around 13% of every dollar spent on
health care in Canada. Clearly that is unacceptable and that is
part of the problem.
On the tax side, the Canadian advantage with medicare really
does not exist any longer. What we have seen develop in Canada
is a fairly mediocre system for everybody.
While it is egalitarian, it is a poor system. As a result, those
who can afford it are increasingly being drawn toward making the
choice of seeking health care elsewhere or to actually live
elsewhere. Many of the professionals who have been drawn away by
the brain drain work for companies that provide health care
insurance so it is less of an issue.
1310
We have to consider this from a competitiveness perspective. We
have to ensure that we are not allowing economic symbolism to
define us. Economic performance is more important than economic
symbolism.
We have to get our fundamentals right. We need a sound tax
structure which is more reflective of the current realities. We
also need a more effective health care system which recognizes
the current realities.
The fact is that Canada already has a two tier health care
system. Around 30% of our health care costs are in the form of
costs covering pharmaceuticals, much of which is already paid for
privately.
The changes in health care which have occurred and to a large
extent the rising costs of pharmaceuticals, the increased level
of sophistication in biotechnology and the pharmaceutical
industry have already led to rising costs and an increased level
of participation by the private sector. Add to that the fact that
many Canadians are drawn to the U.S. for health care treatments
in private sector facilities.
We need significant levels of economic reform on the fiscal
front. We need sound and firm debt reduction targets. We need
lower taxes, better tax reform and a better health care system.
That is only going to be accomplished with a more visionary,
courageous government. Unfortunately, I have lost faith in the
members opposite to provide that type of leadership.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
great interest to the comments of the Progressive Conservative
Party member. Like him, I am worried.
I cannot understand this talk about inventing tax reform. Mr.
Charest, a former Progressive Conservative who has come to
Quebec, seemed to want to get away from the equation whereby
government revenues, whether from individuals or corporations,
are spent on services and generally the revenues pretty much
balance out the services provided to the public.
There is another phenomenon where work must not contribute to
poverty, so that the more you work, the poorer you get.
This is another given. Reducing corporate taxes because it is
the combination of the two, the corporate and the individual
taxes. Of course, there are by-products of taxation such as
sales tax, duties and taxes and so forth, but the fact remains
that the government weighs the necessary balance between
revenues on the one hand, and expenditures on the other.
Expenditures are services.
The last tax reform was in 1971. That was the last, as far as I
recall. Of course, there was the GST, which was introduced in
1984, I believe.
But the fact remains that this is the sort of thing governments
must face. In the tax reforms to date, whether the government
digs into the right pocket or the left, it is still the same
pair of pants.
Despite all my efforts, I cannot see what these new sources of
revenue would be. If we are speaking of individuals, it would
be a disincentive to work.
If we are speaking of businesses, it would discourage
investment, entrepreneurship and so forth.
So perhaps the government has to decide to take an approach
other than tax reform. I do not know what. We might be faced
with worse choices, including in the health care sector and
other sectors that are important to us, such as education. It
must not come to that.
I ask the member to tell me what the magic formula is.
1315
Perhaps he has already had a chance to speak with the current
leader of the opposition in Quebec City, Mr. Charest, who was in
his party at one point. I wish he would enlighten me. I am
honestly confused. I cannot imagine anything other than what we
have now.
I am not a tax expert and I humbly ask him to enlighten me. I
am open to his comments.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his excellent points and questions. He has raised a couple
of very important issues.
First, the last significant overriding tax reform was around the
time of the Carter commission back in 1971. The changes were
introduced by the Carter commission which reported in the late
sixties, approximately 30 years ago. Since then we have seen
amazing changes in the Canadian economy. It is clear that we do
need some level of reform.
The GST was a significant change as well. The Minister of
Industry said in a speech at the BCNI that tax reform was a
non-starter for the government because it could not get consensus
on tax reform. There was a consensus on the GST. Unfortunately
it went against the governing party and resulted in not just
significant tax changes but significant political changes in
1993.
The question the hon. member had was relative to how we balance
tax reduction and the other needs. Ideally, there should be tax
reform and it should be based, in my opinion, on growth and not
greed. We should be looking at tax reform from the perspective
of what taxes can we reduce to create the greatest level of
economic growth and opportunities here in Canada.
I can point to a few examples. In Ireland much of the tax
reduction that has occurred has been in corporate taxes. By
reducing corporate tax rates, Ireland has actually increased
corporate tax revenue by attracting companies from around the
world.
There are examples closer to home. I would argue that Quebec
has been very successful under Bernard Landry with many of his
tax policies, particularly those focused on the new economy. One
of the most innovative aspects of the Quebec tax policy has been
on the provincial income tax not being paid by research
scientists, the Ph.D.s coming from other places to Quebec to
participate in research. The new economy, whether it is in
e-commerce or biotechnology, needs those Ph.D.s and researchers.
As a result of the policy by the Quebec government, it has
effectively been able to reduce the personal tax rates for these
minds that Quebec and Canada need to U.S. levels, which has been
very innovative.
I would argue that we can reduce some types of taxes without
reducing revenue overall. Another example of that is capital
gains taxes. When we reduce capital gains taxes there is often a
resultant unlocking of capital which actually leads to a greater
level of capital flow and a greater level of taxes being paid.
Unfortunately tax reform is usually based on political criteria
as opposed to economic criteria. We often build tax reform
around what is politically palatable or what is popular and do
not think of what will lead to the greatest levels of economic
growth. It is not always the same thing, but in many ways the
Quebec government has pursued some policies that have been quite
innovative in terms of attracting the type of industries that are
necessary.
I would like to see the national government be a little more
amenable to that kind of thing. Some of these successes have
resulted of course in the recent move of NASDAQ to Montreal.
1320
While I disagree with the policies of the Parti Quebecois in
terms of its position on federalism, I have to express some level
of admiration for some of what the Parti Quebecois has done on
economic policy.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments by
the member for Kings—Hants and I heard a different
interpretation and variation of history.
One interpretation I found particularly intriguing, although I
forget his exact wording, was when he said that the former
Progressive Conservative government built the architecture for
the fiscal results of this government. In reflecting upon that,
I looked at the growth in the deficits. In fact, when we came
into office in 1993 the deficit was at $42 billion. There had
been no action on the deficit whatsoever. The public debt had
increased significantly. Taxes had been increased, the EI
premiums to name one, and other taxes.
I wonder if the member could actually describe the architecture
that was built by the former Progressive Conservative government
that lead to the very good fiscal results of this government
since 1993.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I look forward to being on that side of the
House and having him lob similar softball questions across to us
once we are back in government. That was indeed a softball
question.
The Mulroney Progressive Conservative government was successful
in reducing the deficit as a percent of GDP from 9% when it took
office to 5% by the time it left office. It was kind of like
that old country and western song, Give Me 40 Acres and I'll
Turn This Rig Around. That previous government inherited an
18-wheeler that was going down the road at 200 miles per hour in
the wrong direction. Somebody had to slow it down and somebody
had to implement the types of structural economic changes that
were necessary to enable this visionless government to
effectively cruise through the last several years and, through no
fault of its own, to have fairly decent economic results.
Those were not my words crediting the Progressive Conservative
for the reduction and elimination of the deficit. Those were the
words of the greatest news journal in the world, in my opinion,
the Economist magazine out of the U.K., which said very
clearly that credit for the deficit reduction in Canada belongs
largely to structural reforms made to the Canadian economy by the
previous government. I would not be so audacious as to say that
myself. I was just quoting a wonderful news publication that
brings a very objective view to the situation here in Canada.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for the opportunity to get back into the order and the flow of
things. I missed my opportunity at the end of the Bloc Quebecois
speech to add our contribution to this debate. I appreciate the
latitude shown to let me speak to this now.
It should come as no surprise to anybody here that the NDP
caucus is in opposition to Bill C-24. Members look shocked that
we do not fully concur with the Liberal Party tax policy. I want
to use my time to point out just how strongly we oppose Bill C-24
and other recent developments from the most recent budget that
dealt with tax relief and tax reform, if one can call it that. We
have been calling for true tax reform since we have been in the
House but we have yet to see it. Frankly, we have seen more in
the same direction and a continuation of the same economic policy
and philosophy which we think does not serve ordinary Canadians
and does not serve working Canadians well.
By way of beginning my remarks, it is useful to look at a direct
quote from the majority report of the finance committee. It is
just a few short lines so I will read it. The majority report of
the finance committee states:
The Committee has chosen to use tax reform/relief as the primary
vehicle for promoting increased productivity not because we know
that there are very specific and definitive links between
productivity and taxation, but primarily because of what we don't
know.
The Liberals are almost jumping into this avenue of economic
policy by virtue of what they do not know will be the predictable
results and consequences. That should not give Canadians any
comfort. It should worry Canadians very much if that is the sort
of research that has been done.
1325
I will read this again because a lot of Canadians will probably
not understand how significant and indicative this is. It says:
The Committee has chosen to use tax reform/tax relief as the
primary vehicle for promoting increased productivity not because
we know that there are very specific and definitive links between
productivity and taxation, but primarily because of what we don't
know.
That sounds like nonsense. It is also very worrisome for
ordinary Canadians who may pick that up and read it.
One thing I can say is that there is no empirical evidence
anywhere in the country that proves tax relief creates jobs. That
is a myth that has been perpetrated. It is something that we
might like to believe, because it would give us some sense of
surety that we are confident about the direction in which we are
going, but there is no empirical evidence anywhere. There has
been no academic study. There has been no proof that tax relief,
as such, creates jobs.
There is also no proof anywhere, as the committee admits, that
tax relief per se increases productivity. We do not know if the
two are related, and the committee readily admits that in its
paper.
These words of the majority report of the finance committee
delivers its empty rationale for recommending $46 billion in tax
cuts for high income earners as a priority for upcoming budgets.
It can only be called blind faith in the virtue of tax cuts for
the wealthy. We believe it is typical of the Liberal
government's position in the debate about what to do with the
predicted federal surpluses. It is the worst form of
trickle-down economics, blind faith in an obsolete ideology.
Frankly, ordinary working Canadians are used to being trickled
on. We have been trickled on a lot in recent history and it is
not water that is trickling down from above and it certainly is
not revenues and pennies from heaven. We are being trickled on
in the most mean-spirited ways often and frequently. These
trickle-down economics are a continuation of the same line of
thinking.
When it comes to tax cuts, the debate we should be having should
be about setting goals for improving the quality of life for all
Canadians not just tax cuts for the wealthy. We should be taking
steps that move us forward. A lot of us believe that society
does not move forward unless we all move forward together. It is
one of the basic tenets of the NDP philosophy that society does
not move forward unless we all move forward together. We are
against anything that further builds that gap, the great divide,
between the rich and the poor.
Having set and met financial targets on eliminating the deficit,
one would think that the prospect of large surpluses would now
allow Canadians and the government to meet such emergencies as
the crisis facing the homeless, for instance. That would be a
laudable pursuit. We would have liked to have heard more in the
budget about the crisis facing the homeless in the country. That
would be worthwhile and we would stand up and applaud budget
initiatives in that regard. Another crisis would the family farm
crisis in the province I come from. Those are the types of
missed opportunities that we believe the government is taking
part in with its policy on how to deal with the generous
surpluses it is looking forward to.
Another idea I have is that we could try to meet the target we
set for ourselves 10 years ago to eliminate child poverty. That
would be a laudable concept. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy
does not do anything to eliminate child poverty in the country.
I defy the government to show me the connection, unless it is
relying strictly on that famous old trickle-down theory of an
economic system with lots of millionaires and surely some of that
money will spill over from their coffers and fall onto ordinary
Canadians. It is a cruel myth and a lot of people are tired of
being the brunt of that myth.
What about taking steps to ensure that all our children are
given the best possible start in life? In the newspaper today
there was a very interesting article about how youth crime and
youth violence can be so directly connected to the problem of
fetal alcohol syndrome, FAE/FAS children. This is an emergency
in our schools. It is an emergency in our criminal justice
system. It is an emergency in the inner city of our big cities,
in small communities and on reserves right across the country. We
have seen nothing to address that issue specifically in this
budget or in any policy that we have debated in the House of
Commons. This is a worthwhile emergency on which we could in
fact be spending some of our surplus instead of on tax relief for
the wealthy.
There is a growing movement and concern in Canada that we are
losing our cherished not for profit public health care system.
We are losing it to the spectacle of a two-tiered American style
health care system which we know does not work.
Instead of using this flourishing, blossoming surplus on
protecting and strengthening our universal public health care
system, again we are seeing the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy.
I guess if the wealthy had more of their disposable income left
in their pockets they could afford to buy the health care they
need when they need it. That is fundamentally contradictory to
the NDP philosophy and I am glad to be able to express that
today.
1330
There is another worthwhile initiative that we are completely
ignoring and that is to provide Canadians access to world class
post-secondary education. One would think in this high tech age,
or the age of e-commerce, et cetera, that we would value more and
make access to post-secondary education a number one priority for
Canadians instead of burdening students with debt that is
paramount to carrying a small mortgage when they finally graduate
from university. That is not a priority. We have not heard it
expressed here. Instead, again, we are talking about the
implementation of bills that give tax cuts to the wealthy.
There are all kinds of other worthwhile spending initiatives,
whether it is our infrastructure, our roads or our transit
systems. We need these things to assure the continued growth of
our economy and we are not hearing about it. To offer, in
balance of these priorities, needed tax relief, we would not mind
having that debate.
Let us list these priorities and address ways to deal with them
and talk about tax relief. Frankly, there is nothing
contradictory to the NDP talking about tax fairness. We have
been talking about tax fairness since day one because we believe
that working people pay too much tax. We believe that working
people pay too much tax because others are not paying their fair
share of taxes and it is an inequitable situation. One tax
relief initiative that we would welcome, endorse and support is
the gradual reduction toward the elimination of the GST.
We believe that if the government were serious about universal
tax relief which would benefit all Canadians, that to reduce the
GST by 1% this year would be a good first step in at least making
some effort to keep the promise made in 1993 to eliminate the
GST. We would certainly welcome that, but we are not hearing
that today in the debate on Bill C-24, we did not hear it in the
budget speech and we did not hear it in the majority report of
the finance committee.
The finance committee preferred the message of the Business
Council on National Issues, the BCNI, that the real urgency was
to give more and bigger tax breaks to those who need them the
least. It was completely 180 degrees backward to any
conventional thinking on true equality, or to flattening the gap
between the rich and the poor, or to addressing many of the
urgent social issues I have outlined.
There is a quote from the report of the Business Council on
National Issues to the Standing Committee on Finance which states
that the greatest economic gains will be achieved when marginal
tax rates, especially the highest ones, are reduced. In other
words, we are allowing the BCNI to set social and economic policy
for the country. It is an unelected body. I am surprised,
frankly, that my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance are not up
in arms about this. We are taking specific direction from
unelected representatives of corporate Canada over the opinions
and the economic outlines of elected officials like those of us
in this Chamber.
People call Thomas d'Aquino the unofficial prime minister.
Those of us who are cynical are certainly starting to think that,
given the access that the BCNI has to power and the fact that the
Liberal government is charting policy based on the needs of Bay
Street and certainly not based on the needs of Main Street.
The NDP caucus rejects the committee's unbalanced approach. We
recommend that a key priority be to make the investments
necessary to help reverse the erosion of Canadian living
standards, the growing divisions in Canadian society and the
growing gap between the rich and the poor. That would be a
laudable pursuit for the government, but that is not a key
objective. It is taking steps today, even with Bill C-24, that
will expand the gap between the rich and the poor. It will make
that rift even wider. It is completely contrary to NDP policy
and philosophy. We believe that society moves forward genuinely
when we all move forward together.
We include in Canadian living standards investment in our
children, investment in our communities, investment in our health
care and education systems and investment in the environment.
Has there ever been a more ample opportunity to finally do
something about cleaning up the environment in Canada? We have a
surplus budget situation. The Minister of Finance is in the
enviable position of having money to spend on important
priorities for Canadians. What could be more important than to
act now to clean up the toxic waste sites in this country and to
deal with small communities that still need basic sewage and
water treatments centres?
1335
For instance, my colleagues from Sydney—Victoria and Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton live near what is arguably the worst toxic
waste site in the world, the Sydney tar ponds. Is there money
budgeted and allocated to clean up, finally, the Sydney tar
ponds? Have they started to scrape the toxic effluent off
Frederick Street so that people can live there again? Or, are we
satisfied to have a Cape Breton version of the Love Canal? Is
that one of the legacies the Liberal government wants to leave in
Atlantic Canada, that even though it had the money to prevent it,
it allowed this toxic site to poison more Nova Scotians? I do
not think so. I think the Liberals will pay a political price
for being that negligent to the real needs of Canadians.
It is useful to look at where the government's budget surplus
actually came from. There is a lot of debate going on about how
the budget surplus should be spent, but people are forgetting
where this fantastic pile of money came from. One of the most
significant sources, I would like to remind Canadians, is the EI
surplus.
The employment insurance system is broken. It is completely
defunct. The wheels have fallen off. It does not work any more.
It is only a cash cow for the government. Working people have to
pay into it, and yet working people have a less than 40% chance
of actually receiving any income maintenance should they become
unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed. What kind of
an insurance fund is that? Who in their right mind would design
an insurance fund like that?
Mr. Speaker, what if it was mandatory that you had to pay
insurance on your house. You had to pay it every month. Yet if
your house burned down you would have a less than 40% chance of
collecting any dividend. You would think you had been cheated.
You would think you had been robbed. You would be outraged. Mr.
Speaker, you would be standing in your place and screaming bloody
murder that you had been cheated. That is exactly the situation
in which working people find themselves.
In fact, the figures are worse than that. The average worker
has a less than 40% chance of collecting any EI benefit. The
average woman has a less than 25% chance of collecting any EI
benefit. The changes to EI disproportionately affect working
women because there are more part time working women. Youths
under 25 have a less than 15% chance of collecting any EI
benefits at all. Yet faithfully every paycheque those people
have to pay the premium, and faithfully every paycheque their
employers have to pay 1.4 times the amount that the employees
pay.
No wonder there is a surplus. If the government takes and takes
and never pays anything out, of course it will have a surplus.
That surplus is $600 million per month; not per year, per month.
There is $7 billion per year in EI premiums alone that the
government takes in and fails to pay out in benefits. To use
that money for anything other than income maintenance for
unemployed workers, I suggest, at the very least, is being
dishonest. At the very worst it is fraudulent. To take
something from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and to
use it for something else is a breach of trust.
To take it one step further, to take money away from those most
vulnerable in society, unemployed workers who paid into the fund,
and hand it over as tax cuts to the wealthy is nothing short of a
perverse version of Robin Hood. To rob from the poor to give to
the rich is absolutely unconscionable and somehow the government
is getting away with it without a huge hue and cry.
Tonight there will be a vote on this issue. The member for
Acadie—Bathurst has a private member's bill on EI reform which
will be voted on tonight. Liberal members of parliament will
have to stand to say whether they agree with this absolute cash
cow that is the EI fund, and they will be counted. The public
will notice them and they will pay a political price for voting
against EI reform. We know where the money came from that gave
this budget its surplus. It came out of the pockets of working
people. It came out of the benefits that should have been paid
to unemployed people in this country.
1340
The whole issue of tax reform is a necessary debate. As I said,
it is nothing against NDP policy to talk about true tax reform.
It is frustrating to some of us that some would deny the fact
that the NDP is concerned about tax fairness. We are very
concerned about it. We believe that the tax system is one of the
great economic instruments we have to redistribute wealth.
I can give an example of what a difference fair taxation can
make. I can give the House the state of the nation in terms of
the way we use taxation in the country to try to make a more
equitable society.
If we look at the distribution of market income in 1997, the
ratio of the top fifth income earners to the bottom fifth is
24:1. That is grotesquely unfair. The ratio is 24:1 of the top
fifth income earners to the bottom fifth income earners. After
taxes and transfers, that ratio falls to 8:1. It is still
obscene by anybody's standards, but a huge improvement.
If we factor in the value of public services, which we equally
enjoy and do not have to dig into our pockets to purchase, the
ratio of income in equity falls to less than 4:1. Starting out
at 24:1, we now have it down to 4:1. Some would still say that
is fundamentally wrong, that we should be a lot more equitable
than that. We believe that changes should be made in that
direction.
It points out how the tax system can be used as an instrument
for economic fairness, justice and equality. Yet we have chosen
to go in the opposite direction. The changes in the current
budget take us further in the opposite direction; not toward tax
fairness, but growing the inequality between rich and poor. We
have been sold a bill of goods that has told us it is necessary
to let the wealthy keep more of their money and ignore the
situation of the lowest fifth of the economic scale.
It is a very cynical point of view, and the same is true in
American politics, but there is no point in targeting a political
message or an economic policy to people in the bottom fifth of
the economic social scale because they do not vote. They are so
marginalized and disenfranchised that they do not vote at
election time. Why would government waste its largesse on 20% of
the population which, frankly, would not vote for it anyway?
They have given up on the electoral system as a vehicle or a
means by which to improve themselves.
That might sound cynical, but I accuse the government of having
gone through that thought process, in the same way the Americans
have in their political system, that there is no sense in wasting
messaging on people who really need it because they are so
disenfranchised and marginalized they do not vote.
I want to voice our strong opposition to Bill C-24. It takes us
further away from the idea of tax fairness. It will accentuate
and augment the inequalities in our tax system and further
institutionalize those inequalities for another couple of years
until we can do something to convince the government to take
steps otherwise.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on two
matters raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre.
First, is the member aware that in 1985 the auditor general told
the government of the day, when the EI had a deficit of about $5
billion, that it would distort the public accounts if the deficit
was not included in the consolidated accounts of the government?
The auditor general said that the deficit must be included in the
consolidated accounts and the government of the day did that.
The EI surplus of today, if he wants to call it that, is really
incorporated within the consolidated revenues of the government.
Does the member also know that the EI notional account has been
in a deficit for 11 years of the last 17 years? Does he
understand that the Canadian taxpayers supported that deficit for
11 years? Therefore, when the account has a surplus, why should
the Canadian taxpayers, generally, not be able to use that
notional fund for the benefit of all Canadians?
The member talks about tax relief for rich or wealthy Canadians.
Is he confusing this with the tax policy proposals of the
Alliance, which talk about a flat tax, which would clearly move
the tax burden from the high income earners to middle and low
income earners?
The government in its last three or four budgets has delivered
tax relief to low income and middle income Canadians.
1345
From where did the member pick up the notion that the government
was providing massive tax relief to high income, wealthy, rich
Canadians? The facts do not support that. Is he mixing it up
with the flat tax proposal of the Alliance Party?
Could the member opposite clarify his understanding that the EI
notional surplus has been in deficit 11 out of 17 years? How can
he justify not using that surplus today to benefit middle income
and low income Canadians?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to
answer a very good question that has its basis in actual fact.
The EI fund was in deficit. The Canadian taxpayer propped it up
over that period of time by a total accumulated backfill of $13
billion. The total accumulated surplus will exceed $39 billion
at the end of this year. In other words, we paid back the
original debt of $13 billion and another $26 billion is being
hived off, again going into consolidated revenue.
The member is absolutely right again. There is no separate EI
fund. All the money goes into general revenues. Our point is
that any surplus above and beyond what we owe the consolidated
revenue fund should be used toward income maintenance for
unemployed workers, as it was intended.
If an amount is deducted from a person's paycheque for a
specific purpose and then used for something completely
different, at the very least it is a breach of trust. In the
worst case scenario it is out and out fraudulence. We believe
there has been a structured and deliberate abuse of the EI
program that went far beyond paying back the $13 billion and now
is being used as a cash cow.
The hon. member asked if I understood the nature of the tax cuts
being proposed by the government. I do. I understand the
finance committee recommended four major components: reducing the
capital gains tax, dropping the middle income tax rate,
eliminating the 5% upper income surtax and raising the threshold
for the top two tax rates. I wonder if the hon. member realizes
that these four measures would make a difference in various
income brackets.
Those making $475,000 a year would get $11,650 in tax breaks
with these measures. Those making $42,000 a year would get
$1,140 in tax breaks with these measures. Those making $20,000 a
year would get a $3 tax break. Who is this benefiting the most?
Obviously the high income earner.
The hon. member from Surrey spoke to me before I gave my speech.
He pointed out that his daughter made $8,000 last year. At the
end of the year she received a bill for $200 for taxes owing. The
kid made eight grand and still owed $200, even after paying taxes
on her paycheques.
My mother makes $21,000 a year from all her sources of income
such as old age pension, her husband's CPP and widow's pension.
She pays $600 per quarter in taxes every year. At the end of the
year she owes $1,500. Something is fundamentally wrong, I would
put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to many Canadians,
particularly young summer employees and so on, that this is not
an insurance. It is a tax and it goes into the federal coffers.
I should like to inform the NDP member who just spoke that a
terrible thing is happening with EI payments. There is a large
oil well operation in my constituency. It is a cyclical
industry. When it is up, it is hiring, and then it goes down. If
a young person from the city of Weyburn or Estevan hires on in
the oil industry and then gets laid off, he can draw EI
insurance. However, if someone is laid off and returns to the
family farm to live with his parents, he collects zippo.
I am quite used to seeing farmers being abused, but when the
government taxes them and they have to pay the taxes it is wrong
that they cannot qualify. It should be corrected. I brought it
to the government's attention but it made no difference. I would
like the hon. member to comment on that.
1350
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with
the hon. member. If one is forced to pay into something one
should have a reasonable expectation of collecting what was
promised.
The example I used before was of people with mandatory fire
insurance on their homes. They have to pay into it. They have no
choice. Yet if their houses burn down there is less than a 40%
chance of being able to collect. They would think they had been
cheated, that they had been robbed. That is fundamentally wrong.
The hon. member pointed out some kind of geographical
discrimination in a sense. There are other inequities in the
program which are just as glaring. For instance, an unemployed
woman has less than a 25% chance of being able to collect
employment insurance because women are more likely to be in part
time work, and part time workers are disproportionately affected.
A youth under 25 years of age, and the young people listening
today should be aware of this, has less than a 15% chance of
collecting any benefits, even though it is mandatory to pay into
the program. The hon. member is right. It ceases to become an
insurance program. It is really another tax on the paycheque.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in listening to the government talk about projected GDP and since
we are on fiscal matters, would my colleague be prepared to
comment on the way we measure the wealth of the country in terms
of taxation?
For example, we do not ever talk about the real cost of
production. We do not talk about environmental degradation when
we talk about growth. We do not talk about the effect on poor
families when we talk about social housing. I think there are
questionable ways in terms of how the government measures growth.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the GDP is a
flawed instrument to use in trying to measure the growth of the
country. If there is a hurricane or a tornado the GDP blossoms
in the area. That does not mean it was good for Canadians. It
just means that a bunch of economic activity had to take place.
We can tie GDP to disasters, for heaven's sake.
To say that Canadians are not productive because of the ratio of
workers to GDP is a complete misnomer. Productivity is not the
issue. Canadian workers are some of the most productive in the
world. Productivity as a ratio to GDP and employment is a flawed
way of viewing our economic well-being. It is misleading and I
would say intellectually dishonest.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24
which deals with some tweaking and fiddling the Liberal
government is planning to do with regard to the GST and the HST.
As is typical with the government opposite these changes were
actually announced in 1997. Finally it is getting around to
exempting a few items from the GST. It is interesting that in
the last few months, just before it brought in the bill, it added
a few other items that will now be taxed at an increasing level
which were not taxed before.
Overall the particular bill points out a credibility shortfall
on the other side. It was mentioned by the previous speaker. The
actions on the particular bill and on the GST by the Liberal
government have eroded public confidence in elected officials.
Let me refer to some comments made by the current Prime Minister
regarding the GST years ago. The bill before us is a fine tuning
or a tweaking of certain aspects of how the GST and the HST are
applied.
It is amazing so many years after these election promises by the
current Prime Minister and his government that we are still doing
this dance with the GST.
1355
In 1990 the current Prime Minister said that he was opposed to
the GST, had always been opposed to it and will always be opposed
to it. In 1992 the thinking was, according to the Deputy Prime
Minister, that they wanted to get rid of the GST. On January 23,
1992, they said that there was no doubt they would replace it.
Also the Prime Minister said that we would know they have
replaced the GST when we see their budget. All the way through I
have many quotes from the Prime Minister who said that it would
be gone in two years, just before the election in 1993.
Here we are some seven years later and we are still looking at
the GST. We had an election promise in the red book. Canadians
were led to assume that they would not have the GST. They voted
often on that basis. Many people may have voted a different way
but had promises and guarantees from the leader of that party
that the GST would be gone.
When that is the platform, when that is the promise, it is not
unreasonable for Canadians to have the expectation that when the
government comes in with a majority it will implement one of the
key pillars of its platform. We can understand that may not be
in the first year or the second year. Maybe there has to be some
time to consider how to phase it in. For goodness' sake, we are
seven years past those promises and there has not been one real
movement dealing with the GST. We expected to see some results
from that election promise.
It is not surprising that Canadians feel overburdened by taxes
from the government. It throws lots of optics around some small
tax relief. On the other hand it is taking more and more out of
our pockets.
The GST is a good example. I met with the mayor of the city of
Calgary who told me that out of all the services Calgary gets
from the federal government and all the money it sends to Ottawa
there is a net outflow every year to Ottawa from Calgary of $4
billion.
The Speaker: The member has 16 minutes remaining when the
debate continues later.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the 30th General Assembly of the Organization of American States
will take place in Windsor, Ontario, from June 4 to June 6. The
OAS is the premier political forum for multilateral dialogue and
decision making in the Americas. Foreign ministers from 34
states will take part in the session.
Canada will be hosting the general assembly for the first time.
This reflects the new pluralism in our foreign policy and our
recognition of common policy interests with our Central and South
American neighbours in such diverse areas as corporate social
responsibility and control of the illicit drug trade.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, marriage breakdown is often a difficult and sad occasion
and even more so when children are involved. Listen to the story
of a non-custodial father who lives in my riding.
A few years ago his former wife took their two children and
moved to the east coast. Subsequently he was laid off from his
job and it took three full years for the courts to acknowledge
the change in his employment status. In this case the court
system pushed this father to the edge of financial ruin and
dropped him into the abyss of deep emotional anguish, often
aggravated by the fact that his wife repeatedly denied any access
to his children.
For many, the emotional trauma brought on by inefficient,
expensive and sometimes unfair court orders proves too much to
bear. Darrin White from Prince George, B.C., committed suicide
in March after a court gave him limited access to his children
and ordered him to pay his estranged wife twice his take home pay
in child support and alimony each month.
All legislators at all levels of government, all family law
practitioners and all family court systems realize their
decisions have human consequences. Too often, however, the court
system fails to deal adequately and quickly with changing home
situations.
* * *
1400
WOMEN OF DISTINCTION
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honour the eight recipients
of this year's Women of Distinction awards in Guelph—Wellington.
Manusha Janakiram, Barb Topolsek, Krista Adlington, Gwen
Revington, Martha Jakowlew, Sue Richards, Dr. Ruth Tatham and Kim
Iezzi are some of the exceptional women who call
Guelph—Wellington home. As students, educators, businesswomen,
artists and community workers, these women have all contributed
to their community in a distinct and lasting manner.
I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations to these
eight women for their hard work and dedication ensuring that
Guelph—Wellington remains the greatest community in the world.
* * *
TEAM CANADA ATLANTIC
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring to the attention of the House the recent Atlantic
Canadian trade mission to New England. Our Prime Minister has
joined the Atlantic premiers and more than 50 Atlantic companies,
all part of Team Canada Atlantic as they give New England a
chance to catch the rising Atlantic Canadian wave.
The Atlantic Liberal caucus recently produced “Catching
Tomorrow's Wave” which called on the federal government to take
the lead in economic development in our region. Our Prime
Minister boasts of the extraordinary work that the Atlantic
region has done to make itself a great place to invest.
The people of Atlantic Canada expect their government to provide
leadership. That is exactly what our Prime Minister is doing. He
is helping foster a dynamic relationship between Atlantic Canada
and New England for the 21st century.
* * *
ADVENTURE IN CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each year
Rotary Clubs throughout Canada sponsor over 200 young Canadians
to take part in the Adventure in Citizenship program.
Since 1951 over 10,000 students have come to Ottawa to explore
the governmental process and institutions at the federal level.
Designed to develop potential leaders, the program explores our
nation's identity, shared values, freedoms and history of
tolerance and compromise.
This year Chelsea Zylstra from my riding of Cambridge is taking
part in this important learning experience.
I join all members in welcoming these future leaders from all
ten provinces and the three territories. I wish them success as
they learn about the common bonds that unite all Canadians.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport thinks he
can protect Canadians from Air Canada if he is provided with more
regulatory powers. I hate to disillusion the minister but there
is a better way.
The Canadian airline industry is in its current predicament
because previous government regulations did not provide healthy
competition. Last fall the competition commissioner stated that
the best way to protect the Canadian travelling public was by
fostering competition.
While the minister wants to cast himself as the white knight
doing battle with a dominant Air Canada, the solution is much
simpler. Ensure that Canadians have a choice. If the minister
is truly concerned about the Canadian consumer, he will take the
necessary steps to foster competition in the airline industry and
give Canadians the power to regulate the industry themselves by
exercising their right to choose.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
Nycole Turmel was elected president of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada to replace Darryl Bean, who is leaving the
position after over 15 years of devoted service to his members.
With the support of a large majority of delegates to the
triennial congress of the Alliance, Ms. Turmel is not only the
first women to hold the position, but the first francophone as
well. Before her election as president, Ms. Turmel had been the
vice-president of the Alliance for nine years.
I would like today to congratulate Ms. Turmel on her election to
the presidency of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and wish
her every success in her new duties.
* * *
PREMIER OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Premier
Brian Tobin of Newfoundland shamelessly broke the provincial
consensus on health care by saying that he had no objection to
Ottawa's having a say on the management of the health care
system in the provinces. Captain Canada even tried to catch two
other maritime premiers in his net.
Facing serious shortages of resources in health care, the
provinces have for months been asking the federal government to
return its transfer payments to 1995 levels. Ottawa claims that
it is keeping this money so it can have its say in health care.
But we know, perfectly well why Brian Tobin is behaving this
way. Captain Canada is working on a double play.
On the one hand he is playing the role of courtier and
indefatigable ally of the Prime Minister of Canada and on the
other as the increasingly unsteady pretender to the throne of
Prime Minister, he is trying to weaken the position of the
provinces on the health issue in an effort to prepare the place
he hopes to occupy soon.
We are not fooled by Captain Canada's double play. Mark my words.
* * *
1405
[English]
FORESTRY
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, forestry has been the mainstay in the lives of a vast
number of residents in the Timmins—James Bay riding. The forest
industry has created close to 4,000 jobs in the riding and has
helped establish dynamic communities like Kapuskasing, Smooth
Rock Falls, Hearst and Timmins.
This week we are celebrating National Forest Week. It is a time
to reflect on the vital role forests play in our daily lives, as
well as their significant benefits. We are also celebrating the
100th anniversary of the Canadian Forestry Association, a
federation which has been dedicated to the wise use and
conservation of our forests.
As Canadians we must continue to be persistent in preserving the
health and vitality of our forests since they are equally
important to the health of the local, national and global
environments.
[Translation]
We have a duty to protect that wealth, so that our forests can
continue to meet the social, economic and environmental needs of
future generations.
* * *
[English]
ST. JOHN'S WEST BYELECTION
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the current byelection in St. John's West gives
Newfoundlanders the opportunity to strengthen the new voice in
parliament, the Canadian Alliance. This new and exciting
movement is positively changing the face of politics in Canada.
Concerned citizens in St. John's and Placentia have told me they
are voting for change. They are sick and tired of the games that
the Liberals and Tories play.
The Liberals are trying to resurrect their candidate's
floundering campaign by pumping millions of dollars of public
money into St. John's for the election.
They have seen it all before when John Crosbie ruled the roost
for the Conservatives. They are demanding a change. They are
all voting for Frank Hall, the Canadian Alliance candidate, to
send a message to Ottawa. He will be joining 57 dedicated
members of Canada's official opposition, Canada's government in
waiting.
Newfoundlanders are going to start a saltwater wave that will
sweep from the east coast across Canada and will remove the old
parties and tired old politics.
Congratulations, Newfoundland. You are leading the way with
Canadian Alliance.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Christine Stewart (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to acknowledge today the presence in Ottawa
of the Environmental Audit Committee, the newest scrutiny
committee of the British House of Commons. Its purpose is to
assess the contribution of all government activity to progress on
sustainable development and to audit the government's performance
against relevant targets such as reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
The committee has come to Canada to discuss our unique system of
departmental strategies and to meet with the office of the
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
I had the chance to meet with these MPs last evening. I welcome
them here in Canada and hope that this is just the beginning of a
fruitful dialogue between our respective governments.
The members of parliament here today are Chairman John Horam,
Helen Brinton, Neil Gerrard, Dominic Grieve, Jon Owen Jones, Paul
Keetch, Tim Loughton, Christine Russell, Malcolm Savage, Jonathan
Shaw, Simon Thomas, and Mrs. Joan Walley. Welcome all.
* * *
HIBERNIA
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
year alone Newfoundland and Labrador will take in more than $20
million in royalties from the long awaited Hibernia oil and gas
project, a full $8 million more than what was originally
projected.
With that kind of news one would think the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador would be overjoyed. But they know that
this Liberal government and the previous Conservative government
adopted policies that increase rather than help to eliminate
regional disparities across the country.
Equalization is supposed to help the seven have not provinces
catch up, not keep them down. But today, because the government
claws back 70%, each royalty dollar is worth a mere 30 cents.
That is why the federal NDP supports amending the equalization
program to increase the amount of money that have not provinces
are allowed to keep.
Under this government, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador
continues to be resource rich but royalty poor.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREST BIODIVERSITY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate Nathalie Perron and Marc Plante, who are both
residents of my region, for being recognized under the Forest
Stewardship Recognition Program of Wildlife Habitat Canada.
That program seeks to recognize the concrete actions taken by
people to support forest stewardship and the conservation of
forest biodiversity.
1410
In a world whose fauna and flora are increasingly threatened, it
is important to change our forestry operations, to make the best
decisions and to use proven ways to manage and conserve forests.
Nathalie and Marc were rewarded for organizing two
forestry-wildlife forums held in Jonquière, in 1997 and 1999.
These two events allowed participants to review the latest
information on the impact of forestry operations on wildlife and
its habitat, in addition to promoting innovative practices to
protect forest biodiversity.
Bravo and congratulations to Nathalie and Marc. Continue your
excellent work for sustainable development.
* * *
CANTONNIERS DE MAGOG
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the hockey team les Cantonniers de Magog,
following their spectacular victory at the Air Canada Cup
tournament, held in Montreal in late April.
This is a first national Midget AAA title for the team. These
young players deserve recognition for showing discipline,
determination and remarkable talent throughout the season. Their
efforts paid off, since they are now the best midget hockey team
in Canada.
I wish to mention the work of coach Mario Durocher, who led his
team like a true leader, and of all the others who contributed
to the success of les Cantonniers.
Congratulations to les Cantonniers. The residents of
Brome—Missisquoi are very proud of you.
* * *
[English]
MANITOBA
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to draw the attention of hon. members to
Manitoba's 130th birthday on Friday, May 12. As Manitoba
celebrates its first birthday of the millennium, it is an
appropriate occasion to reflect on our beautiful province and our
people.
Manitobans are people of tremendous perseverance who do not give
up in the face of adversity. Throughout our history Manitobans
have come together to build, to share and to dream of a better
future for our children. We have witnessed and overcome many
challenges of our time, such as the Great Depression, floods,
storms and drought. On Manitoba Day it is especially important
that we salute all Manitobans for their strength, determination
and hard work that has given us our greatest successes and our
greatest achievements.
The people of Manitoba can congratulate themselves for living in
a province of economic prosperity, social diversity and cultural
richness.
Happy birthday, Manitoba.
* * *
YOUTH
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as part of the celebrations marking international youth week the
Government of Canada is supporting a number of diverse locally
sponsored events to acknowledge the many contributions our young
men and women make to the country.
I especially wish to share with the House that under the
aboriginal human resources development strategy, the government
is contributing nearly $1 million to assist aboriginal youth in
the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in their efforts to fulfill
their educational potential and gain access to meaningful
employment. As well the youth employment strategy earmarks
another $25 million annually to first nations and Inuit
organizations across the country to deliver a host of youth
initiatives. These programs give youth valuable work experience
and skills training through summer employment, science and
technology camps, community service, entrepreneurship and
internships.
In collaboration with our provincial, territorial and aboriginal
partners—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
* * *
OPERATION DECODE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, on Saturday a constituent was told he would end up dead,
like murdered RCMP decode agent John McKay.
In 1998 I requested an independent judicial investigation into
operation decode. The RCMP operation involving liquor and
tobacco smuggling resulted in a highly paid dead RCMP agent,
internal leaks from D Division to the target's lawyer, death
threats, missing evidence, and conflicting testimony of RCMP
officers in court. The most astounding action was when the RCMP
stayed an arrest warrant against the Americans supplying the
contraband because one of the witnesses was dead and they could
not find their paid agent.
No wonder other countries claim Canada is a safe haven for
criminals. How many more people will have to die before the
government takes action and orders an independent investigation
into operation decode?
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
draw the attention of the House today to the election of Nycole
Turmel as the first woman president of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada.
Ms. Turmel, a native of Quebec, was elected on the first ballot
with a very comfortable majority. As well as being the first
female president in the 34 years of PSAC's existence, she is the
second francophone to hold the position. The 140,000-member
Public Service Alliance of Canada is the main federal public
service union.
1415
Nycole Turmel has been active in her union since 1979 and on its
executive since 1991. She distinguished herself through her
extensive knowledge of the issues she was involved in defending.
I had the good fortune to come to know her and to work along
with her on the pay equity issue, which culminated in a great
victory for 200,000 federal public servants. This energetic and
warm woman has announced that her presidency will be open,
transparent and accountable.
I wish to express my personal sincere congratulations, as well
as those of the Bloc Quebecois, and our best wishes for success.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ACOA
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the veterans affairs minister's worst
fears have been realized. ACOA has already become the Atlantic
Canada overblown agency.
Let us look at who got some cash: the Royal Bank, Canada
Packers, Bombardier, Irving Pulp and Paper, CP hotels, IBM,
General Dynamics Corp. and McCain Foods. These are not exactly
small fries.
Why is taxpayer money being used to subsidize these massively
profitable corporations?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federation's report today looks
somewhat similar to the Reform-Alliance agenda. It wants to cut
all regional funding agencies. It agrees with the flat tax. It
says that medicare is too expensive. It says that EI should be
done away with. In fact, if we asked the federation or the
Reform-Alliance to pass judgment on ACOA it would be like asking
Count Dracula to manage the blood bank.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear. What we would
like to do is end the abuse and let Atlantic Canadians oversee
their own situation and not send money to Ottawa. This
government confiscates Canadians' money through high taxation. It
assigns the money to one department. It transfers it to another
department, like the Business Development Bank, then it kicks it
out to companies that do not need it and calls it job creation.
Why is this government's job creation limited to bumble, fumble
and boondoggle?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member listed off a group of
large businesses that received grants under ACOA. This is
absolutely correct but it was under the Tory administration when
all those grants were given to all the companies listed. I
wonder if the Leader of the Reform-Alliance today still wants to
unite with the Tory Party when it has a record like that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he said that I listed off businesses.
I would now like to list off some labour unions. It seems that
the federal government would like to spread the cash around. It
is not just limited to huge corporations and more government.
How about the Canadian Auto Workers? How about the New
Brunswick Federation of Labour? How about the teacher
associations and the teamsters. Jimmy Hoffa would be proud of
that.
Why is the government handing taxpayer money out to groups that
do not need it?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here they go again. They want to cut out
all regional development agencies in rural Canada. They are
opposed to any assistance at all to our fishermen. They are
opposed to assistance to our farmers in western Canada, not one
penny.
This Liberal Party will fight this anti-rural Canada attitude on
the part of the Canadian Alliance Party.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think that minister would know a farm if he saw
one.
Yesterday the minister responsible for ACOA told the House that
the first thing the Liberal Party did with that agency was to
discontinue the practice of giving out grants. Access to
information documents show that ACOA handed out 123 grants
totalling $12 million between 1996 and 1999; grants, not loans.
Does the minister not know the difference between a grant and a
loan? Maybe he should spend more time looking after his
department and less time on his drama lessons.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate to the hon. member
that when the Liberals took over the first thing we did, on the
suggestion of the auditor general, was to change all grants and
all forgivable loans to simply loans.
1420
For the last five years we have been giving only loans which
have to be paid back. That has been the case for every business,
every commercial enterprise. The grants were given under the
Tories.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is very interesting. Under access to information,
I have a list of 123 grants given out by this government in 1996,
1997, 1998 and 1999.
According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, 72% of the funds
disbursed by ACOA were in the form of non-repayable grants and
contributions. What is more, 35% of the loans the minister talks
about issued by ACOA have been written off over the past 10
years. It only gets worse. In the last two years the default
rate has risen to 50%.
Why has the minister continued the abuse of taxpayer money under
ACOA under his watch?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the write-off question, which the hon.
member says is 34%, the actual write-offs contained in the public
accounts show that since 1995 the write-off of loans by the
Government of Canada is 0.4%. Since 1987 the write-off has been
4.2%.
If the opposition party does not start doing its homework it
will be written off in the next election.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development said that
she had had audits done in the Modes Conili file and that all
was perfect.
We have here two letters from the two companies concerned,
namely Paris Star and Modes Conili, which prove beyond a doubt
that jobs were indeed transferred.
How can the Prime Minister justify his government's wasting
$700,000 in public funds for the simple transfer of jobs?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had
allegations about this project and it was investigated by
officials. As a precaution, payments were halted as we conducted
the investigation. Ultimately the allegations were shown to be
unfounded, the project continued and 162 people are working today
because of this project.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is the same treatment they gave the file of the transfer of a
project from the riding of Rosemont to the riding of
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's. They said “Those are
allegations. We have checked. Everything is fine”.
How can the Prime Minister tolerate ministers saying such things
here in the House when there is evidence to the contrary and,
inevitably, there is a police investigation, very often in his
own riding? What is going on?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for two days
in a row we have explained what happened within the department on
this project. If the hon. member opposite has other information
I urge him to bring it forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that $719,000 was
paid out for no reason to the firm Modes Conili Star, since 100
of the 118 employees covered by the job creation grant were
transferred to the firm Paris Star.
How can the government once again waste over $700,000 of public
funds to subsidize the creation of jobs that do not exist, when
a memo from the department shows that the same people were
transferred from Paris Star to Modes Conili Star, their names
and social insurance numbers being the same?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that the Paris Star company went bankrupt and those
workers were laid off. Naturally another company will pick up
experienced workers rather than have to train others.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister reiterated his
total confidence in his Minister of Human Resources Development.
Should he not be eating his words today, since, once again, it
appears that the Minister of Human Resources Development has for
no reason paid out $700,000 in public funds to a firm for jobs
that already exist?
1425
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that money
was not spent on jobs that already exist. That money was spent
to hire 162 workers who did not have jobs and who are working
today because of this program.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, an
independent report released today documents shocking incidents of
intimidation, cover-up and harassment of women on Canada's
military bases.
These women face not only abuse, but military officials who, in
too many cases, will not help them.
What will the government do to help abused military spouses?
Will the government act urgently on the report's recommendations
to make sure that military spouses receive the support they
deserve?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reports are disturbing. The violence
that is talked about in these reports is unacceptable. I know
that the vast majority of the men and women in the Canadian
forces are good, family supporting, law-abiding people. However,
we must ensure that these particular cases are dealt with.
We do have family resource centres that help people in stressful
situations and help to weed out domestic violence. We will make
it quite clear, up and down the chain of command, that this abuse
will not be tolerated.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, these
women are under attack and the government refuses to take
decisive measures to help them. These women are in crisis. Their
families are in crisis. These communities are in crisis.
Will the government put an end today to the policy of
containment and concealment? What will the government do to
ensure that officers recognize their duty to protect not those
who would shame the Canadian military but to protect these abused
women?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no such policy of concealment.
We want to make sure that there is fully accountability in the
system and that these people are given the kind of support they
need.
We have family resource centres with social workers who deal
with these issues. The boards of directors of these family
resources are controlled by the spouses. We put some $17 million
a year into these 42 resource centres.
We must make it clear. The chief of defence staff and I will be
meeting soon to develop an action plan so that it is quite clear
that this abuse will not be tolerated.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I was
informed yesterday that there is a Canadian soldier stationed at
CFB Cold Lake and possibly 13 other soldiers on base who have
contracted tuberculosis.
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm in the House that
there is presently an outbreak of tuberculosis at CFB Cold Lake,
Alberta?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that but I will look
into the matter and give the House the appropriate answer.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
source that got in touch with me was both clear and firm in
stating that tuberculosis was spreading across CFB Cold Lake.
The men who are at Cold Lake, Alberta were at one time stationed
at CFB Borden with the Kosovo refugees. The minister should have
been briefed some time ago about the very serious TB threat in
Kosovo.
Why is the minister not 100% certain that there is not even a
single case? He should know—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would expect, if there is the kind of
condition that the hon. member is talking about, that I would be
fully informed of the matter. However, I will ensure that I get
the information to the hon. member's question.
* * *
ACOA
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, ACOA's folly does not end with big business and big
government. It has wasted millions all over Atlantic Canada on
yacht clubs, golf courses and even for something called the
Friends of Hank Snow Society.
It has wasted money in Shediac, Shelburne, Summerside, Corner
Brook and Cardigan. Suffice it to say, it has wasted money
everywhere.
1430
Does this minister not understand that when ACOA spends it is
taxpayers who are singing the hurtin' songs?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we did give a grant of
$15,000 to the Friends of Hank Snow Society because it is an
non-profit organization promoting tourism in Liverpool, Nova
Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the Alliance is not
criticizing any assistance to orchestras or operas. I want to
remind the member that in Atlantic Canada Hank Snow and the Grand
Ole Opry have more followers than the grand opera.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let me make it very clear that I am criticizing the
puppet show over there. That answer, as Hank would say, has the
minister going 90 miles an hour down a dead end street.
He should know that Canadians are a little unhappy. The
government has paid $1.5 billion to ACOA over the last seven
years since it has been in power. Instead of trying to buy
votes, why does this minister not trust Atlantic Canadians and
leave that money in their pockets in the first place, instead of
trying to fund ACOA?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that this
government has spent money under the ACOA business program and
under ACOA assistance on golf courses.
We have had a policy for years that not only are there no loans
given for the capital costs of golf courses, neither are there
loans or grants. There has been assistance for golf courses
under the infrastructure program and under federal-provincial
programs. The hon. gentleman has bogeyed again.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
spokesperson for human resources development just told us that
the action was justified, since Paris Star had gone bankrupt.
Three minutes ago, Paris Star was still in business. We phoned
Economic Development Canada. Everyone is assuring us that Paris
Star never went bankrupt.
I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. What does she
have to say to justify the $700,000 in grants? I have here with
me a document entitled “Letter to Reassure Employees”. That
letter, which is dated March 25, 1997, and signed by the
president of Paris Star, confirms what we are saying.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I qualified
that statement by saying that it was my understanding that the
company went bankrupt. Perhaps it was that those workers were
laid off. What I do know is that they were unemployed and the
other company hired them.
It is always our intention to bring jobs to Quebec. If that
party opposite is not interested in that and is interested in
overturning logs to look for trouble, then that is its business.
We want to put people back to work and 162 people are working
because of this company.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of
justifying the use of $700,000 like it should, the government is
accusing us of not wanting jobs. This is ridiculous.
What does the government have to say to justify the $700,000?
The same letter says “Each employee and supervisor will have the
same job at the new location. Your paycheck will be under the
name of the new partnership and will be paid as usual with the
indication Paris Star. You will remain under the authority of
the joint board. Your seniority at Paris Star will be
transferred to the new partnership”.
And we are told—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
1435
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for days now
these people have been dropping allegations about this file.
They have been invited on many occasions, as a matter of fact
they have been urged to bring forward information to the House.
The reading of that letter shows that they have information which
they have not shared. They are not serving the House well by
hiding information and simply exposing it at Oral Question Period
instead of bringing it to the authorities who can investigate.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it looks like the Liberal government has been hit by the
love bug. You know what the love bug is. It is when the
Liberals love to give untendered contracts to close friends.
The Export Development Corporation struck an exclusive,
untendered, multimillion dollar deal with London Guarantee to
offer export insurance to Canadian customers. It turns out that
London Guarantee is owned by Power Corp. of Montreal. Need I say
more? Furthermore, the EDC's board is dominated by Liberals,
including a political organizer, Liberal donor and close friend
of the Prime Minister.
Why is it that the Liberals love to give untendered contracts to
their friends but hate playing by treasury board guidelines?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the opposition has
finally reacted to the March 29 communique in which EDC announced
this strategic alliance with London Guarantee.
EDC stated very clearly that it had established 10 criteria and
studied all potential candidates. KPMG provided an independent
assessment of the criteria. In EDC's opinion, London Guarantee
was by far the best candidate for this strategic alliance.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is no surprise, considering that it was never put
out to tender and other insurance companies wanted to have a try
at it.
It is interesting that the spokesperson said “The most critical
element in putting together this deal was to find a firm with a
compatible culture. That is not something which can be put out
to tender”.
What kind of compatible culture is this spokesperson talking
about? Is it the culture of “You scratch my back and I'll
scratch yours”? Is it the culture of “Give early, give often
and the cheque is in the mail”? Or, is it merely the culture
that says “Hey friend, have I got a deal for you”?
Why is it that there are so many untendered contracts that go to
the friends of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a strategic
alliance. We are talking about a firm that was
selected on the advice of KPMG because it was compatible to do
the task. This has been in the air for six weeks. It was in the
March 29 press release of the EDC.
I knew that Conrad Black owned a lot of newspapers in this
country. I can tell now that he owns his own political party as
a mouthpiece.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
really, there are some limits.
The government representative says things are being concealed.
Information on social insurance numbers and names comes from
access to information, files held by her own department. If they
started doing their work, perhaps they would begin to understand
things.
The two letters: the president of one company and the president
of the other. I want to know who is hiding what here? Who is
hiding invoices here? Who is hiding the truth? Why is there
this smell of corruption from the other side?
1440
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of
the matter is that the party opposite is reading part of a letter
to which I am not privy. If in fact they have had that letter
over time, they are withholding information that we have been
urging them to bring forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
letters were made public yesterday. There is always someone
from the government that takes them at our press conferences.
They should wake up.
Should the Prime Minister not be a bit worried, because this is
the same strategy as the company moving from Rosemont to his
riding, with the help of intermediaries who are funding the
Liberal Party, who found the perfect name for their dubious
project: Golf and Grants? Does golf and grants not ring a bell
with the Prime Minister? He should know about that; it is close
to home.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I
would urge the party opposite that if it has any evidence of
impropriety it should bring it forward so that we can
investigate.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
actions speak louder than words. Today the Ontario government
announced that it will compensate all innocent victims of
hepatitis C, regardless of the date they were infected.
The Liberals arbitrarily chose January 1986 to July 1990 as
their dates for compensation, with little compassion or
responsibility. These victims contracted the disease through no
fault of their own.
When will the minister act responsibly and follow the leadership
of Mike Harris?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the very reasons given by the hon. member, we provided for
all innocent victims of hepatitis C through the blood system. The
difference is that we provided it through care, not cash;
treatment, not payment. Because that, in the last analysis, is
what people need when they are sick: $300 million for treatment
and for care.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister says that he cares. We have heard
that over and over again, but he should talk to some of the
victims of hepatitis C to see how they feel he has treated them.
Two years ago the federal government announced that it would
send out compensation. The only people who have been paid to
this point are the lawyers. The forms just went out last week to
the actual victims.
This minister and his government have no conscience. How can
the minister be so callous as to ignore the suffering of those
victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has paid a total of $1.3 billion for the
compensation of people infected with hepatitis C.
We have managed to save probably 10 years of litigation by
resolving cases before the courts. In relation to those infected
outside that period, there is $300 million for the treatment they
will need, including $75 million which will be available this
year alone. That is not only sensible, that is compassionate.
* * *
[Translation]
SIERRA LEONE
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs assured us that everything will be
done to help facilitate the departure of the approximately 40
Canadians and Quebecers in Sierra Leone. He then criticized the
lack of resources of UN troops on the ground.
Will the minister tell us what position the Government of Canada
intends to take at the security council with respect to the
action that will be taken to bring about a lasting peace in
Sierra Leone, as well as ensure better logistical support for
the blue berets in the region?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the specific question of support for Canadians, I
spoke with Robin Cook, the foreign secretary of Great Britain.
He gave me the assurance that the paratroopers are there and that
the organization they put in place to ensure the withdrawal of
people is in fact available to Canadians when they avail
themselves of it, and some of them are doing it.
1445
As to the larger question, which is a very large question, as I
pointed out yesterday we are taking initiatives specifically at
the security council to make sure that the UN forces there get
the kind of support they need, that we begin to pursue the whole
question of the diamond trade that is going on to snuff out the
conflict, and that we begin to look at the whole question of
accountability of those who carrying out the crimes.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in many
areas the Great Lakes basin has experienced its greatest drop in
water levels since records have been kept. Low water levels
affect everyone one way or another. At this time it is
especially true for marina operators.
In view of the tremendous economic activity which this industry
generates and the communities that depend on it, and in view of
the need for access to harbours of safe refuge on the lakes, how
will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans deal with the emergency
situation in the Great Lakes?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Essex as
well as members of the Ontario caucus who put this issue forward
to me. They made me and the government aware of the difficult
situation of the low water levels.
That is why last week I announced that the federal government is
prepared to make a $15 million contribution on a cost shared
basis to emergency dredging of marinas most severely affected by
the current low water levels in the Great Lakes basin. I think
this is good news for Ontario. It could not have been done
without the strong effort of Ontario members of parliament.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister continues to oppose the
national missile defence program. Canada's ambassador to the
U.S., Raymond Chrétien, said at a meeting that I attended that it
would harm Canada-U.S. relations if Canada did not participate in
the missile defence program.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the
foreign affairs minister, or does he agree with Canada's
ambassador to the U.S.?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been paying attention, even
though there has been no request made for participation the
United States has not decided on its own participation at this
point in time. All that is being done is a series of very
important questions that are being raised, questions about the
participation in NORAD and equal questions about the importance
that it has to the broad question of arm's control and nuclear
disarmament. I suggest the hon. member engage in the debate
rather than ask spurious questions.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I am paying attention. It is
the minister who is not listening to the United States whose
signals are very clear that it wants Canada in the missile
defence program.
Professor Jim Fergusson, an expert on defence issues from the
University of Manitoba, has confirmed what I heard the ambassador
say. He testified before the defence committee last week that
not participating would harm Canada-U.S. relations. Does the
Prime Minister agree with Ambassador Chrétien, or does he agree
with the rantings of the foreign affairs minister?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that when the hon. member talks about
ranting it is simply reflecting his own party's approach to
parliamentary debate.
The reality is that a number of experts have been asked to
testify before the defence committee, before the foreign affairs
committee. They all have different points of view. We are
listening to them. Unlike the Alliance-Reform or whatever they
are, we do not have an ideological vision. We listen to
Canadians.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. Some time ago the
minister wrote to the Alberta government saying he was concerned
about the potential NAFTA implications of bill 11. Then he said
there might be problems and they were studying it. Most recently
he says that there is no problem and he apparently takes this
view on the authority of the minister of trade who said that
there is no problem with bill 11.
Would the minister share the documentation, the study, the
evaluation, the analysis? Would he share with Canadians whatever
it is that has caused the government to come to this particular
view of bill 11? We would like to see the argumentation.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian right to regulate and protect our health care system
is not affected by NAFTA. I did express concern to the Alberta
government about bill 11 not only in relations to NAFTA but in
relation to the Canada Health Act and whether the implementation
of bill 11 would affect the principles of the Canada Health Act.
1450
I will tell the member today, as I have in the past, that if and
when bill 11 is adopted we shall be vigilant to monitor what
happens on the ground to make sure that nothing in the practice
imperils the principles of the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we will see about that. We hope they are a little more
vigilant than they have been with the eye clinics up until now.
The question I asked is about the NAFTA implications. The
people who contend that bill 11 is a problem with respect to
NAFTA have been willing to share the legal opinions which they
have had developed.
Why is the government unwilling, either the Minister of Health
or the Minister for International Trade, to share with the House
the argument that has come out of the Department of Justice or
the Department of International Trade or wherever to show us the
reasoning behind the view that they now take, which they did not
only weeks ago, that bill 11 is not a problem as far as NAFTA is
concerned?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have shared with the Canadian people will be
shared with the House. It is our determination to ensure that
nothing happens which will imperil our Canadian health care
system. In particular, if bill 11 is adopted nothing in its
implementation will imperil the principles of accessibility and
universality that we cherish so much. We will monitor what
happens on the ground to make sure it does not.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
received a call yesterday from a Valcartier soldier's family
expressing concern that soldiers exposed to TB in Kosovo will
soon be back on base. Could the Minister of National Defence
tell the House if there are any plans to give medicals before
they arrive on base?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is frequently a medical examination
of our personnel both before and after return and various
debriefing consultations take place to determine whether there
are any illnesses physically or mentally of any kind.
I might add that the hon. member's colleague asked an earlier
question about TB cases in Cold Lake. I am now informed there
are no active TB cases in Cold Lake.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that is strange. We have a mother calling saying that her son
has it. Also the war in Kosovo has given rise to outbreaks of
many other diseases such as TB, of course. These diseases have
been kind of forgotten by Canadians. Therefore they are not
being immunized for them.
Our soldiers on the ground in Kosovo are being exposed to these
diseases. What exactly has been done to protect them in theatre?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we take great care in terms of our
personnel going overseas to check the environmental conditions.
We have environmental experts that go over to check the area that
they are to operate in and the areas where they are to set up
camp. Full medical services are provided for them.
There are numerous things which we have changed and improved
over the years because the quality of life of our personnel, of
our troops, is vitally important to us.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, a report released this week claims spousal abuse at
military bases is being covered up. This is a very serious
allegation. I believe statements like those offered in the
report would require immediate reaction on the part of the
government. The report obviously is based on specific cases of
abuse.
My question is for the defence minister. Will the government
investigate any of the specific allegations of abuse made or
referred to in the report?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): The short answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Any allegations
that deal with any wrongdoing in the Canadian forces will in fact
be investigated.
This report raises some disturbing incidents. We do not find
them acceptable. We will not tolerate violence. We will not
tolerate domestic abuse.
It is not exhibited by the vast majority of the people in the
Canadian forces who are good, dedicated, decent people, but in
cases where it does exist we will deal with it and make sure that
the entire chain of command is accountable. We will continue to
provide services to the family support centre for abused wives.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This
spring the Ottawa-Carleton region launched its rural clean water
program to improve our local water quality.
Could the minister assure the House that on land farmed by
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada south of Ottawa the department
uses best practices to reduce pollution in the waterways that run
through the land?
1455
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased by the program the
Ottawa-Carleton region has put in place for sustainable
agriculture. It follows the work that the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food does on sustainable agriculture and
environmental soundness.
The land to which the hon. member refers is about 300 acres of
land used for doing corn research. On that land they practise
all sound management practices to reduce erosion, to minimize use
of fertilizers, to get maximum crops and to detain runoff of
anything from that property.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we have
learned that Immigration Canada has just refused to issue visas
to 24 African business people who have been invited to the 5th
Salon africain et créole Desjardins to be held in Montreal, in
which CIDA and the Department of External Affairs are involved,
among others.
Do Immigration employees have nothing better to do than to
hassle business people who have been invited to an international
salon organized by Desjardins and supported by a number of
federal ministers?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information is not accurate.
[English]
The information I have is that at this point
in time applications have not fully been completed in their
review. Many applications have not been fully completed and
filled out as they should be. A number of requests are under
consideration at this time.
I want the member to know that the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration takes very seriously the request for visitors visas
and people are expected to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, people all across Canada are becoming increasingly
upset by their air service cutbacks. The Atlantic premiers
complained to the Prime Minister earlier this week. My own city
of Saskatoon is losing 40 flights a week this year, and those
cutbacks are already beginning to do serious harm.
During the airline merger talks the transport minister promised
that he would not allow Air Canada to use its monopoly to the
detriment of smaller centres. What is the minister prepared to
do now to ensure that Air Canada maintains adequate service to
Saskatoon and to other smaller cities?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has brought in a very tough bill that
will regulate Air Canada and make sure consumer interests are
truly looked after.
I am told by the chairman of the committee that clause by clause
consideration will be completed this afternoon. There will be a
special commissioner at the Canadian Transportation Agency to
oversee all the complaints. That came from the members of the
committee.
The Competition Bureau has brought in tougher amendments on
predatory behaviour. These are things that parliament is doing
to regulate the airline industry.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of fisheries. The minister is well
aware of the difficulties some small boat fishermen are having
with the regulations pertaining to boat lengths and how they
affect their abilities to catch their quotas and earn livings.
At this moment fisheries officers in Newfoundland are actually
telling fishermen that they have to cut a piece off their boats
to meet the boat length regulations if they want to fish. Will
the minister put an end to these costly and insane regulations
and allow fishermen to harvest their quotas in the boats of their
choice?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is
extremely important is boat safety. This is an area we are
looking at very closely.
We as a government made a huge number of commitments to reduce
the capacity so that we would have a sustainable fishery. We do
not want to increase the capacity. We spent large amounts of
taxpayer dollars to reduce it so that we would have a sustainable
fishery. Safety is an important concern. It is something I am
looking at to ensure that when fishermen fish safety can be an
important component.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration. Response from constituents to the
minister's proposed once in a lifetime family repatriation plan
has been extremely positive.
I have received more feedback from constituents on it than on the
right of landing fees and immigrants. When does the minister
expect to carry out this once in a lifetime proposal and does she
have any additional details on how it will work?
1500
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in
this matter.
It is the policy of the government to see an expansion in the
family class. During the discussions on Bill C-31 we are
proposing an expansion to the family class.
However, immigration is a shared jurisdiction with the
provinces. I am already having discussions with the province of
Manitoba to discuss a pilot project on the once in a lifetime
sponsorship proposal. Manitoba has a provincial nominee
agreement and it may be possible to attempt to see how this would
work. It is important that all of the provinces participate with
us.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to bring to the attention
of the House the presence in the gallery of a delegation led by
His Excellency Li Ruihuan, chairman of the Chinese People's
Political Consultative Conference of the People's Republic of
China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We have another guest, Robert
Sturdy, Esq., member of the European Parliament and president of
the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-3
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
must understand that I have tried to obtain a response from
those in authority before bringing the problem to you.
1505
I even tried to contact the main person involved, but she is on
sick leave. I have a series of questions but no answers. I
hope you are going to be able to enlighten me, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, these questions involve the confidential nature of
the work of the legislative counsel. This will not take long,
and I know it will be of interest to you.
During the months of March and April, I introduced a series of
amendments to a bill that has not yet reached the report stage,
but my purpose was to prepare for that stage. The bill in
question is Bill C-3, the Young Offenders Act. It has not yet
passed the committee stage and the clause by clause examination has
not yet begun.
In order to provide the legislative counsel with some
assistance, I tabled several hundred amendments through
Mr. Louis-Philippe Côté.
In late April, legislative counsel Richard Dupuis—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. I would like to hear what
the point of order is.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: During the months of March and April, I
gave hundreds of amendments to Louis-Philippe Côté, the
legislative counsel, to have him prepare them in due form for me
to then table them. Perhaps I will not table them, but I want
to be sure I have everything going for me. I gave them to
Mr. Côté, so he could prepare them for report stage.
At the end of April, I got a call from Richard Dupuis, the
procedural clerk. He called my office to discuss the amendments
I intend to table pertaining to the Young Offenders Act at
report stage. He even sent me by fax, in proper form, at report
stage, amendments that I tabled with the legislative counsel.
My question is still the same: How is it the procedural clerk of
the House of Commons has the amendments I have yet to table,
which are at the drafting stage and which he is discussing with
heaven knows who. One thing is sure, he has them, because he
faxed them to me. He is discussing them with people to find out
the point of my amendment, how I want to go about it or
whatever.
This is what I would like you to answer, Mr. Speaker. Given
that a committee is already studying this question, what
relationship of confidentiality do I enjoy at the moment with my
legislative counsel?
The Speaker: My hon. colleague is questioning the Chair,
but it seems to me that all members must know that is precisely
what was moved for debate here three or four weeks ago. It is
now before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. We must wait for the committee to table its report in
the House.
Like you and all the other hon. members, I am waiting for the
committee to present its report to the House. All the members
will hear the same response.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an
act to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related act, the Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the
Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act,
1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act,
the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance
Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada
Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to once again take the floor today, but on a different
topic, namely Bill C-24.
I am especially pleased since today is the birthday of my
father-in-law, Paul Jacobson, and he is surely watching CPAC, the
parliamentary channel. I salute him.
1510
I would be remiss if I passed over the comments by the member
for Kings—Hants just before Oral Question Period.
He praised the Government of Quebec's fiscal
policies, rightly so I might add, mentioning the benefits of the
policies the PQ government has put in place to attract high-tech
industries, among others, to Quebec. We know that the City of
Montreal and his region, of which we have a proud representative
in the person of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, is now one
of the centres of the new technology, not just in Canada and
North America, but worldwide, of course.
I would be remiss if I did not mention what the member said, and
quite rightly, about the fiscal policies of Bernard Landry, one
of the greatest finance ministers Canada or Quebec has ever had,
provincially or federally.
Obviously, Bill C-24 is a bill which we vehemently oppose. One
of the main problems—I would even say the main problem—of the
Canadian federation right now is fiscal imbalance. While the
federal government is swimming in enormous surpluses, and the
Minister of Finance talked about surpluses of $95 billion over
five years, our view, which is shared by most of the experts—the
member for Sherbrooke agrees with me—is that it will be more like
$137 billion to $140 billion.
The tax imbalance is such that while the federal government is
enjoying huge surpluses, all the provinces have trouble just
keeping their heads above water. Ottawa and the provinces have
needs to meet. For example, because of the ageing population, we
know that expenditures can only increase in the health sector.
But, since 1993, the federal government has been cutting the
transfers to the provinces for health. What is the result of
these cuts? The result is that the provinces are feeling the
crunch.
Then the federal government acts like a saviour and says “Here,
we will give you more money, but we are the saviours of Canada's
health system”, when, in fact, it is the federal government that
axed health all across Canada. It is only through the heroic
efforts of all the provincial governments that we are managing
fairly well. But the primary source of the problems in health is
the federal government.
We could go on like this in several areas. Worse still is the
fact that the federal government's surpluses were generated not
only at the expense of the provinces, as I pointed out, but also
of the poor. For example, six out of ten people no longer
qualify for employment insurance.
Yet, the term insurance implies that if we have a problem, we
are protected, we have a safety net.
But no, the federal government organizes things so as to get the
money out of the most disadvantaged, the unemployed for
instance, to fill up its pockets and then to use their money for
purposes other than those intended.
When most Canadians and most Quebecers look at their pay stubs,
they can see that a certain amount has been taken off in the
employment insurance column each month. Anyone looking at it
can say to himself “If I lose my job, I should be able to access
employment insurance”, but no. No, because this government is
stealing from the unemployed to fill its coffers with money that
ought normally to go back to them.
We find ourselves therefore in a somewhat unbelievable situation
in which transfers to the provinces are being cut, in which the
provinces are doing their best to deliver the services for which
they are responsible, and then Ottawa comes along saying “Come
now, dear provinces, I can give you some more money, but you
will have to adhere to this or that national standard”.
1515
The Canadian federation is more centralized than ever, and one
symptom of this massive centralization is the agreement on
social union which the provinces, with the exception of Quebec
of course, the only one to stand up for itself, felt obliged to
sign.
This is serious. The provinces are obliged to sign off, to
abandon huge chunks of the sovereignty in order to get their
hands on some few million dollars temporarily. Unfortunately
for them, they have been bought off. That is what has happened.
Only Quebec had the honour, the dignity and the courage to
stand up for itself and to say no, but that is the way Canadian
history has always gone.
There have already been other instances of this type of dirty
financial dealings by the federal government.
For example, there is the harmonization of the GST with the QST.
We know that the Government of Quebec had harmonized its sales
tax with the GST. A few months later, the maritime provinces
reached an agreement with the federal government and were
compensated for harmonizing their sales tax with the GST,
something the Government of Quebec was not. This is another
example of the perverse desire of this government to see that
Quebec does not get its due.
For example, in order to compensate the Atlantic provinces for
the financial losses they will suffer by harmonizing the sales
tax, the federal government paid $961 million in compensation to
them. This aid represents $423 per inhabitant. In Quebec, this
would mean a figure of $3.1 billion.
This is not what Quebec is asking.
The Government of Quebec rightly said that it would accept $2
billion. However, if the criteria used with the Atlantic
provinces were used, the Government of Quebec would be entitled
to ask for $3.1 billion.
The Government of Quebec asked for $2 billion in compensation.
The harmonization cost everyone a lot, not only the Government
of Quebec, but businesses in Quebec as well.
The reform of the QST occasioned by the harmonization, resulted
in significant financial costs that necessitated increases in
corporate taxes and the retention of certain restrictions on
refunds of taxes for corporate input.
Quebec businesses have not benefited and are still not
benefiting from the harmonization with the GST, because, once
again, of the ill will of the federal government.
The federal government's compensation to the maritimes adds to
the economic and fiscal competition these provinces represent
for Quebec, since Quebec does not receive comparable assistance.
In addition, Bernard Lord's predecessor in New Brunswick, Frank
McKenna, who is of the same political stripe as the government,
took out full-page ads in newspapers and economic reviews in
Quebec inviting companies to set up business in New Brunswick,
saying that his province's fiscal policies were competitive and
that they would be better treated than in Quebec. Of course,
because, among other things, they are entitled to compensation
from the federal government, while the Government of Quebec is
not.
Quebec taxpayers subsidized, as it were, the Government of New
Brunswick's attempt to steal jobs from Quebec. It is a
completely ridiculous system.
It is utterly surrealistic, but it is the way Canadian
federalism works. This is just one example of why we want to
get out and are fighting to do so.
In addition, at the suggestion of the Bloc Quebecois, the
government said “Perhaps we are not right. We think we are,
but we are prepared to submit the dispute to arbitration”. The
federal government and the Government of Quebec could have
jointly appointed an arbiter, a judge, call him what you will,
to determine who is right. The government completely refused
this overture from the Bloc Quebecois because, of course, it
knew that the request from the Government of Quebec, and the
Bloc Quebecois in particular, because it was the Bloc Quebecois
that introduced the idea, was right. It was reasonable and it
was right.
1520
I am delighted to see the Liberal member nodding his approval.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I tell him “Ask the Minister of
Finance to submit the dispute to an unbiased person. That is
what he should do instead of pitting the Quebec government
against the federal government”. I would bet, I was going to say
$1,000, but thanks to the Bloc Quebecois, $1,000 bills are being
withdrawn.
I would bet $100, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec government
would be proven right.
I do hope that you will accept the challenge, which I throw out
in all friendship, to you and to the two members who are hanging
on my every word, because they, too, know that the request of
the Bloc and of Quebec is legitimate.
I ask them to put pressure on the Minister of Finance to have
him submit this issue to arbitration.
Another issue on which the Bloc has worked hard concerns the
increase in the price of gasoline. Such issues show how a party
sticks to reality and listens to people. The Bloc Quebecois has
launched a vast campaign throughout Quebec to help consumers
affected by the drastic increase in the price of gasoline in
Quebec and Canada last winter.
Like my colleagues from Témiscamingue and Sherbrooke, we ask
that the federal government temporarily waive the excise tax of
10 cents per litre on gas and 4 cents per litre on diesel fuel
until such time as the price of gas has returned to an acceptable
level.
Whether we lower the taxes or not, this increase in gas prices
will have been very costly for Canadian and Quebec households.
Anyone who has a car—and most people need one—or has to buy
heating oil for their house, their apartment or their condominium
is affected by that increase. The federal government took
advantage of that increase to fill its pockets, raking in 10
cents per litre of gas and 4 cents per litre of diesel fuel.
Many times, the Bloc Quebecois asked repeatedly that the federal
government waive the application of its tax but, again, it
preferred to rake in the money instead of giving it back to the
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers to whom it belongs.
Those who drive to work or heat their homes are affected. But,
heartless as it is, the federal government decided to ignore the
request of the average citizen defended by the Bloc.
I personally circulated a petition, which was very popular in my
riding. It was circulated to gas stations, community groups and
several people. It is incredible how sensitive people are where
their money is concerned.
Why give tax breaks when they do not mean anything? Why should
the government say that it is reducing taxes for Canadians, as
the Minister of Finance is bragging about, when it is raking in
more money with the increase in gasoline prices? It does not
matter whether the money comes from the right pocket or the left
pocket, it still comes out of the same pair of pants.
Again, this shows how this government is completely out of touch
with reality, and it is just one more reason why we will strongly
oppose Bill C-24. I call upon all my colleagues, including the
two Liberal members who are here, to put pressure on the Minister
of Finance to get him to listen to Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will ask you to make sure that there
is a quorum for the next speaker.
1525
That quorum should be made up of Liberal members. Out of respect
for the next speaker as well as for the Chair, I ask that members
be called in.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Charlesbourg has called quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We do not have quorum. Call in
the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We now have quorum.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for being kind enough
to get an audience for me which is now dispersing. Maybe I
should call quorum.
An hon. member: Stand up.
Mr. Ted White: Somebody is calling “stand up”.
Members on that side of the House claim to have the world
monopoly on tolerance. Listen to them calling things like that.
They really need to rethink their approach entirely.
It took three or four minutes to get a quorum which illustrates
very well that this is not a place of the people. It is not the
place it is supposed to be, a place where the people of Canada
have their laws passed, where the people of Canada have their
will passed. This is a place of the parties. People do not even
have to be here because they know the debates are meaningless. As
one of my colleagues said years ago when we first came here, the
outcome of every vote is non—
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I draw your attention to the fact that the member opposite, who
was the only person on his side over there, is calling attention
to numbers on this side. The pot should not call the kettle
black.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): What a testy group
we are today.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, it does not change the
situation I was describing, which is that this is a place of the
parties. It is irrelevant whether anybody is here at all because
the fact is we know the outcome of every vote before the debates
begin. They are not true debates. The things that are being
said here today have no impact on the final vote. We know that.
When Bill C-24 comes up for the vote, everybody knows exactly
what is going to happen.
Perhaps one of the most distressing things is that some of our
constituents out in the real world, the people who actually pay
our salaries, truly believe that we do something democratic here,
that we have real debates, that we talk about what is good about
a bill and what is bad about a bill, and that we actually make
sensible decisions about the content and vote on that. Mr.
Speaker, you have been here long enough to know that is not the
case. I can see you smiling and frankly, it is almost a joke.
This place is almost a joke. It is a house of illusions rather
than a House of Commons. I certainly hope I can stick it out long
enough to see some changes that make this place truly democratic.
Moving a little more to the point of Bill C-24, just to remind
the members who are here and people who are watching on
television, Bill C-24 is the sales tax and excise tax amendments
act, 1999.
The purpose of the bill is to implement measures relating to the
GST and HST announced in previous budgets. It also increases the
excise tax on cigarettes.
1530
As soon as I read that, it took me back to 1994. In February
1994, when the Deputy Prime Minister was the solicitor general,
he said that 700 RCMP officers would be dedicated to the
anti-contraband tobacco smuggling operations and that anyone
participating in the tobacco smuggling trade in any capacity
whatsoever would be subject to the full range of sanctions and
penalties provided under the law.
I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to stand in his place
right now and tell us why not a single person has ever been
charged in connection with the cigarette smuggling which took
place that year through the Akwesasne Indian reserve. Will he
stand in his place right now and answer that question? I can see
that he just sits there and does absolutely nothing.
I want to mention to him that in late December 1998 an
affiliate—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
need to interrupt the member. It is not proper to refer to the
absence or presence of any particular member of the House.
I recall that in the United States senate something of the same
nature was done. When the person did not respond because they
were not there to respond, it created an ugliness and meanness
that has persisted to this day.
While we can have fun, we should not put people in a position
where they cannot respond if they are in fact not able to
respond. I know the hon. member for North Vancouver would not
want to do that.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I would then ask the Deputy
Prime Minister to take under advisement that in late December
1998 an affiliate of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company plead guilty
in the United States and was fined $15 million for helping
smugglers to slip exported Canadian cigarettes back into Canada
across the Akwesasne reserve.
How much longer will it take the Deputy Prime Minister's 700
RCMP officers to get around to charging someone in Canada? Is it
that the RCMP are incompetent? Is it that we need more than 700
RCMP officers to find the people responsible in Canada? Is it
perhaps that the government side does not want anyone charged
because all these executives are actually golfing buddies of the
Prime Minister? I just hope the Deputy Prime Minister can give
us an answer to that question.
It would be helpful, instead of just going ahead and increasing
taxes on cigarettes, if the government could explain what it has
done to prevent the smuggling that may start again as a result of
its increased taxes.
In California about six weeks ago there was a set of referendum
questions on the ballot on which voters had an opportunity to
vote at the same time as the primaries. One of the questions had
to do with cigarette taxes.
The Californian people had an initiative in November 1999. They
put a question to the people as to whether or not there should be
an extra tax on cigarettes to be used for education purposes for
young people. That was passed strongly with about a 75% or 80%
pass rate.
The interesting thing about these referendums is that they force
the government to use the money for the purposes designated. It
is not appropriate and in fact it is impossible for the
government to take that money exerted as a tax on the tobacco
companies and spend it on something else by popping it into
general revenues. It actually has to spend it on education.
That makes me think of certain promised plans that came from the
government side when it was reducing the cigarette taxes back in
1994-95. It promised this huge educational program to keep young
people from smoking. It never happened and the smoking rate for
young people has climbed steadily since that time.
In looking at what happened in California, it was a 50 cents per
pack tax which was passed in November 1999 by the people of
California. There was an attempt by the tobacco companies in
March, about eight weeks ago, to repeal that. They managed to
get an initiative on the ballot. It was voted on and defeated by
72.1%.
This is a good example of big business trying to reverse the
initiative that was taken by ordinary people in California.
1535
When we look at some of the questions that were on the ballot in
California in March, we can see that it is really the way for
people to get things done. It is a darn shame that in Canada
citizens do not have the right to citizens' initiatives and
referendum.
Let me give the House an example of some of the things that were
achieved by California taxpayers in their referendum ballot
questions. There were actually 20 separate referendum questions
but it gives us the idea that there is compassion and common
sense that went into their decisions.
For example, they allowed the state to borrow up to $150 million
to renovate the state's two existing veterans homes and to build
three new facilities. This is an example of the people of
California voting for a tax increase in order to support an area
of their community that they felt required support. The present
veterans homes were getting rundown. They needed to be replaced
and additional facilities were required. That passed by 63%, a
very clear majority, and it went into action.
Let us look at tribal gaming. Voters were asked whether the
state constitution should be amended to allow the state's 22
Indian bands to operate Nevada style casinos, beginning with 350
slot machines and then expanding to a maximum of 2,000 over
several years. Any band that did not want to operate casinos
would be entitled instead to annual payments of up to $1.1
million from tax receipts. That passed by 65%. This is another
example of where people were willing to both help Indian bands to
support themselves and to also guarantee a payment from the
public coffers, if it was necessary.
They got tough on juvenile crime. They passed an initiative by
63% that would increase the punishment for gang related felonies,
home invasions, carjackings, witness intimidation, drive-by
shootings and gang member recruitment, all associated with youth
violence. Among other things, it would require more juveniles
to be tried in an adult court and ensure that some of the
offences were counted under the already passed three strikes and
you're out law.
I know that 60 Minutes had a program on last Sunday about
the three strikes and you're out law. It had people arguing that
it was outrageous because now the prisons were full of people who
had stolen bicycles or minor offences of some sort. I do not
believe, as the California voters do not believe, that is a
reason to squash the three strikes and you're out law. It may be
a reason to adjust it so that it does not capture certain
categories of crime. The crime rate in California has dropped
dramatically since the three strikes and you're out law was
introduced. It appears to be doing its job down there.
In another initiative where they got pretty tough on crime,
California voters voted by 72.4%, a very strong majority, on
expanding the circumstances that would lead to the death penalty.
I know that is pretty controversial up here, but 72.4% of
Californians voted that those who kidnapped for a premeditated
murder, lie in wait for victims and take them to a secluded spot
to kill them, or commit arson for the purposes of killing a
person would lead to the death penalty or life imprisonment
without parole. Does that not sound an awful lot like what just
happened in B.C. in the last few days?
I hear calls from my constituents for a much tougher approach to
criminal activity. Nobody has been found guilty for what
happened to that nine year old girl in B.C. in the last few days.
If the circumstances being explained so far turn out to be
correct, I know there will be a lot more people in my community
asking for tougher penalties from the government. It was a
terrible shame when we saw section 745 initiatives disappear in
this parliament. The issue to scrap section 745, the early
release initiatives, has not been brought back.
Bill C-24 involves the GST. It has been a while since I have had
the opportunity to remind the Prime Minister of what he said
prior to the last election. On October 29, 1990, almost 10 years
ago, the Prime Minister said “I am opposed to the GST. I have
always been opposed to it and I will be opposed to it always”.
He is still supporting it after all these years.
1540
On December 21, 1992 the Deputy Prime Minister was quoted by the
Toronto Star as saying “The thinking is that we want to
get rid of the GST”. It is a shame he did not put a date on it
at the time. In the Regina Leader Post on January 23,
1993, when we were getting close to the 1993 election, the Prime
Minister said “We will replace it, no doubt about that”.
Unfortunately, again no date was given. On January 29, 1993 the
Prime Minister said “They will know about the GST when we have a
budget”. On and on it goes, quotation after quotation stating
that the Liberals were getting rid of the GST.
Perhaps the most famous statement was made on May 2, 1994 right
here in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister said “We
hate it and we will kill it”. The GST is still alive and
kicking and collecting billions of dollars for the government. I
may be corrected by members, but I think it is collecting
somewhere around $20 billion a year now. While that is only half
of what we pay in interest on our debt, it contributes quite a
lot toward the debt payment.
I have here a booklet that was sent to me by one of my
constituents, Mr. Ted Dunn. It is about Canada's debt. The
title on it is “Budget '89”. That was 11 years ago. The
preface of the booklet states that Canada's large and growing
public debt is a serious threat to the future of all Canadians.
It also states that at $320 billion and rising—this was in 1989
and we all know now that it is close to $600 billion—the debt is
putting an enormous strain on the economy and on our ability to
afford vital social and other programs.
Each year more and more of every dollar of revenue the
government collects is spent just to pay interest on the federal
debt. We cannot go on spending more and more on the interest on
the public debt and still afford to maintain services such as
health care, training and environmental protection, services
Canadians value and count on.
Here is the real kicker. The booklet also says that the April
1989 budget takes the necessary action to ensure that the debt
and its costs will be brought under control. That was in 1989
and it was signed by the Hon. Michael H. Wilson who was minister
of finance at the time. As we all know, he did an abysmal job.
The debt continued to mushroom. It also mushroomed under this
government. I know it claims all the credit for finally
balancing the budget but it has been done at the expense of
taxpayers through huge tax increases. The government also had a
huge spending spree in 1994. It blew that deficit right up to
the $45 billion level while it spent and spent on its friends and
cronies, I assume.
This 1989 budget document also asks why we should be concerned
about the debt. It concerns all Canadians. If we fail to get
the public debt under control, everyone stands to lose with
higher interest rates, weaker economic growth, fewer jobs, lower
living standards and less money to maintain social, cultural and
regional programs.
Let us look at what is happening here in Canada today with $40
billion a year being spent on interest on the debt. The Lion's
Gate Bridge in Vancouver, just on the edge of my riding, is
presently undergoing refurbishing. This is costing approximately
$200 million. This means we could build 200 brand new or
refurbished Lion's Gate bridges every year just with the money we
pay on the interest on the debt. We could probably build 100
brand new ones. The interest on the debt is enough to build that
much infrastructure. No wonder Canada's spending on
infrastructure, on the Trans-Canada Highway and our roads, has
deteriorated so much over the years. It has dropped from the
percentage of the budget it was in 1979 to an abysmal less than
1% now.
It is all because of this terrible debt. The Liberals cannot
claim to have kept that under control when they first came to
office. That huge spending spree they had when they first were
elected added $45 billion to the debt that year.
1545
Because of that our social programs are under stress. There is
a lot of talk in the House about the medicare system and how it
is deteriorating. The attacks I have heard from some members in
this place on Ralph Klein, the premier of Alberta, for trying to
help reduce the waiting lists in his province just amaze me.
I am looking at an article by Michael Campbell, who is a well
known editorialist in Vancouver. He asked which premier stated
that the Canada Health Act may be counterproductive as we try to
build a public health care system for the new century. The
answer may be a surprise because it was not Ralph Klein, it was
Roy Romanow, leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan.
We would never know it from the protests in Alberta and the
indignation of special interest groups, but what Klein has
proposed in Alberta is a far less significant change than what is
happening in Saskatchewan, which passed a private medicare bill
over a year ago.
It is almost hypocrisy what goes on here with the attacks. It
is simply not convenient for the left wing, for the socialists,
to attack their own. It is not appropriate for them to attack
the NDP so they attack other premiers, like Ralph Klein, who are
trying to do something.
The bottom line, frankly, is that it does not really matter
where the money comes from to support the medicare system.
Whether it is provincial or federal, it is still coming out of
the same taxpayers' pockets. It is the taxpayer who pays. All
of the arguing and fighting over who it is who has provided the
money or cut the money, in the end it is the taxpayer who pays.
However, we should be considering, because of the stress that
has been created by the huge debt, private sector alternatives,
and I congratulate the premiers who are willing to do that.
Certainly I will be voting against Bill C-24. It does not get
rid of the GST. It is a disgrace.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite made, I certainly agree, some very
important points about the debt, but I cannot help but intervene
on his comments about referenda.
I know he has a lot of faith in what the Americans are doing by
holding referenda, but I would like to point out to him that the
cost of popular justice, of popular referenda if you will, in the
United States has involved basically the wild west, the
lawlessness of the wild west and the genocide of the Indians.
It involved Jim Crow laws in the southern United States, where
the popular municipalities with the Ku Klux Klan led to all kinds
of atrocities against people based on race. Because of popular
justice it was entirely impossible at that particular time, at
the turn of the century, to bring these people to justice when
they did these things against people because of race.
Jim Crow laws are again another reflection of popular sentiment
translated into prejudice against individuals, whereas I remind
the member opposite that the Canadian experience in these areas
was entirely different. We did not have a wild west, and we did
not have a wild west because decision making was not vested in
people at the grassroots. It was vested in laws that were
determined by members of parliament rather than referenda. When
people are elected, those people should be speaking from their
own conscience and not simply as a result of popular pressure.
That is the danger of referenda, as we see in the United States.
The member is perfectly correct. The Americans love referenda.
But it could also come back to the same kind of prejudice, hate
and destruction that typified the kind of referenda we saw in the
19th century and at the turn of the century against both Indians
and blacks.
1550
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the arguments which have just
been put forward by the member—and I thank him for giving me the
opportunity to talk about them—are typical of the sorts of red
herrings which are thrown in by people opposed to allowing the
people who pay our salaries to have more say in the operations of
this place. They always draw on these historical events from
donkeys years ago, at the turn of the century, when we all know
very well that governments controlled all of the propaganda.
Governments controlled all of the means of distribution of
information.
Even here in Canada, as late as the 1970s, Francis Fox, a
minister of the House, was trying to prevent people from having
satellite dishes on their apartment buildings in Vancouver. He
was arresting people and putting them in jail for trying to get
by the government propaganda and receiving news broadcasts from
other places so that they could sift through the propaganda to
find the truth.
There is no comparison whatsoever between the conditions which
existed at the turn of the century, in terms of information
available to people, and what exists in modern times, even from
the mid-1970s, if we look at the results of referenda in the
United States, which is our closest example, and in Switzerland.
I can understand why the member would be afraid of this because
the outcomes are universally small c conservative in
nature. People exhibit their common sense by making wise
decisions with taxpayers' money. They keep their politicians
under control.
Sometimes they make decisions that the politicians are unwilling
to face. For example, in Washington state at the end of last
year the people decided to decriminalize the use of marijuana. In
Canada that is a hot potato that we do not want to touch. We
would rather it just went away. None of us want to say whether
we are for or against it, but in Washington state it was taken
out of the politicians' hands and the people did it.
I hear people criticize something like proposition 13, which got
spending under control in California. But the people of
California have every opportunity to reverse that. Anyone could
have taken an initiative and reversed those spending controls.
No one ever has. The fact is that there is greater democracy, a
greater standard of living, lower unemployment, and a greater
satisfaction with lifestyle. We have a lot to learn from places
where there is a greater degree of democracy.
In terms of cost alone, there is a cost to democracy. It costs,
I believe, about $400 million to run parliament, with all of its
staff, with all of the travel, with all of the spending. I
believe that is roughly the right figure.
What do the citizens of Canada get out of that? They get the
will of the Prime Minister's office imposed upon them. That is
what happens from this place. The will of the Prime Minister's
office is imposed upon them for $400 million a year.
When we look at the debt of $600 billion, I cannot believe for a
second that we would be in more difficult straits if the people
of Canada had been controlling this place instead of the elected
people, who, according to the member over there, use their
conscience on what they should be doing.
I believe we would have a better country if the people of Canada
had more input into what was happening in this place.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist giving my
colleague opposite a further lesson in history. He should recall
where the term demagogue comes from. I am not referring to him
as a demagogue. I am not disparaging his remarks.
A demagogue comes from ancient Greece. The word referred to
people who could influence the crowd, not by the weight of their
arguments or the propriety of their arguments, but just by the
weight of their rhetoric.
The difficulty with referenda and this type of popular response
that the member is suggesting is that all of the people are not
equally informed on an issue. By eloquence and rhetoric, even
though the facts may be twisted and distorted, people can be
influenced. That is why we had a situation in the United States
that occurred in the late 19th century and early 20th century
where the popular sentiment was manipulated by demagogues. It
led to terrible results.
I do not really believe that we as human beings have changed so
dramatically in 2,000 years. As a matter of fact, if you are
somebody who is interested in the Bible, you would appreciate
that maybe we have not changed over 2,000 years.
1555
The very point of all this is that demagoguery is a real thing.
It was exercised in ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks
recognized it for what it was. I admire the member opposite very
much, but I am sorry, what he is proposing is government by
demagoguery.
I think we have advanced beyond that. Each of us as politicians
has a sacred duty, in my view, to act according to our conscience
on the best information we get. We cannot do that by referenda.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can claim
he is operating on his conscience if he wants to. I know the
people in my riding have made it clear that they elected me to
vote their will in this place.
He keeps hearkening back to history. He even went back as far
as the Greeks this time. I will repeat that at the turn of the
century there were very few people who had control of the
dissemination of information. We live in a totally different
era. He mentions that some of the people are poorly informed. I
suppose that is because they make a decision that is different to
what he would like.
I will give him an example. In March in California people were
asked to make an interesting decision. Someone proposed that
“None of the above” be added to the bottom of the ballot so
that people who did not want to vote for any of the above would
mark “None of the above”. The argument was that this would
cause a greater turnout of voters.
Arizona has that on its ballot, but it has never increased the
voter turnout, so the citizens of California rejected it by 65%.
I disagree that there is any evidence from Switzerland, from
Washington State, from Oregon, from Arizona or from California
that people do not think very carefully about their decisions or
that they are not informed when they make their mark on the
ballot.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, we would ask that the vote
be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly the vote
stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-31, the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act.
We have long been calling for the government to introduce new
immigration legislation, which was supposed to happen last year.
1600
Late or not, the bill is presented while many chronic problems
and faults are surfacing at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Today, I will address various issues relating to immigration and
to the bill before us. According to the minister, the
legislation will be tougher on criminals. I have my doubts. The
provisions of Bill C-31 on security are inadequate. I will
address the recommendations that my colleague, the member for
Compton—Stanstead, made to the committee. I will also talk about
the report on immigration that was published by the auditor
general a few weeks ago.
auditor general exposed a few problems of which the
government had been aware for some time.
[English]
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is aware of the
abuse that occurs at immigration. In the 1980s we introduced two
controversial bills to deal with the imperfections in the system.
These bills, one a piece of emergency legislation, were
vehemently opposed by the Liberals. This is hardly a surprise.
Liberals loathe taking a stand on a certain issue out of fear of
losing the next election. When danger arose, we took action.
Be assured that during the course of the debate on the
immigration bill the Progressive Conservative Party will continue
its tradition of fighting for an efficient and effective
immigration system. We are familiar with the immigration system.
That is why this party looks forward to debating the clauses and
provisions found in Bill C-31.
One of the biggest fears of this party and Canadians is the
entry of foreign criminals. The new bill purports to toughen our
present stance on criminals. Much more can be done.
In the new legislation provision is made in clauses 31 and 32 to
bar individuals from the refugee determination system. Clause 31
deals with those inadmissible on the grounds of having violated
human rights. Clause 31(1)(c) reads:
Perhaps the minister could clarify “a representative”. Is a
representative a government official or is it a national of that
country?
Clause 32 of Bill C-31 sets out criteria for serious
criminality. We do not understand why a serious criminal is only
deemed to be someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable
in Canada by imprisonment of 10 years or more. Why these numbers?
Is the minister telling us that offences for which someone could
only serve nine years are not serious? What does she mean by
serious criminality? Our party is baffled why the minister would
not take all crimes seriously.
Even more, there is not necessarily consistency between two
countries' criminal justice systems. An offence punishable in
Canada by 10 years imprisonment may not be punishable in another
country at all. The Progressive Conservative Party is not
comfortable with the numbers as they are set out in Bill C-31.
1605
As the standing committee discussed its draft report on border
security, my colleague the immigration critic, the member for
Compton—Stanstead, was able to secure two amendments in the
final report.
One amendment was the requirement for all refugee claimants to
be fingerprinted and photographed at the first point of contact
with them in Canada. My colleague has reasoned that refugee
claimants disappear and do not show up for their hearings. One
statistic from the Immigration and Refugee Board in Vancouver
shows that 71% of claimants did not show up for their hearings.
Where are they? How many criminals are passing through? How many
criminals are endangering our cities, our streets and our
children? How many are there and where are they? As a national
party, we are concerned about these potential criminals.
Mr. Bill Matthews: What is the hon. member talking about?
Potential criminals?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the member from Newfoundland
does not seem to be aware of the criminals walking the streets of
Canada. They are probably walking the streets of Newfoundland
and affecting children there. That is why identifying these
individuals at first contact is of prime importance. In such a
large country as Canada it is hard to keep track of every single
person but we must at least make some attempt to be familiar with
those coming in.
The recommendation passed unopposed at committee. Members were
supportive that it be included in the bill. Our party was very
disappointed that the minister did not see fit to include the
fingerprint and photograph recommendation in Bill C-31. It is
unbelievable.
We later learned that fingerprinting and taking pictures of
people would be carried out through departmental regulations.
Fingerprints and photographs must be provided for in the new
bill. It must be law. We should not allow such an important
provision, unopposed by the standing committee, to be carried out
only at the whim of immigration officials.
Our party's second proposal at committee involved safe third
countries. A safe third country is one which a potential refugee
to Canada has passed through on his or her way to Canada. Safe
third country provisions would be an efficient and fair means to
deal with undocumented refugee claimants. These individuals would
have a safe haven in a safe third country.
The thinking behind the safe third country provision is that it
is mutually beneficial. Most important, the refugee claimants
are given a safe haven in the country they pass through on their
way to Canada. Second, Canada is able to control its borders
from undocumented arrivals.
We are pleased that Bill C-31 makes a provision for safe third
country negotiations in section 95. The government is willing to
pursue the idea of safe third country provisions, but why has it
not taken action? Over the past seven years the Liberals have
only negotiated safe third country provisions with one country,
the United States. Negotiations must be expanded.
The Progressive Conservative Party's 1997 election platform
spelled out our commitment to end patronage appointments to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. In keeping with good Liberal
tradition, in part 4, clause 150(1)(a) states in black and white
that members of the IRB will be appointed by the governor in
council. No means ensuring meritorious appointments are outlined
in the bill.
Numerous witnesses at the committee, including the Canadian
Council for Refugees and the Canadian Bar Association, as well as
our party have called on the government to end patronage
appointments.
The government again has cast aside this recommendation in favour
of its own partisan interest.
1610
It is now almost one month since the auditor general released a
scathing report on Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Chronic
problems exist therein, problems the Liberal government has
attempted to solve. Even worse, these are problems the auditor
general has discussed before. Allow me to explain these serious
issues.
All newcomers to Canada must pass a medical to protect Canadian
society from the risk of disease. Criteria for medical tests are
less than satisfactory and have been the standard for an
unacceptable 40 years. No tests exist for new diseases like HIV
and hepatitis.
Moreover, physicians do not determine medical admissibility;
visa officers do. Approved doctors carry out examinations and
forward their advice to the officers. What new diseases are
routinely transported to Canada? The auditor general underlined
deficiencies in medical examinations 10 years ago. How can the
government delay? This was going on 10 years ago.
The immigration bill does not provide guarantees the health of
Canadians will be protected any time soon. Medicals and health
provisions are given very little space in Bill C-31. We are not
satisfied that sufficient preventive measures are taken in the
new bill.
When will the criteria for medical admissibility be updated?
What health conditions does the minister consider to be dangerous
to public health? What diseases will excessively burden the
health care system? These are only a few of the many questions
Citizenship and Immigration Canada failed to address in the new
legislation.
The auditor general also addressed the department's computer
systems. Simply put, the systems are inadequate.
Mr. John McKay: Have you read this speech?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, once again I see that the few
members there are on the other side are very interested in what I
have to say.
The systems are outdated and are not integrated. Are these the
kind of computer systems that aid in determining medical and
criminal admissibility to Canada?
The minister has announced a new global case management system
which she says will cost $200 million. The department has
received $579 million in new funding but $209 million has been
spent. This new funding will be eaten up very quickly. Where
does the minister expect to find all the extra funding that will
be required for the case management system and the increased
administration wrought by Bill C-31?
More frightening is that no one will ever know how many
criminals are admitted to Canada. Foreign police records may not
be up to date or reliable. Some countries cannot provide the
information due to internal turmoil. The department's solution
to this is simply to not require police certificates from 40
countries. This is a preposterous means to deal with criminal
admissibility to Canada. That is not all. In 1998 over 1,300
ministerial permits were issued to people with criminal
convictions. What kinds of people are routinely coming to this
country?
Stiffer fines and longer jail terms may help in keeping
criminals out of Canada but we need to start at the source. We
need to have better detection strategies in place abroad to
screen criminals. Simply not requiring certificates from
unreliable countries does not take care of the problem.
Our party hopes the minister sees fit to take an introverted
look at her department and fix it on the inside. We hope the new
global case management system will soon be up and running.
1615
This party supports parts of the bill. We are pleased that the
minister has changed the provisions and requirements for
in-Canada processing. Spouses, students and temporary workers
will now be able to apply for permanent residency from right here
in Canada.
[Translation]
I am pleased to express my party's view on Bill C-31, the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Progressive Conservative
members will be at the forefront of this debate.
Our party knows this issue. It will ensure that Canada's
security and the integrity of its borders are respected.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. In
addressing the bill it is pertinent that we be aware of the
immigration status of all of us.
Let us remember that the vast majority of all our families came
from somewhere else, be it recently or many generations ago.
Whether through persecution in a foreign country, economic
deprivation, the fleeing of a wartorn nation or the search for a
better life, most if not all families represented here can point
to a time when they were not Canadian.
My Canadian Alliance colleagues and I agree that immigrants
arriving in Canada today have come for the same reasons that our
ancestors did in the past. They aspire to a better life for
their families and for themselves. They seek a peaceful way of
life that will allow them to practise their faith without the
fear of persecution. They do not want their children to grow up
with the firsthand knowledge of war or, worse, the loss of a
child due to war.
I can find no fault in any of those reasons to come to Canada,
but unfortunately there are those who want to take advantage of
our way of life. There are those who would pay no regard to the
laws of Canada. These are people like the Snake Heads who have
no regard for human life and only see the opportunity to make
illegal profit through the smuggling of human cargo. What a sad
commentary on the state of mankind that is.
The issues surrounding immigration and refugees have been around
for a long time. Because of their heritage most Canadians want
to welcome new immigrants to Canada. However they also want to
be sure that those who apply for immigration status meet the
minimum criteria and that those who do not meet those set
criteria are not entitled to the same rights as Canadian
citizens.
I believe I can unequivocally state that we would all welcome
immigrants and genuine refugees to our country. I believe I can
further state that we all believe there should be a set of rules
for everyone to follow when implementing and regulating
immigration and refugee policy.
The biggest concern I have is that all the legislation in the
world will not resolve the problems we see in the present
legislation or the proposed law before us. Legislation without
the ability to enforce the regulations means virtually nothing.
We can write, debate and proclaim endless laws on countless
pieces of paper, but without the legal enforcement, without the
ability to ensure that the laws are upheld, the laws are not
worth the piece of paper they are written on.
Unfortunately that is what I see with most of this new
legislation. We are not even able to enforce our current
immigration laws. How on earth will we be able to enforce new
ones without adding the necessary strength, power and ability to
these newly proposed laws? Unfortunately I do not see new
enforcement guidelines written into the new legislation.
Let us be realistic for a moment. Higher maximum penalties for
human trafficking will have no effect on the flow of illegal
immigrants to Canada. The real organizers, the real kingpins
behind the smuggling of humans, have no regard for the laws of
Canada. They operate outside Canada and have no plans to attend
court dates in Canada.
The ones who are in Canada attempt to live and operate outside
the laws by which we abide. They are seldom caught and rarely
convicted for their crimes.
1620
High fines may seem like a deterrent, but the maximum fines
under the old immigration act have never been applied. Therefore,
why should anyone here believe that the new fines would be any
more of a deterrent? It simply will not happen.
About one year ago Canadians witnessed boatloads of Chinese
migrants entering Canada illegally. They made a horrendous
journey under appalling conditions. The conditions under which
some of them lived would not meet the same humanitarian and
social structures we enjoy in Canada. Some died and others
suffered serious illnesses while en route.
It is my understanding that most of those who made it to Canada
are still in detention awaiting their hearings. It has been
seven to ten months since some of these people arrived on our
shores.
The future does not look any brighter. Reality says that it may
be as much as another two years before the process is complete.
When I look to the new legislation before us, a reasonable
expectation would be that this length of time would be
significantly reduced. Unfortunately all I can see is more
disappointing news.
The new legislation appears to do nothing to mitigate this
lengthy waiting time. This was one of the most obvious problems
in the old legislation, and it has not been resolved in the new
proposed law.
There is no doubt that Canada needs to strengthen its
immigration laws to seriously address this type of crisis. This
is necessary not only for our own protection but also to deter
those who stand to gain monetarily from the business of smuggling
people.
We simply must take a firm stand and send a message to the world
that Canada is not a haven for illegal immigrants and not an easy
target for people smugglers. Those who promote such activities
should be subject to severe penalties without exception. The
penalties must be severe enough to thwart the usury and extortion
currently being forced by the people smugglers. Our laws should
reflect compassion for true refugees, but they should also
encompass legislation to expedite the process of deporting
illegal immigrants and penalize the people smugglers.
During the boat crisis last summer I received a number of calls
from Canadians in my riding who were outraged with the federal
government's inaction on the question of illegal immigration.
This inaction drew the ire of all Canadians right across Canada.
Constituents have told me that they believe the federal
government is failing them and their families by putting these
illegal migrants ahead of the needs of ordinary Canadians.
One of the most interesting things I found was that the ones who
voiced their opinions most strongly were in fact recent
immigrants themselves. To them the situation was very clear.
They had applied and waited their turn to come to Canada. In
many cases they wanted to sponsor family members to join them in
Canada. Their anger was that while they were attempting to abide
by the law, others were abusing the law in being able to stay.
By not addressing this issue, legal immigrants are forced to the
back of the immigration process. What they really want to do is
be reunited with family members. Are we not then creating a
double standard?
During the crisis last summer the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
on Vancouver Island told me that their Vancouver Island forces
were drastically reduced as members had been called upon to guard
the most recent illegal migrants at the Esquimalt naval base.
This calls into question the level of efficiency for both law
enforcement and case development that the RCMP is able to provide
for the residents of Vancouver Island. This is just one problem
which highlights how unprepared we are for this ever increasing
wave of humanity that will come to our shores either legally or
illegally.
This issue has been ongoing for far too long. These are the
issues which I believe need to be fully addressed under this
legislation. First, full charter rights should not be available
to individuals until the immigration board has accepted them.
Second, we should set new stringent penalties for those who deal
in the smuggling of humans. This is a serious crime and needs to
be dealt with in the most serious manner possible. International
agreements should be used to pursue and convict Snake Heads and
others like them.
Third, we should ensure that full security and health checks are
completed on each person wishing to enter Canada. Canada's
citizens demand to be safe from undue risks.
Fourth, perhaps the most important issue is that of enforcement.
We cannot expect our laws to be upheld if we do not have
sufficient personnel and real regulations in effect to support
them.
Words alone will not stop Snake Heads from dealing in human
cargo.
1625
In my riding office immigration is one of the top two issues
with which my staff deals. The other issue is taxation and the
manner in which Revenue Canada, now called the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency, deals with people. It is interesting that in
both these matters a lack of humanitarian treatment appears to be
the common factor.
I should like to take a few moments to describe several
immigration cases with which I have been dealing over the past
several months. My colleague from Lakeland stated that he was
certain that all members of the House had encountered the
inadequacies of the current immigration legislation, and he is
absolutely correct.
Just listen to some of the events that have taken place of which
I have become aware as a member of parliament. In one case a
lady in my riding invited a friend from China to visit her in
1996. Today that friend has still not been able to visit Canada.
In the meantime the Chinese applicant has been turned down for
seemingly irrelevant reasons. The Canadian letter writer has
chronic lymphatic leukemia and was given the possibility of
living for five years. Her five years are up now. Her health
has been relatively good, but we all know that there are no
guarantees in this life. Offers of bonds have been made and
rejected. The Chinese applicant is not looking for a job and she
is not looking to immigrate to Canada. She simply has a Canadian
friend who would like to be able to share a Canadian experience
with her.
Letters to the minister of immigration have not resulted in any
further positive results. From what I have been able to
determine in this case, individual bureaucrats have thwarted the
plight of one potential visitor from China to this great land of
ours.
In another situation I have worked with an individual who has
been waiting for over four years to receive landed status in
Canada. He is currently living here and would like to upgrade
his skills. However he is not able to do this until he receives
his landed status.
We all expect a reasonable length of time to process
applications, but four years seems to be an abnormally long
period of time. In the meantime no full answers are forthcoming
from either the minister of immigration or the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service. We ask the question why.
In another case a Canadian citizens married a Filipino. Through
inquiry after inquiry no full answers were received. When visas
were promised, applications were received. When time lines were
committed to, they were broken in short order. After a series of
pages of requests, letters and faxes I am pleased to report that
this couple will finally be together. It is unthinkable that
they were forced to endure this process and to live apart for
many years.
Perhaps the most heart wrenching and immediate saga is in my
riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. Mrs. Jaswant Sekhon had six
children. Mrs. Sekhon was plagued by ill health, was on dialysis
and was not expected to live for much longer. Her last child, a
son, Santokh Sekhon, was still living in Punjab, India. The two
of them had not seen each other in nine years. For a year he
applied to visit his mother for a one week period. Yet
Immigration Canada would not allow the married father of two to
visit Canada initially on the grounds that he would not leave.
Last fall Mrs. Sekhon became too ill to travel. Unfortunately
the mother and son were never able to see each other again. Mrs.
Sekhon died of a heart attack on March 12 and her wish to see her
son in life was never fulfilled due to Immigration Canada's
denial.
In dying, Mrs. Sekhon wanted her son to reunite with the family,
be able to grieve and say goodbye to her in her death. I
contacted Immigration Canada asking for them to review this file
to no avail. The reason given to Mrs. Sekhon was that the
official was not satisfied he could support himself while in
Canada. Mr. Sekhon only asked to be in Canada for one week. Does
this sound like an unreasonable request? It certainly does not
to me. Yet the answer was certainly unreasonable.
Let us remember that all the family members except for one are
Canadian citizens. They have lived as productive participants in
Canada for 10 years. No family should have to endure the agony
that this family has gone through because of our immigration
system. Yet this is not the only family to endure this type of
hardship.
Thankfully there is a somewhat happier ending to this story.
Nine days after his mother passed away, Mr. Sekhon received his
visa authorization to attend his mother's funeral. Imagine what
those nine days must have been like. What a horrifying thought,
what a tragic thing.
These are real people who have been enduring real hardship
imposed upon them by a government ministry, an immigration
bureaucracy that appears to be uncaring and unable to resolve
problems.
1630
This government is responsible for creating, causing and
maintaining the shortcomings that are now before us in
immigration.
I believe that every member of the House, even government
members, would echo similar kinds of cases.
This department needlessly and negatively impacts countless
lives and families. We only need to read in the papers of
concern and allegations of corruption at various levels. This
concerns not just illegal migrants, but also visa and counsellor
services abroad.
I must raise the question of regulations again. From what I
have seen in the proposed legislation, the situations that I have
brought before the House would not be resolved. I believe that
Canadians should receive more than this when members of
parliament debate legislation. Unfortunately, they have come to
expect even less with empty words and broken promises. We have
seen the lack of true public consultation and true problem
solving in many prior bills, and this bill is no exception.
This is not new. The 1990 auditor general's report identified
serious problems within the immigration department. Here we are,
10 years later, and they have still not been addressed. Overseas
offices are grossly overtasked, resulting in waiting times of up
to three years for approval.
Immigration plays an important role for Canada today, but under
the present legislation and the present government what we see is
really a department in chaos. The proposed legislation will not
resolve the big issues before us. Bill C-31 requires a serious
overhaul and the regulations must been seen in full in order to
address the real immigration issues before us.
In light of these outstanding issues and others that other of my
hon. colleagues in the House have mentioned, I am not able to
support this bill unless it is extensively amended.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Training; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Human
Resources Development.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last year Canada had to deal with migrant boats. That
is something the hon. member made reference to in his speech. I
understand that now the snake heads are charging $60,000 per
head, a marked increase from last year, which indicates that they
feel as though the Canadian government has not dealt with the
situation. The Canadian government has sent the wrong signals to
the snake heads and the people smugglers and, as a result, the
demands are even higher and the snake heads charge even higher
amounts of money per person.
What does the hon. member think of the dollar figure rising
because of the lack of action by this government? In the
minister's responses to questions in the House, she seems to be
claiming that basically since they have not seen any boats quite
just yet there really is not a problem. She says there is no way
we can anticipate that there will be problems on the coast of
British Columbia this summer with regard to migrant boats. I
would like the hon. member to address that.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, having lived on the coast last
summer I experienced firsthand what happened and the way it was
handled by the government, or the inability of the government to
handle the situation.
There is no question that the snake heads and others who are
getting rich on this kind of activity would see Canada as an easy
target. They see that people get in and are helped by our
government. They become dependent upon our social welfare system
and our health system. They are taken care of from that
standpoint and not simply turned away and sent back. Because of
this they will, of course, get more business.
It gives them the opportunity to say to people in China and other
places “This works. Line up. We will take your money and we
will be glad to get you to Canada because when you get there they
will take care of you really well”.
1635
I do not think we have a problem with taking care of people, but
this encourages this kind of thing and allows us to be seen in
the sort of underworld international community as an easy mark.
It is no wonder the price has gone up and the snake heads make
more money.
The other point the member mentioned was a very famous quote
that was attributed to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration during the time the boats were coming over. It
seemed to be a very simplistic answer to the whole situation:
“Pretty soon we will have the storm season upon us, winter will
be upon us and that will take care of the waves of boats that are
coming over”. If that is the way the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, who is supposed to be a very responsible person
in the Government of Canada, views the situation and if that is
the kind of answer she has to deal with it, then it is no wonder
we are in serious trouble.
The storms are getting less frequent on the coast. There is
good weather coming to Vancouver Island and I suspect that this
will be repeated again, and it will probably be even greater than
it was last year. I do not think this legislation will prepare
us for that and it will be even worse. We will have to see what
happens.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on that
question, my understanding is that the People's Liberation Army
of the People's Republic of China, otherwise the communist
tyranny that is the Chinese mainland government, is directly
involved in much of this snake head and people smuggling
operation and that Canada is seen as a weak link in the military
alliance that makes up Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United
States and Great Britain. ANZUS, I believe, is the title of
that organization. The People's Liberation Army and the snake
heads are in a sense doing some of these things to raise funds so
they can infiltrate the military network known as ANZUS to be
able to access information which they feel they cannot get through
the other partners of that military alliance.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, the government's answer to
an allegation like that was to send the minister and a couple of
Liberal members to China to negotiate with the government. You
and I were not privy to that negotiation. We do not know what
went on, but the government would have us believe, of course,
that it has it all under control. We will see.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, listening to the member made me think of my riding,
which has a high percentage of refugee claimants. Unfortunately,
a high percentage of them turn out to be criminal refugee
claimants.
These people simply arrive at our borders to claim refugee
status and then are released into society. However, since almost
all of them have to change planes in Frankfurt, Heathrow or Miami
to get here, there has always been a question in my mind that
they are not legitimate refugees by virtue of the fact that they
did not claim in the first safe country they reached. I wonder
if the critic could comment on the ways in which we could solve
that problem.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, as my hon.
colleague has pointed out, that there are many illegal immigrants
who come into this country through airports, certainly far more
than come in through the boat route. There were somewhere in the
neighbourhood of 25,000 illegal immigrants who came to the
country last year. Probably 98% of them came in through
airports.
How do they get in? How do they maintain that they are legal
immigrants when they do not declare their intentions in the
country of origin?
1640
What happens, I am sure, even though I have never been on a
plane to see this happen, is that they simply take their identity
cards and flush them down the toilet. By the time they get here
they can say that they have no record of who they are, that they
are displaced people who want to claim refugee status.
When those people come to these shores we should have something
in place immediately to determine very quickly whether they are
legal immigrants. If they are not, then they should simply be
sent back to the country of origin and from there go through the
proper procedures to make sure they enter this country in the
right way.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, we have this scenario
whereby people would like to come to this country. Of course we
always wonder whether it is for legitimate purposes in
circumstances where they would not qualify as independent class
immigrants, et cetera.
How does the hon. member feel about having bonds posted, for
whatever amount, maybe $10,000 or more? I have heard people
suggest as high as $50,000. Those bonds would be forfeited if
they did not return to their country and if they violated the
promise they gave to Canadian officials.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very
interesting suggestion. I am just wondering if the government
has ever taken it under consideration. I think we need to have
all of the good wisdom and suggestions from members on both sides
of the House. We should pool our resources to come up with the
very best, and this may be one of the solutions.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-31 to amend
the Immigration Act.
That bill was long overdue to say the least. Members will
remember that the Bloc requested a reform of the Immigration Act
several times in the House. If my information is correct, the
Immigration Act has been amended about 20 times in the past. I
think it was high time we had an overall view of immigration, and
I congratulate the minister on her initiative.
Of course, the bill is far from perfect and I know that we can
count on the courage and determination of the young member for
Rosemont to work toward that aim in committee. We will even be
able to count on the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, to make the
bill as perfect as can be.
Immigration is not an insignificant factor in the life of
countries like Canada or Quebec. Let us just think that Canada
and Quebec have always been extremely open to immigration. My
colleague will understand if I say that Quebec has all it needs
to be a country, but I realize that, for the time being, very
large parts of the immigration policy, and especially its
administrative aspects, are under federal jurisdiction.
From the post-war years up until now, Canada has accepted an
average of 150,000 to 250,000 immigrants. There are four major
countries across the world that are what we would called
countries of immigration. I am talking of course about Canada,
the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
When we look at the effort these countries have put into their
immigration policy and we compare it with what Quebec is doing
in that area, we see that Quebec is comparing well with the
United States on a per capita basis.
1645
Minister Boisclair, now the Minister of Social Solidarity, was
the Minister of Relations with the Citizens and Immigration
three years ago, when he issued a policy statement on
immigration that revealed that we accept roughly the equivalent
of 0.8% of our population.
This is a considerable effort. Quebec accepts between 50,000 and
65,000 immigrants every year. This raises questions about
integration policies, because it is important to have a generous
immigration policy, especially since Quebec and Canada, like
many countries on this side of the hemisphere, are societies
that do not carry the seeds of their natural renewal.
For nearly 15 years, if not 20 years, the natural growth of our
population has not been enough to ensure us of the new
generations. It would take a fertility rate of 2.2% instead of
the current 1.8%.
I invite all my colleagues—I will try to do my share directly or
indirectly—to reflect on the importance for a society to
reproduce itself.
It is an important issue that was hotly debated in the past and
which is far from resolved. Some believe we need tax incentives.
Others say we need not only tax incentives, but also a real
family policy.
Having children is something that one plans for in one's life.
Take for example our colleague from Longueuil, whose son is now
20 months old.
She planned to have a child. It may not change the world, but it
definitely structures your life. I do not want to linger over
biographical details, which could lead us to release information
which is protected, so to speak. I am talking about the
information, not the partner of our colleague from Longueuil.
Historically, like other societies, Quebec has been quite open
and generous when it comes to immigration policies. It is a
basic component of our society. However, our fellow citizens
must realize that, unfortunately, because of its current
constitutional status, Quebec does not have control over all the
levers that would allow it to have a real immigration policy of
its own.
We know how immigration works.
Under the act, every year in the month of October, and I
understand this requirement will not be modified, the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration releases a public report on the
number of immigrants the country will be receiving. Their number
is between 200,000 and 250,000. These newcomers, who will
ultimately become Canadian citizens, are divided into three main
categories.
There are, of course, those who immigrate for humanitarian
considerations. These people are persecuted in their own
country. There is reason to fear for their bodily security.
Either because of their religious or political beliefs or
because of their economic distress, they have to leave their
country and claim asylum. I will come back to this category.
1650
There are those who come to Canada and Quebec to join their
family. These cases are in the category of sponsoring. Their
brothers or sisters, their mother or father, their sons or
daughters who came here before them as to sponsor a member of
their family. This is the family reunification category.
There is also a more economic type of immigration. Governments
in Canada, Quebec, Germany, France and other countries have been
seduced by economic immigration in recent years. They have tried
to establish a link between the employability profile of people
choosing a country of adoption and the resulting immigration.
This economic immigration category can include independent
workers and investors. Some people come to Canada or to Quebec
because they want to invest money, to set up businesses and to
create jobs.
There again, members know about the handicap created by Quebec's
constitutional status. I will digress for a moment to recall with
pleasure that, during the 14th convention of the Parti Quebecois
held last weekend in Montreal, the Premier of Quebec pointed out
that Quebec sovereignty, which should mobilize all Quebecers in
the months to come, will be on the constitutional and political
agenda.
The reason we want to become a country must be reflected in the
current debate because, again, Quebec does not have full control
over its immigration policy. In saying that, I say that Quebec
has nothing to say as to how many new immigrants will come to its
territory and what the entry procedures will be, but in the end,
Quebec has a complete and clear responsibility as to their
integration. Members will understand the gap between the
objectives that Quebec wants to pursue and the means at its
disposal.
One of the reasons we want to achieve sovereignty is of course
because we want control over immigration, like France, Germany,
United States, Japan and all the great powers of the world.
Speaking of great powers, I cannot avoid mentioning that a
sovereign Quebec would be the fifteen economic power on this
planet. If we look at the countries that have the means to become
sovereign, Quebecers can be fully confident in their destiny and
in their capacity to control their future.
I would not want to digress too much from the subject at hand.
We support the principle of the bill. We acknowledge that the
Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act were in need of a
comprehensive reform.
My colleagues from Louis-Hébert, Longueuil and Drummond—this makes
me the only man in this House to be surrounded with women—will
recall that I was the immigration critic for about two years. I
have pleasant memories of those days. Back then, we did not have
a plethora of issues, but everything will not be settled by this
bill. It was a nice experience meeting people who had chosen
Quebec as their home. I also had the opportunity to witness the
difficulties they were experiencing with a piece of legislation
that was badly outdated in many ways.
We endorse the bill, and I will indicate which points we
consider positive. The first one is obviously the consolidation
in a single structure of the refugee status determination
process and of the adjudication process. This is a positive
goal. The government deserves our congratulations for this.
1655
The refugee status determination process was for many years a
real nightmare for successive governments, as much under Prime
Minister Mulroney—whose party is now represented by just a few
members in the House, but who knows what the future may have in
store—as under the current Prime Minister. The Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada is the most important administrative
tribunal in Canada.
It may easily take an average of two years or two and a half
years between the moment when a refugee sets foot in Canada and
meets a Canadian official, and when a decision on his refugee
status is made.
Members will understand that all of this is not negligible as far
as the costs to society are concerned.
I want to digress to say that 90% of all claims for asylum
claims and political refugee status concern three major Canadian
cities, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Slowly, a kind of pocket
is beginning to emerge in Winnipeg, but the three big immigration
centres are, of course, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
However, the inefficiency of the operating procedures of the
Immigration and the Refugee Board of Canada costs the Quebec
treasury on average between $70 million and $90 million. So, it
is important to have an act that we will allow processing of
these files as diligently as possible. We—myself in
particular—also welcome the inclusion in the bill of the
recognition of same sex partners.
Hon. members will recall that, at the time of the introduction
of Bill C-23 we considered recently—and allow me again to thank
all my hon. colleagues who supported this bill willingly and
enthusiastically—we were told “We cannot recognize same sex
partners in this omnibus bill because, in the area of
immigration, they cannot be recognized in the same way that they
are in the Income Tax Act or the Criminal Code”.
As we can all see, a new person has taken over the chair. In
spite of all the appearances of continuity, each of these
persons has his or her own style.
I myself had concluded that it was not desirable, in the bill
under consideration, to recognise same sex partners. Why? The
question is worth asking and I am convinced that my colleagues
are itching to ask. Well, here I go. Why was it not desirable,
immigration wise, to recognise same sex partners? The answer is
that, two people cannot establish that they are living in a same
sex relationship in the same way, in Canada and abroad.
When we talk about recognizing same sex partners, a certain
number of factors are involved: cohabitation, recognition as a
couple and mutual support.
Obviously, if one's partner lives in Cuba and one is living in
Montreal, the cohabitation criteria does not apply. Recognition
as a couple begins to be a bit remote and mutual support is of
course a little more of a monthly thing instead than a daily
thing. Therefore, we needed evidence that was different from
what we usually get. These are the positive aspects of the bill.
However, I repeat, the bill is far from complete. It can be
greatly improved.
The third positive aspect worth mentioning is the series of very
tough measures concerning people trafficking and smugglers who
bring into Canada people who do not deserve the status they
claim.
1700
The former Minister of Immigration and member for
Westmount—Ville-Marie said on numerous occasions in the past that
one of things that characterizes the 21st century is the
trafficking in human beings. There is not just a trade in goods
and in capital. There is an illegal trade in people, an
underworld black market. This forces us to be extremely
vigilant and severe toward those who are involved in trading
human beings.
I therefore wish to focus attention on the clause of this bill
that will provide very heavy punishment for those involved in
this trade. The bill puts all the odds on the side of the law
for dismantling these trafficking networks.
So much for the positive aspects of the bill.
There are some a bit less positive, which is why the Bloc
Quebecois will be bringing in some amendments, via the charming
and dynamic member for Rosemont.
I personally worked on this issue when I was immigration critic.
Obviously, there is the whole issue of the 8, 9 and 10 year-olds
being brought into Canada by the traffickers. They are detained
far too long in prison. This approach is contrary to the
international conventions of which Canada itself is a signatory.
I will come back to this point at a later time.
Since I have only one minute left, I will now conclude, although
I have the impression that I have barely touched on everything I
wanted to say. The question of detaining young people is a
problem for us. The lack of explicit reference in the bill to
Canada's international obligations—and by this I am of course
thinking of the conventions on refugees, on torture and on the
rights of the child—is also problematical to us.
I also wish to state that we have a problem with the added
powers assigned to immigration officers and the potential
discretionary nature of some of the decisions to be reached.
I trust the government will be open to the amendments by the
Bloc Quebecois. We will be bringing our customary serious
approach to the work in committee.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that there have been discussions with the
parties and there would be unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the response by the
government to the second report of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade may be tabled as late as
May 18, 2000.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the deputy government whip have
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, an
act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, the immigration
and refugee protection act. This is a very important bill for
Canada. It has been in the making for a long time. We are
pleased to see that it has been presented because it gives us an
opportunity to talk about immigration and its impact on Canada.
Who are we talking about? We are talking about people. The
government has released the total number of refugees into the
country. When some 187,000 immigrants are coming into Canada it
is important to recognize what is happening.
They are human beings. These are people who have needs. Like
any other issue that deals with human beings it has an emotional
aspect. It deals with relationships, with aspirations and all
such things.
1705
We recognize what is happening. We have come to the very sad
conclusion that our immigration system is falling down rapidly.
More and more people are genuinely coming into the country. They
have made the effort to come to our country but are facing
problems. They get discouraged and walk away. At the end of the
day Canada is the loser when this happens.
The auditor general reported on the immigration department. What
do we see? We see what every MP knows, I would presume. There is
something seriously wrong with our immigration system. As a
matter of fact I have a full time staff, as do other MPs, trying
to solve the immigration mess. It creates horror stories.
Old ladies have come to me crying because our system, despite
what the government says, is inconsistent and allows people to
abuse it. It is inconsistent in terms of what is going on in the
country. It creates doubt among immigrants and upsets Canadians
when they see that the system is subject to so much abuse.
The problem as far as I am concerned is that the government has
made a habit of listening to self-interest groups. In this case
I am talking about immigration consultants and immigration
lawyers who try to hijack the agenda because it is in their
interest. If the system is not functioning they are the
beneficiaries, and the government agrees to that.
Let us talk about consultants. Anyone can be a consultant in
this country. They just have to open up an office and say they
are immigration consultants. Do they know about immigration
rules? No. All they care about is money. This is happening in
my own riding. Immigration consultants take money and give wrong
advice to immigrants or to refugees, resulting in them coming to
us to solve this mess.
An hon. member: Our staffs are better consultants.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: My colleague is absolutely right. Yes,
they are experts. They could become immigration consultants and
do a better job.
I am not putting down all immigration lawyers. There is
definitely a need for consultation, but the government has made a
habit of listening to these people and then trying to draft
legislation which is weak and leaves many loopholes. Who takes
advantage of those loopholes? We all know that. All we have to
do is look at the stories in the newspapers.
Chinese boatloads came here because of a loophole in the system
created by the government. Everywhere around the world it is
becoming quite clear that the loopholes existing in Canada are
numerous, which has created human smuggling that plays with
people's lives.
The minister of immigration has said that she would be very
tough on human smugglers. The bottom line is that a market was
created for human smugglers because of our lax law. Our lax law
has given them a market of which they are taking advantage and
playing with people's lives.
1710
If we had a tighter or a speedier law, or if we had a procedure
with which we could address these things very quickly and
rapidly, would the human smugglers have a market? No, they would
not. We would do people a favour if we had a clear-cut, concise
and fast processing system. We would do a favour for people who
cross the oceans and threaten their own lives so that human
smugglers and drug abusers can take advantage of them.
Let me talk about what is wrong with the current immigration
system. The auditor general said it was mismanaged and
backlogged. We do not keep track of what is going on, and that
is absolutely true. From the experience in my office I can say
that is absolutely true.
Let us talk about spousal applications. The minister says that
it takes six months for a spousal application. I am saying that
it does not take six months. It takes over a year and a half
before Canadians who marry outside Canada can bring their spouses
into this country. Yet the government talks about a system which
it says is fair and will take only six months.
People have left this country, lost their status, and want to
come back with a returning resident permit. Everything takes
time, time, time. From the time I was elected in 1997 until now
all I have seen is a longer process, and this is for legitimate
immigrants to Canada. When we talk to immigration officers and
our counsellors overseas only one point comes up, that they do
not have the resources.
The minister of immigration says she will bring in 300,000
people. She says that is our new target. We are only at 178,000
because there are no resources. Because there are no resources
immigration officers cannot do their jobs. Haphazard decisions
are made. People fall through the cracks. People take advantage
of that and walk into the country.
Any immigration officer will tell us that. I have visited New
Delhi. I have visited Sydney. I have talked to immigration
officers in Africa, and the simple point is a lack of resources.
Some say that they want more, but as my colleague said the
current system should be fixed first before anything else is
done.
Let me give another example. The immigration department may
allow people with professional degrees into this country but they
cannot get jobs. There is an inconsistency. What is the point
of getting professionals to come to the country if they cannot
work? They cannot work here because we have professional
associations that do not allow them to work.
We should tell them that we need immigration and that we need
professional people. We should ask them how many they can
accommodate. Then we should go ahead and do it. They should
make arbitrary decisions because they are playing with people's
lives.
Let us talk about visitor visas. I have to use the minister of
immigration's offices to get visitor visas approved. Canada has
a huge population from every corner of the world. Naturally they
have families. Naturally they have ties outside the country. It
is a common sense situation. They would like their family
members to come. There is nothing wrong with that. A Canadian
can go to India with no problem, but the poor guy who wants to
bring someone from India here is denied entry into Canada.
He is denied entry into Canada because the government says we
cannot trust him to go back. We cannot trust him to go back. We
do not know whether he will go back based on our past experience.
1715
Where did the problem originate? The problem originates here.
We allow them to stay here. We allow them to come to this
country and make a claim and they can stay here for two and a
half years. It takes two and a half years to process a refugee
claim. Within two and a half years people can stay in this
country and not go back. Where did the problem originate? The
problem originates here.
It is a very small number. It is not a high number but others
pay the price for it. Genuine visitors who want to come here pay
the price for it. Over three-quarters of my files are people who
want to come here on visitor visas to attend marriages and
funerals. Why can we not look at the facts for those who come
over here and want to make an application, even if it is a
refugee claim. If there was a faster system, all these problems
would not be there.
While I am talking of refugees, let us talk about our refugee
determination system. Despite the fact that we have an appeal
process and an IRB that is supposedly an independent one, the
whole refugee determination system is bogged down. It takes two
and a half to three years before a refugee's claim is heard,
genuine or non-genuine. He has all that time to do whatever he
wants to do. The so-called Honduras drug dealers in Vancouver
sell drugs. Why is there not a faster process?
Nobody denies that a refugee has the right to flee persecution
and come to our country. We are proud of that tradition. There
is nothing wrong with that tradition. That is not the problem.
The problem is it takes two and a half to three years to process
a claim.
There is an individual in my riding who has been here for the
last three and a half years as a refugee. The man was actually
crying in my office and asking me to please tell him what it
takes, why was he in limbo, why was he in no man's land. His
wife and child are overseas. His wife suffered a heart attack.
He cannot go back home because he fears being persecuted there.
He cannot go back home but his wife has had a heart attack. His
claim cannot be processed so he cannot bring his wife here. Why
are we allowing all this human tragedy to be caught up in the
bureaucratic mess we have created?
Why can we not have a faster process? If we are going to have an
immigration and refugee policy, then let us implement it the way
it is supposed to be implemented, not mismanage it.
Let us talk about some of our immigration officers. It is
amazing. I actually tell people that their visas to Canada will
be approved depending on which side of the bed the immigration
officer got up. If he is in a good mood, they are in; if he is
in a bad mood, they are out. There is no consistency. I have
seen similar cases where one said yes and one said no. Then what
happens? It is okay for the immigration officer overseas to say
no but it throws the Canadian party into an appeal process.
The appeal process is expensive in hiring an immigration lawyer
and going before the IRB. And we do not know when the IRB will
hold its hearings. It could take six or eight months.
It could take a year and a half for an immigration officer to
make a decision. The poor guy has to wait for two years and then
the immigration officer after assessing it says “Sorry, you do
not follow this in my view”. I repeat that it is in his view. I
agree he should have some view, but there has to be more
consistency.
1720
We have started to hire local officers. Local officers do
interviews up front to allow people to come here as visitors or
as immigrants. That is because the government cut the funding.
They are local personnel.
What is Canada's desire? What do Canadians feel about how our
system is run? I have encountered local immigration officers. We
write to them and they ignore the missives of members of
parliament. I had to write back saying that it is a democracy in
this country. The people of Canada speak through their elected
officials; they do not speak through their bureaucrats. These
people do not understand. They do not know what is Canada's
desire and who wants to come here. But these people are making
decisions and throwing people into an appeal process which costs
them pain and money.
More and more people are coming to my office saying to abandon
the claim, that they are sick and tired of the whole process.
This did not happen before, but it is becoming more and more
common. The delays are becoming more and more common. But there
is no problem for the guys who want to abuse our system. They do
it and they do it fast. They are in the country. This creates
tension because Canadians hate to see their laws being abused.
They hate it.
I had call after call after call when the boat people came here.
Every member of parliament did. What was the reason behind those
calls? That our laws were being abused. It bothered Canadians
that our laws were being abused. It bothered people who had
applied for family members to come here or people in general who
wanted to come to Canada. It bothered everybody, prospective
immigrants, recently arrived immigrants, Canadians who have been
here for generations. The bottom line was that the laws were
being abused.
Have we tightened up the law? Have we even improved it? The
bill begs the question, have we improved anything? I do not
think so. I do not think anything has been improved. We are back
to the same old system. I will be back out there listening to
the cries of Canadians.
Canadians are travellers. They find new partners around the
world. There needs to be sincerity. Immigration officers need to
understand that Canadians travel. Sometimes Canadians find
spouses overseas.
In summary, I go back to the main point that bothers our party,
the official opposition. Has the bill cleaned up anything? Has
it done anything to fix the old system? I say to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, please fix the old system.
The official opposition will keep a strong watch on this. My
colleague the immigration critic will be bringing a lot of
amendments to the committee when we study this bill which will
give us more opportunity to discuss this important issue.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have several questions for my colleague, but I will
limit it to one for now. If I get a chance I will certainly come
back and ask another.
My colleague brought up the issue of visitors visas.
What does he think the impact will be on people who apply for
visitors visas as a result of the change to the Immigration Act
through this legislation which will allow people to apply for
permanent residency from within Canada?
1725
In certain select cases such as students who have completed an
education in a field which is in demand in this country, this may
make sense. However, a fairly broad and general change in law
which would allow people to apply for permanent residency from
within the country has failed in the past. It has caused huge
backlogs which the system cannot handle. Immigration officials
know it is happening. They know that anybody applying for a
visitors visa may decide he or she wants to stay and will add to
that backlog, which reflects poorly on them.
What impact does the member think this change which will allow
people to apply within the country will have on people applying
for visitors visas? My colleague already expressed a concern
that the system is not working now and he is right.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is
right in mentioning there are certain circumstances such as
students. He is also right to point the finger at the visitors
visa issue. Will the bureaucrats apply the law in such a manner
that visitors who want to come to Canada will be denied entry?
How it is going to be interpreted is the biggest question on this
issue.
As I said in my speech, the immigration officers will interpret
the law in whatever manner they want. He is absolutely right.
This is where the danger lies. There will be more cases of
people being denied visitors visas to come into the country. The
impact on the bureaucrats who will be making the decisions must
be studied very clearly. Are they going to deny entry to more
people? If they are going to deny entry to more people then what
is the purpose of this?
My colleague is absolutely right. The impact on visitors visas
to come into the country is an issue we have to study before we
think it is good.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
In my constituency of Surrey North, I too have a very high
caseload, about 80% of which is immigration files. A large
number of those tend to deal with the whole visitors visa
problems. One of the main problems we see is with people who are
trying to have relatives come over for a funeral, a wedding or
for any number of reasons. Of course, we want our front line
officers to be vigilant to make sure that people are properly
screened.
I have had cases where I suspected the applicants were perfectly
reasonable but they were denied. At this end, people have
actually offered to sign affidavits to put up tens of thousands
of dollars in bonds. People who have made the application in the
country of origin have agreed to put up tens of thousands of
dollars or the equivalent size bond. For some reason Immigration
Canada is loath to accept these bonds and has denied entry to
these people.
Does my colleague have any comment on the bond issue? Should it
be explored and opened up a bit more?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, my colleague underlined a
very basic point on the issue of bonds. This issue is
frustrating to individuals because they cannot get their
relatives or friends into Canada for whatever reason. They go to
extremes and say “Please let them come. I am willing to pay the
money”. That is not the most important issue. The more
important issue is the process in Canada.
When a person comes to Canada with a visitor's visa and applies
for refugee status, if the process were faster we would have less
refugee claimants applying from overseas. This would make
visitor's visas easier to get and would provide open entry for
immigrants because they would know that they cannot stay here.
1730
The system we have devised does not address how quickly we can
finalize applications of those who apply for refugee status. That
is what this legislation should aim to do.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
I should advise the House that when the debate on Bill C-31
resumes, the hon. member for Calgary East will have four minutes
remaining in the period allotted for questions or comments.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion, of
the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
we are resuming debate today on a private member's motion that
was brought forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst dealing
with the restoration of unemployment insurance benefits to
seasonal workers.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
immediate action to restore employment insurance benefits to
seasonal workers.
The member's riding, like my own and like many ridings in
Canada, would be considered by the government to be a rural
riding. It is interesting to note that in many of these ridings,
the workers have suffered as a result of the changes to the
Employment Insurance Act that the government introduced before
the last election. Understandably, the workers were upset by
that and showed their displeasure with the changes by voting
against the governing party.
The question would have to be asked: Has the government learned
from the voter's verdict on the changes to the unemployment
insurance system? One would think that it may have learned
somewhat of a lesson.
Those who watched the Liberal convention that was held some time
ago heard the Prime Minister, probably to the chagrin of his
Minister of Finance and certainly to the chagrin of some of his
cabinet ministers sitting here today, admit that perhaps the
people were right. He stopped short of saying that perhaps the
NDP was right. We knew all along that the government's changes
to the EI program were wrong. The Prime Minister did not want to
give us too much credit so he, kind of appropriately, went over
our heads to the sovereign people who sent a message to the
government, especially those in Atlantic Canada, that the changes
made them suffer.
One would think that the Liberals would welcome the motion from
the member for Acadie—Bathurst. It would allow them to vote in
favour of this motion and admit that they learned their lesson.
They could say that they are listening to the Prime Minister and
are prepared to restore the funding to employment insurance.
Instead, in what is, I would say, a tricky manoeuvre, the
Liberals moved an amendment. The amendment to the motion would
make it read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review
employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.
We do not need a review. The people of Atlantic Canada do not
need a review. The people who are seasonal workers in every part
of this country, whether they are working in the woods in British
Columbia, in the tourism industry in Alberta or in any industry
across Canada, do not need another review.
The changes to the unemployment insurance act were imposed by
the government under former minister Doug Young who is now a
member of the Canadian Alliance Party, I guess. A review took
place in 1995 when a working committee was set up to examine the
issue of seasonal work and employment insurance. In terms of the
Liberal amendment, the review has taken place.
1735
The working group found some interesting statistics and reports.
First, and this needs to be said, the report found that what is
seasonal is not the workers. We refer to seasonal workers, but
it is the jobs that are seasonal. The working group also found
that the needs of that particular group in the labour force were
largely ignored. Moreover, it noted that there was a negative
attitude toward seasonal workers that was emerging in society and
that the workers themselves were somehow considered responsible
because of the fact that their jobs were temporary.
There are certain realities in this country. We live in a harsh
climate. There is certain work that can be done in the summer
that cannot be done in the winter. There are tourist seasons
that are not year round. It is not the workers who are seasonal.
It is that in certain parts of the country employment follows
things that are beyond our control. One of those factors is
weather. Another is where investment falls.
However, it is not the workers who say “I think I'll get up in
May since I've hibernated for the winter and I'll go get a job”.
They also in the fall do not say “I've had it with work and I'm
going to sit down”. These are hardworking people who want work
but the reality is that in the part of the country where they
live the work tends to be seasonal in nature.
The working group also found that the Liberal government of the
day warned that changes to unemployment insurance would
disproportionately affect seasonal workers. I have already
commented on that. It is clear that it did.
Finally, the working group predicted that the EI reform would
have a negative impact on women. We already know that study
after study has indicated that it is in many cases women who have
lost their eligibility for employment insurance. They have paid
into the fund and have been discriminated against by the changes
to the employment insurance program.
As far as the amendment goes, while it is perhaps a friendly
amendment, there is no need for us to study any more. This to me
sounds like an election ploy. It is kind of like what the Prime
Minister said at the convention when he said that we needed to
review the Employment Insurance Act. A review can mean anything.
It can mean that the act will be even more draconian at the end
of the review, once and if the Liberals lucky enough to get
another mandate.
Let us have a show of faith here this evening on this member's
motion. Let us see members put their votes where their comments
were at the Liberal convention and let us see them vote in favour
of this member's motion. I do not think it will happen. I would
be readily surprised if it did, but one never knows. We have
been surprised in the House before.
Let me also comment on the value of seasonal work to the
economy. People tend to think that seasonal work is perhaps not
on that high of a plane because it is seasonal in nature.
However, when we look at it, tourism ranks 12th among the major
sectors of the economy. While I am discussing tourism, it is
important for me to comment a little bit about my own
constituency.
It is ironic that we should be debating this motion the day
after the government invoked closure on Bill C-11, an act by the
government to take away the jobs of miners in Cape Breton. What
is the government's solution to the economic problems in places
like Cape Breton where it is challenged with helping to develop
an economy? It says that tourism is the answer. The government
should talk to the women, in particular, who work in the tourism
industry in my riding in towns like Baddeck and Ingonish. I know
my colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton would echo the same
thoughts for the women who work in the tourism industry in her
riding, as would all my colleagues.
Let me say that many people in the tourism industry in
particular, but also in the construction trades, the fishing
trades, the agriculture industry and the lumber industry rely on
employment insurance to see them through. That is only natural.
They pay into an insurance fund. It used to be called
unemployment insurance until the government decided to play word
games and call it employment insurance. They pay into that with
their hard-earned money and surely at the end of the season they
are entitled to get that money back.
1740
The Canadian people have spoken about the government's changes
to the employment insurance program. The Canadian people
resoundingly oppose those changes. I ask the government members,
whose Prime Minister has indicated he is prepared to see things
our way, to vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to join in the debate on Motion No. 222
which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
immediate action to restore employment insurance benefits to
seasonal workers.
I note that there has been an amendment by the Liberal member
for Miramichi and a further subamendment by the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton.
In beginning my participation in the debate, I wish to assure
hon. members present that although seasonal workers are often
referred to in speeches on the east coast, I am very familiar
with the impact of seasonal employment. My own riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan has its share of seasonal workers. These
workers are primarily found in three different occupations:
fishing, tourism and, although members may not believe it, in
forestry today.
As we all know, the fishing industry has been particularly hard
hit on both the east and west coasts. Declining fish stocks
brought about by poor management, changing water temperatures,
cyclical changes and other factors all resulted in a loss of jobs
for fishermen and the support industries.
The forest industry actually is no different. Due to the poorly
drafted softwood lumber agreement, the crash in the Japanese
economy, the glut of newsprint on the worldwide market and the
slowdown in the number of housing starts all across Canada, many
forestry workers are faced with seasonal work rather than the
level of full time employment that they once enjoyed.
Tourism is fast becoming the number one source of new jobs in
Canada today. Indeed, tourism is truly seasonal employment.
Many cities and towns are doing what they can to build upon and
expand the resources that they have in their communities, all in
an effort to draw tourists.
I have previously spoken in the House about my own home town of
Chemainus, the little town that did, and the enormous number of
tourists that arrive every year between May and October, about
400,000 of them. The Nanaimo Dive Association is about to sink a
second artificial reef just outside the harbour. Why would they
do that, one may ask. It is simply because the first artificial
reef has attracted thousands of divers every year since it was
sunk.
Why do I talk about these three industries today? I know that
seasonal workers are found in each one of these industries. I
also know that each one of our ridings has its share of seasonal
workers. Whether they dig potatoes in the Fraser Valley, pick
peaches in the Okanagan Valley, custom seed or combine across the
Prairies, work in summer camps or vacation lodges in Ontario and
Quebec or are part of the tourism trade in the maritimes, each
one of our ridings is certainly affected by seasonal workers.
This is a very real problem and one that each of us should take
very seriously.
We may have different solutions however. Most of us can agree
that there are problems within the system. It appears to me that
one of the problem areas is the so-called intensity rule. As
hon. members will know, the intensity rule was introduced in the
1995 Employment Insurance Act and distinguishes between frequent
and infrequent recipients of EI benefits. Those who are frequent
users of EI have their benefits reduced. While the intention
appears to have been to discourage the frequent use of EI, I do
not believe that the intensity rule has really worked in this
manner. On this issue I do agree with the government amendment
that there is a need to review employment insurance benefits for
seasonal workers.
Unfortunately the limits of time in this debate are not
sufficient to adequately address nor seek solutions to the
problems that are part of the 1995 Employment Insurance Act.
Systemic problems require more than a cursory debate in order to
be resolved. While I see a need to review and address the
problems within the EI system, I believe that the wording of the
original motion will not solve any of the real problems. Rather,
it will perpetuate them.
1745
In resolving the inadequacies of the EI system there are a
multitude of issues that must be researched and resolved, issues
such as how businesses are using or abusing the EI system, the
rates of benefits for frequent and infrequent users, as well as
the premiums for businesses that are frequent and infrequent
employers of seasonal workers.
I note that the 1998 EI monitoring and assessment report
produced by the Department of Human Resources Development
acknowledges that communities with high levels of seasonal
employment were more likely to have industries that showed
declining benefit levels. The concern I have regarding this is
that the data used in writing the report would appear to have
been gathered in the time immediately following the
implementation of the revised 1995 EI act. I would question what
has changed since that time. Is the data all relevant? Do the
assumptions and conclusions in that report remain true today?
The government clearly hoped that with the implementation of the
intensity rule the workers would have an incentive to move out of
seasonal industries and regions. I question whether the
rationale of seasonal workers receiving lower benefits has moved
anyone out of seasonal work altogether. While some may have
moved out of seasonal work, no doubt there are others who have
moved in simply to take their place.
Why has the implementation of the intensity rule not changed the
number of seasonal workers? Simply put, most seasonal workers
state that they have few employment options outside their
current seasonal jobs. According to the 1998 monitoring report,
the intensity rule did not appear to be an incentive to look for
non-seasonal work.
As part of an intensive review of EI legislation we must begin
by looking at what was the original intent of employment
insurance. If employment insurance was intended to protect
workers against the risk of temporary, involuntary unemployment,
we must ask ourselves whether the program is working. If it is
not working, what are the options to fix the system? Should
companies that hire primarily seasonal workers be assessed higher
premiums? Does this place an unfair burden on some businesses
but not on others?
With regard to seasonal workers, is it not a matter of risk that
they will be unemployed? They already know that when they begin.
Seasonal work clearly has different factors affecting it than
full time work. Some of those factors may be due to the size of
the crop or the length of the season.
Let us be clear in this debate. I believe that Motion No. 222,
as originally struck, may prove to stifle any efforts to find
real solutions in the debate over seasonal EI recipients.
There are markets that are and will remain seasonal and they
should not be unduly penalized. There are other markets that
would appear to be taking advantage of the current legislation
and, of course, this is not right either.
Employment insurance should not be used as a wage subsidy
program. I understand that the original role of the EI program
was to be protection against involuntary and temporary job loss.
There is no question that the EI program has assisted many
individuals and families and this should not be overlooked.
As part of this debate we must note that there are other factors
to contend with. The use of excessive EI premiums by the
government to fill the finance department coffers is
inappropriate. I must wonder, if the premiums were not excessive
and the money left in the pockets of the businesses, could the
businesses better afford to hire additional workers? If this
were the case, would some of the seasonal workers actually have
the opportunity to become full time employees?
I strongly believe that money left in the pockets of the
businesses and workers of this country is the wisest investment
that government could ever make. Canadians are wise people and
know when they are being taken advantage of. Currently they know
they are being overtaxed. Businesses and individuals alike are
not prepared to work under a prohibitive taxation structure. The
flaws that we have before us will not be resolved by this one
motion, but it could be a starting place if we can look at it
systemically and not just in isolation.
I thank the hon. member for his motion and for the opportunity
to take part in this important debate today.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish
to seek the unanimous consent of the House to say a few words at
the end of the debate, as the mover of the motion.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, in whose name this motion stands before the
House, has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to have
the last five minutes of debate. Does the House give its
unanimous consent for the member to have the last five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1750
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the third hour of debate on Motion No. 222
tabled in this House by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and
seconded by the hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton. It reads
as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
immediate action to restore employment insurance benefits to
seasonal workers.
That motion was later amended by the hon. member for Miramichi,
seconded by the hon. member for Oak Ridges.
The amendment does not ask for benefits to be restored, but
rather for the issue of employment insurance benefits for
seasonal workers to be reviewed.
Then the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, seconded by the
member for Winnipeg Centre, came back with an amendment to the
amendment asking that the review take place as part of
country-wide public hearings.
Should the motion take the form suggested by those who
participated in the debate and proposed an amendment and an
amendment to the amendment, it would read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
immediate action to review, in country-wide public hearings,
Employment Insurance benefits for seasonal workers.
The seasonal workers issue is a real problem for the people
affected by this blatant injustice, which completely distorts an
insurance scheme to which people do not even have the right to
abstain from contributing.
Indeed, the government makes it mandatory for every worker and
employer to contribute to the EI fund from the very first hour
of work. Everybody contributes in case the employer were to
decide he or she does not need the worker's services any more.
In fact, there are people who have to face unemployment every
year and at the same time of the year. They are categorized as
seasonal workers.
From the second world war until the Liberals came to power in
1993, seasonal workers were sure to get unemployment benefits
for the whole duration of their seasonal layoff.
Since the Liberal reform, the government is not providing an
insurance scheme for the unemployment period but for the
employment period which has not been changed for seasonal
workers. The workers are not the ones deciding that their work
will be seasonal, but rather the local economic structure that
determines the working conditions in any given region.
The lower St. Lawrence—Gaspé—Magdalen Islands region, for example,
is struggling with the seasonal workers issue, as are our
colleagues in the maritimes.
This is why representatives of the RCM faced with this situation
submitted to the Minister of Human Resources Development a pilot
project aimed at trying out new ways of helping seasonal workers
who, year after year, find themselves in what we call the black
hole, or spring gap, namely a period of up to 10 weeks where they
go without a paycheque between the time when their benefits run
out and when their seasonal job starts.
This is not a geographical problem as it is tied to the very
nature of the economic structure of the area, as I mentioned
earlier.
What is this pilot project that was submitted to the minister
all about?
The government could use section 109 of the current Employment
Insurance Act and grant a special status to seasonal workers. The
project could run for three years, as provided under section 110
of the same act.
Moreover, the pilot project could cover areas where seasonal
work is very prevalent, such as the lower St. Lawrence region,
the Gaspé and the islands. It would allow the government to test
beforehand changes to the current employment insurance scheme
regarding seasonal workers.
As I mentioned it earlier, a seasonal worker is a worker who
makes a claim for the current year at approximately the same time
as the previous year. These claimants have to apply for benefits
because the work they do can only be done during a given season.
1755
Seasonal workers are greatly affected by the intensity rule. In
the lower St. Lawrence region, the type of unemployed workers
registered with Human Resources Development Canada in Rimouski
matches the profile of seasonal workers.
Our region has a resource-based economy in important areas such
as logging, peat production, agriculture and agri-food, tourism
and commercial fishing.
In December 1999, 17,983 unemployed workers applied for
benefits. Of that number, 14,353 were frequent claimants, which
means that they are affected by seasonal variations in
employment. The lower St. Lawrence region has a 80% frequent
claimant rate, compared to 20% for the Montreal region.
In this context, a pilot project is necessary, because seasonal
workers are penalized by the intensity rule, whatever the reason
is that forces them to rely on employment insurance.
Moreover, many of them have to live through the so-called “black
hole of spring”, which refers to the period of up to 10 weeks
without benefits before they are called back to work, as I was
saying earlier. It is very important to understand what it means
to the seasonal worker to receive no money for a certain period
of time.
This situation is a consequence of the calculation of the
benefit period based on the regional unemployment rate rather
than on the number of hours worked.
A pilot project giving special status to seasonal workers would
encourage them to keep their jobs, to upgrade their skills and
to participate in the development of the local economy.
A stable labour force would encourage businesses to invest more
readily in personnel training, so that employees can better
contribute to the increased efficiency and profitability of the
business.
How would that pilot project to give a special status to
seasonal workers work? Simply as follows.
The seasonal workers would obtain the following advantages:
first, the intensity rule would disappear; second, the
admissibility would no longer be determined by the unemployment
rate in the region, but rather by the minimum number of hours
required by the present Employment Insurance Act, that is 420
hours. The workers would receive benefits during the total
unemployment period, which would mean no more spring gap with no
cheque. Fourth, the exclusion of small weeks rule would remain.
Fifth, the basis for calculation would be the actual number of
weeks worked.
I hope the government will agree with this motion, which is
extremely important for our seasonal workers. I invite all my
colleagues in the House to massively support the motion when we
vote on it later.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say a few words in support of the hon. member's motion.
Two of my colleagues from New Brunswick have already spoken to
this motion, and I want to say a few words on behalf of seasonal
workers in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
First, let me make one thing absolutely crystal clear. The
Liberal government's changes to the unemployment insurance
system, the so-called employment insurance system, were and still
are a direct attack on seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada in
particular and in rural Canada in general.
The insurance system for the unemployed has been gutted. We are
all very much aware of that. The changes to the UI system, the
so-called reforms, introduced by the Liberals make it harder to
qualify for benefits. When one does qualify, it is for fewer
benefits and for a shorter period of time.
I can see why they dropped the word unemployment from the title
of the new program. In 1989, 87% of Canada's unemployed
qualified for benefits. Today only 36% of Canada's unemployed
qualify for benefits in a system that has a multibillion dollar
surplus.
1800
It is no longer workers' insurance against becoming unemployed.
It has become a system which has forced 50,000 Newfoundlanders to
pull up stakes and move to other provinces in central and western
Canada.
If people cannot or will not move from their home communities in
rural Newfoundland, there is only one option. If work is not
available, then they have to go on social assistance. For those
who cannot move away it has become welfare insurance, not
employment insurance.
In rural Newfoundland and many other places in Atlantic and
rural Canada there are not many job options available. Most of
the work which is available is seasonal work. At one time people
could work seasonally, draw unemployment insurance and head out
to look for jobs elsewhere. If they could not find jobs they
would have the assurance of returning to their seasonal work when
it became available.
Let me remind hon. members that it is not a crime to be a
fisherman. It is not a crime to be a logger. It is not a crime
to be a construction worker. These are trades that make valuable
contributions to the people of Newfoundland and valuable
contributions to the people of Canada. They should be recognized
that way, but it has all changed.
If people are lucky enough to find seasonal work and they do
qualify for EI benefits, then in all likelihood the benefits will
not carry them to the point of returning to the seasonal work.
People will live part of the year with no income at all. At that
point they must deplete their savings. They probably have to
turn to extended family for support and help, or they have to
move away to find work. If that option is not available, they
have to go on social assistance.
It would not sound so bad if the EI system were broke, depleted
of benefits by the unemployed, but the system is not broke. It
is awash with cash. The system is not broke, it is broken. It
was deliberately broken by the governing Liberals. That was a
piece of cold, calculated, social engineering on the part of the
Liberals.
Their plan proved to be quite effective. Their strategy was to
tighten up the EI system, making it impossible for someone to
earn a livelihood at seasonal work, which would force the
migration of Atlantic Canadians to areas of higher employment,
and let welfare take care of the rest of the people who could not
move or who would not move.
That piece of social engineering has cost my province about
10,000 people a year over the past few years. It has cost the
Liberal Party all of its seats in Atlantic Canada. It will
continue to cost the Liberal Party all of its seats in Atlantic
Canada unless it does something about the EI system.
This piece of social engineering has cost the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador $1 billion in lost EI revenues since
the Liberals came to power in 1993. The city of St. John's, just
to give a small indication of how it is spread out, is losing $78
million annually. My riding of St. John's East, which is
comprised of the eastern part of the city of St. John's and the
rural area along Conception Bay, is losing $50.2 million
annually. St. John's West, where the Liberals hope to win the
byelection on Monday, is losing $56.3 million annually.
Let us look at the riding of Burin—St. George's. Joining the
Liberal side was supposed to be good for that riding. How much
is it costing the people of Burin—St. George's in lost EI
revenue? It is costing them $81.7 million a year.
These are not numbers to which only accountants can relate.
1805
The people kicked out of the EI system have either moved away or
they have had to go on social assistance. For the most part
there was no new work in the area.
EI cheques, believe it or not, were not replaced by cheques from
shiny, new, year-round factories. This money has simply gone
from the local scene. It is sitting in the pot right here in
Ottawa to help the finance minister balance his budget. This is
money no longer being spent in restaurants, gas stations and
grocery stores in Atlantic Canada and rural Canada. As I said,
in Newfoundland we have lost $1 billion in EI revenue. In an
economy the size of ours that has to hurt, and it has hurt many
families and many communities.
Much has been said about the Liberal Party wanting to regain
seats in Atlantic Canada in the next election. The Liberals have
been promising to restore some of the benefits which they took
away under the old UI system, but so far all they have come up
with are a lot of empty words, a lot of empty rhetoric. I have a
feeling that is the way it will remain.
In the last budget the government made a lot of extending EI
sponsored maternity leave from six months to a full year. What
the government did not say in the budget was that with its new
hours based EI system only 31% of unemployed Canadian women
actually qualify for these benefits. Given the fact that it is
harder to qualify for maternity benefits than regular benefits,
that is very cold comfort indeed.
The government's so-called reforms to the UI system and its
creation of the new EI system was a deliberate and well planned
attack on rural and Atlantic Canada, and unfortunately Canadian
women as well. These changes might have gone down well in the
more prosperous parts of the country, but they have been
devastating to Atlantic Canada in general and to Newfoundland in
particular.
Seasonal work is not a crime. As I said a moment ago, it is not
a crime to be a logger, it is not a crime to be a fisherman and
it is not a crime to be a construction worker. It certainly is
not a valid excuse to force the migration of rural Canadians.
However, this is what the government has done, and quite
deliberately.
At the last election the Liberals paid a very stiff price for
what they did to Atlantic Canadians. If they want votes in
Atlantic Canada and in the province of Newfoundland next time
they had better change their tune. The fishermen, the loggers
and the construction workers of Atlantic Canada will not stand
for what the government has done to them over the last three,
four or five years.
I support the motion and I commend the member for having brought
it to the floor of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before I recognize
the hon. member for Oak Ridges, I thought the debate was finished
at 6.30 p.m. It is not. It is supposed to be finished at 6.15
p.m. Is there unanimous consent to go to 6.15 p.m. with the hon.
member for Oak Ridges, then go to the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst and then we will have bells at 6.20 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We said by unanimous
consent that the last five minutes would go to the hon. member
for Acadie—Bathurst, so that gives the hon. member for Oak
Ridges two minutes. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
not take issue with you at this point, but I would indicate that,
in fairness, the government needs to respond and the government
will respond to both the motion and to the amendment that was
proposed.
I point out to all members of the House that we all share
concerns with regard to seasonal workers. The original motion
called upon the government to restore EI benefits to seasonal
workers. I reject the premise that EI benefits have been taken
away from these workers.
I would support, however, the amendment proposed by the member
for Miramichi. His proposed amendment would ask us to take
immediate action to review EI benefits so that workers with
seasonal jobs could continue contributing to the economy and
building a better quality of life. I think this is important for
everyone.
1810
Canadians and seasonal work remain an important factor in
government social and economic planning. An estimated 327,000
Canadians worked in seasonal jobs in 1997, about 3% of all paid
workers. In Atlantic Canada the numbers were obviously higher
than the national average.
Furthermore, within certain industries themselves there is
greater seasonality in Atlantic Canada than elsewhere in the
country. In other words, employment fluctuates more with the
seasons.
We must recognize that seasonal industries are a large factor in
the Canadian economy and indeed we must recognize the increased
importance to the Atlantic region in general. Obviously the
treatment of seasonal workers on employment insurance is an
important concern to the government and will be treated as such.
However, it seems that whenever EI comes up for discussion in the
House we must return to the basics.
Why was the EI system introduced in 1996? We had to make the
system fairer. There had to be greater incentives to work. We
wanted to increase assistance for low income families with
children and we wanted to ensure the future viability of the
program. Overall, we wanted a balance in the system, redirecting
resources to help unemployed Canadians get back to work.
The EI program introduced in 1996 included measures to achieve
these ends, but it was never designed, nor should it have been,
to be the sole solution, the sole guarantee of well-being for
Canadians in any region.
Concern for unemployed workers has always been a priority of the
government. We must ensure that EI benefits continue to provide
income while unemployed individuals look for a new job. In
addition, EI provides active re-employment measures like career
counselling, self-employment and skills development to help
improve the employability of individuals. Indeed, active
re-employment measures are now helping people to return to the
labour market.
While a strong economy was the result of the creation of 383,000
full time jobs last year, we have nevertheless maintained our
efforts to help those workers, regions and industries which face
special challenges.
We introduced EI to help contribute to the adjustment in the
fishery. We created small weeks adjustment projects at a cost of
$225 million to help workers, many of whom are seasonal workers,
collect higher benefits and maintain a hold on the job market.
We have established a working group with the provinces and
territories to examine ways to address the specific needs of
seasonal workers, including options for pilot projects to create
employment opportunities in the off season. We have invested $30
million over two years to launch pilot projects to help workers
maintain a strong attachment to the workforce.
The minister has recognized this and she has committed her
regional officials to work closely with these workers to better
appreciate local needs and explore how we can better help
communities help themselves.
The redesigned EI plan introduced the hours based system rather
than the previous system based on weeks worked. The hours based
system is much fairer in that every hour of work counts toward
eligibility of benefits. Remember, seasonal workers tend to work
a large number of hours in a given week, so the EI system
benefits them particularly.
Evidence is building that many seasonal workers are in fact
finding the extra work needed to qualify for longer benefits.
Keep in mind as well that we are attentive to working families
with low incomes. Seasonal workers in this situation receive
higher benefits with the family supplement. If they receive the
family supplement, they are exempt from the intensity rule.
Also, many seasonal workers are receiving increased benefits
because of participation in small weeks projects.
But the point we should be bearing in mind during debate on this
motion is that the effects of various changes introduced in the
EI package can only be measured as they are played out over time.
The EI program and its efforts are being monitored continuously,
and there is a requirement for annual assessment reports for the
five years following its introduction. The third report has just
been released and it provides a more up to date assessment of how
the program is working.
The EI reforms cannot be looked at in isolation from what has
been happening in the Canadian economy and the labour market.
Unemployment rates have declined dramatically across the country
and unemployment is at its lowest level in decades. Job growth
was particularly strong for women and youth.
It is not immediately apparent what this has meant for seasonal
workers, since EI data seldom differentiates between seasonal and
non-seasonal workers. However, there is a great overlap of
seasonal workers and frequent EI users.
Data for these groups are often very similar.
1815
In 1998-99 frequent claimants received about 43% of all regular
and fishing benefits, up from 41% in the previous year. Benefit
payments to these claimants were $3.4 billion, virtually
unchanged from the previous year. At the same time, benefits paid
to unemployed workers in most seasonal industries increased
substantially with the highest increases taking place in fishing
and trapping which was up 70% and mining, oil and gas which was
up 52%. While the percentages of benefits received by frequent
claimants increased, the number of regular and fishing claims
made by frequent claimants declined 5.7% to 604,000 due in part
to a general decline in claims overall.
I will sum up by saying I believe the third annual monitoring
and assessment report demonstrates that the EI regime does indeed
provide better coverage for seasonal workers compared to the
system it replaced. Therefore the amendment moved by the hon.
member for Miramichi is more in keeping with what is happening
with regard to the EI regime. We should indeed be monitoring EI
benefits not only for seasonal workers but for all workers. This
is what we are doing. With respect to the proposed subamendment
that the review include cross-country hearings, while the
intentions may be honourable, the net result would only add to
the cost of the existing process. The government certainly will
support the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me a bit of leeway with
regard to the time.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleagues from all parties who took part in this debate on
employment insurance and seasonal workers.
This motion specifically concerne rural areas in this country.
It is of paramount importance for all workers in seasonal
industries who were penalized by employment insurance reform.
Furthermore, this reform had devastating effects on regional
economies throughout our country.
For instance, in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, the local economy
was deprived of $69 million a year as a result of employment
insurance reform.
This means that the small and medium size businesses were
severely affected by this reform. This is a huge sum for this
rural area.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Doug Young's reform.
Mr. Yvon Godin: The same thing is happening in every region in
Canada whose economy is based on seasonal work.
At their convention, even the Liberals passed a motion
acknowledging the harm that employment insurance reform had done
to seasonal workers. The Liberals acknowledged that, whereas the
changes made to the Employment Insurance Act during these last
ten year have affected in a disproportionate manner the workers
of the Atlantic Region in seasonal industries and their families—
At their convention in March, even the Liberals acknowledged the
harm they had done to seasonal workers.
That said, the Liberals recognize that the law must be revised.
We have heard the comments of the members of all parties in this
House. They have all underscored the importance of seasonal
industry in the economy of our country.
Let us take the case of the loggers at home. What message do
the Liberals want to send to the loggers? I listened to my
colleague saying that the employment system worked, that it
encouraged people to go to work.
Have members ever seen a logger go to work when the forest is
closed? Have they ever seen blueberries being picked in winter,
in December? These are some of the seasonal jobs in the rural
regions.
Have members seen the fish biting in Caraquet when the bay is
frozen over? This is the problem we have with seasonal jobs.
This is what the government has to understand.
It is not enough to say they will support an amendment to have a
review without any change. I hope that this evening they will
act in all good faith.
If they want to pass this motion, it is to make changes that
Canadians across the country have been waiting for. Real
changes have to be made for workers.
Do members know what the black hole created by the employment
insurance reform represents? It represents children who get up
in the morning to go to school without having anything to eat.
This is what the black hole the Liberals created in 1996 is all
about. This has to change.
1820
They are saying to workers and loggers at the moment “You,
because you are in a black hole every year, sell your
motorcycle. You should not have one. Sell your skidoo, because
you are going to be on welfare. When you are on welfare you are
not entitled to have a skidoo or a motorcycle. You are not even
entitled to have a car”.
That is what the Liberals are telling forestry workers; that is
what they are telling workers in the fishery and in the tourism
industry, where people work for only ten weeks a year.
That is why I am asking the House this evening to vote in favour
of my motion. But more than that, I am asking the federal
government, the Liberals opposite, to make the real changes that
Canadians need.
When I travelled across the country examining the human impact
of EI, I noticed that Canadians throughout Canada were
suffering.
Whether in Ontario, Regina in Saskatchewan, British Columbia,
the Yukon, the Gaspé, Newfoundland or Cape Breton, everywhere,
those who have lost their jobs are stuck in a black hole, I can
guarantee it. It is a black hole and not just for the worker
but for the children, the family and everyone.
I thank the House for giving me an opportunity to say a few
works to wrap up the three hours of debate on my motion about
EI. I hope that it will not be a partisan vote, but that
parliament will express its opinion and that the government will
take action to review employment insurance because it recognizes
the wrong it has done Canadians. The government must make real
changes that will help workers and their families, who have to
contend with seasonal employment in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.23 p.m., the
time provided for debate has expired.
[English]
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1845
And the bells having rung:
1850
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Caccia
| Casey
| Casson
|
Davies
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Hardy
| Hart
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
|
Wayne – 33
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert – 162
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Peterson
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the
amendment to the amendment lost.
1855
The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1900
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert – 154
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Cardin
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Hardy
| Hoeppner
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne – 44
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Peterson
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the
amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the
motion, as amended, carried.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1905
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRAINING
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
February 28, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development
the following question in the House:
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?
The issue has become a real problem throughout the country. We
can see the gap, once more, between the rich and the poor. And I
must accuse the liberal government of creating this gap in the
Canadian society.
Today, our young people need a college or university education,
with all the expenses involved and the borrowing they have to do,
because the government has completely divested itself of its
responsibility to provide students with financial support.
Consequently they get into debt. The rich, however, do not have
that problem, because they have money and can afford to pay for
their children's education.
Until recently, the government used to help the less fortunate
young people make their way through college and university. It is
now turning it back on them and forcing them to get into debt. It
does not even help them repay their school debt. The government
could exempt them from paying interest. But no, it asks the
banks, the credit unions and other financial institutions de deal
with that, and they are the ones collecting the interests, while
we are forcing young Canadians into debt.
Sometimes, I am scared when I hear the Minister of Finance say
that he wants to balance his budget, eliminate the deficit and
pay off the debt. In fact, he is doing that on the backs of
students. He says he does not want future generations to have to
shoulder the debt. Instead, he is putting it on their shoulders
now, that is a big problem.
In my riding, for instance, some young students graduate from
university with a debt load of $50,000. They come to my office
and tell me: “I cannot find a partner and get married. If I do,
I will be $100,000 in debt”. This is what the government has
done to the youth of our country. It is driving them into debt
and continues to do so. The poor are falling on hard luck.
In years to come, our country will be divided between the rich
and the poor. The poor will not receive the education they need.
1910
I am sure we can all agree that today education is of paramount
importance.
Only 25 years ago, I would not say young people did not have to
go to school or university, but if they did not, manual labour
was still plenty. They could work in a mine, in the fishing
industry or in construction. Young workers did not need a degree
as is the case today.
Nowadays, they virtually cannot enter the labour market without
a grade 12 education, a college or university degree. These young
people are caught between a hard place and a rock. They have to
borrow money and the federal government does not give them any
support.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development to tell us what are the plans of the
government to help young Canadians and to ensure they do not go
deeper into debt year after year as they are doing today.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reassure
the member for Acadie—Bathurst that the government is very
committed to both post-secondary education and training as the
best methods to ensure that our young people are equipped to
participate in the modern world.
Under post-secondary education the millennium scholarship fund
is particularly focused on those who are unable to pay. The
Canada student loans program is also offered by the government.
There are large transfers to the provinces for post-secondary
education which they pass on to universities and community
colleges. In addition, in the last budget we strengthened the
post-secondary system to a system of special chairs which are
funded at the universities and our centres of excellence program.
We are acting to ensure that all Canadians have the skills,
knowledge and experience needed to succeed, but there is more
than one way to get things done. One of the best ways we have
found is by working in collaboration with our provincial partners
to ensure that labour market programs best meet local needs. That
is why we have transferred responsibility for labour market
development programs to the provinces and territories. At the
same time we modernize those programs.
Under the new employment insurance system we now invest $2.1
billion a year in active measures, tools with proven track
records of getting people back to work. One of those tools is
the skills development benefit which enables unemployed
individuals to select, arrange for and pay for their own
training.
The government is fulfilling its responsibility to help
individuals obtain the training they need, and we are doing it
with the help of our provincial and territorial partners.
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on February 24, I asked a question
about a company from the riding of Rosemont which had moved to
the riding of Saint-Maurice. At that time, we were told that
there were no problem with that. But afterwards, there were a
government inquiry on the issue.
The horror story at Human Resources Development Canada
continues. Instead of having the independent public inquiry that
we, in the Bloc, have been requesting since the beginning and
that the opposition has unanimously demanded, we are forced to
raise all the unacceptable cases one by one.
On February 24, we talked about the company from the riding of
my colleague from Rosemont. Today, I bring to your attention the
case of another company, Conili Star, which is in the textile
sector. It received a $700,000 grant not to create jobs, but to
transfer employees to a new employer. Employees from a company
were transferred to another company at a cost of $700,000 for the
taxpayers.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us when will
the federal government finally recognize in front of the
population that the situation made public by the internal audit
cannot be corrected by the six point plan of the minister, but
that she will have to go much deeper to turn things around?
We must get to the bottom of this to see if the scandal at the
Department of Human Resources Development is simply due to
administrative problems, to administrative laxness, to basic
management errors made by people who have held the position of
deputy minister, which means that they were responsible for this
department, or if there may have been, on top of that,
situations where public funds were used for partisan purposes,
as we can see in the example of Conili where, strangely enough,
the same business that received a $700,000 grant contributed
$7,000 to the Liberal Party election fund.
1915
We are faced with a situation where, as opposition party, we
will continue to expose these cases day after day. We would
expect a more responsible attitude on the part of the federal
government, particularly on the part of the minister responsible
and the parliamentary secretary representing her.
When will we see the kind of attitude that will allow us to shed
some light on this whole situation so we can restore the
credibility of job creation programs? The current attitude of
the government seriously undermines the credibility of those
programs and brings people like members of the Canadian Alliance
to claim, based on the government's poor management record, that
these programs are useless.
When will the government take responsibility and when will it
make all the available information public and order an
independent public inquiry so we can tell the difference between
the programs themselves and the unacceptable way the federal
government has been managing them?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, HRDC is
committed to ensuring that proper administrative practices are
applied and that this information is transparent and available.
With regard to the particular file mentioned by the hon. member
opposite, he will know that we have looked at this file as we
said we would. As a result of this review we engaged Kroll,
Linquist, Avey of Toronto to conduct a forensic audit on this
particular project. The firm's report was received and based on
its recommendations it was referred to the RCMP the very same
day. The project is now part of an ongoing police investigation
and we will await the results before making any further comments.
The hon. member opposite has also claimed that his party is
doing a case by case review thereby leaving the wrong impression
with Canadians that it is the Bloc Quebecois that is doing this
review. The department itself as part of its six point plan is
reviewing every single file.
If there is any evidence of questionable practices, the next
step is to call in an auditing firm to do a forensic audit as I
have just described. That is the process. If we find any
behaviour that could be considered inappropriate, any worry about
the money, we call for a forensic audit. If we can establish an
overpayment, we will get the money back, as has been the case.
In quite a few of the files we have retrieved the money.
Canadians should know that the Department of Human Resources
Development is indeed conducting a case by case review of all its
files. In some cases it will result in a repayment of funds and
in other cases, in very serious cases, they will be referred to
the police.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m.)