36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 74
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NORTHERN RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| CANADA-ISRAEL COMMITTEE
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| RAYMOND BRUNET
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| EID-UL ADHA
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1405
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| QUEBEC MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1410
| FUEL PRICES
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| BANKING INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| ROBERT BURNS CAMERON
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1440
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1445
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1450
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1455
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BANKS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1500
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Bill C-206—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1510
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1515
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-466. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-467. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| PETITIONS
|
| Equality
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1520
| Education
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| THE BUDGET
|
| Financial statement of the Minister of Finance
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1525
1530
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1535
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1555
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1600
1605
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1610
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1615
1620
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1625
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1630
1635
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1640
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1645
1650
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1655
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1700
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6—Notice of time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1705
| THE BUDGET
|
| Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
|
| Budget motion
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1710
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1730
1735
1740
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1810
(Division 1254)
| Motion agreed to
|
1815
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
|
1820
(Division 1255)
| Motion negatived
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Third reading
|
1825
(Division 1256)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-213. Second reading
|
(Division 1257)
1835
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1840
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1845
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 74
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Lethbridge.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NORTHERN RESEARCH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
across Canada there are colleges and universities, government and
non-government research centres and individuals with great
expertise in northern and polar studies. There are organizations
like ACUNS and the Canadian Polar Commission that help
co-ordinate northern studies and research, but we lack a major
centre of excellence.
The time has come to put in place a single major centre as a
clearing house for such work, a centre which will co-ordinate and
focus the extraordinary knowledge and experience which Canadians
have of the north.
I urge federal departments that have special strengths in these
matters, such as Indian and northern affairs, natural resources,
industry, health, and foreign affairs to take a lead in this,
beginning by better co-ordinating federal activities in northern
research.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the information commissioner, John Reid,
appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and revealed some pretty stunning information about
the lengths to which the government has gone to cover up its own
mishandling of taxpayers' money.
Since it became clear just how bad the problem at HRDC is, even
completed audits have been withheld from us. All it takes for
the government to comply with such requests is to place those
audits on the photocopy machine, but the government has been
stalling and has not been answering requests for information
within the legally required 30 day time period.
What is the reason for the delay? According to the information
commissioner, Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office have
taken on a greater role in the release of documents over the past
month, mainly to prevent further public relations damage. Mr.
Reid said, “Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office want to
know what audits have been requested, whether they contain bad
news, and what the official media line will be”.
Who are we to believe? The minister who says that the
government is transparent, or the information commissioner who
says we are witnessing a “government wide—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Paul's.
* * *
CANADA-ISRAEL COMMITTEE
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
evening the Hon. Shimon Peres, Nobel laureate, current minister
of regional affairs for the state of Israel and former Israeli
prime minister will be the guest of honour at the 16th
parliamentary dinner of the Canada-Israel Committee.
The keynote speaker for this evening will be the Prime Minister
of Canada. I believe this is a testament to the commitment and
esteemed role that the Canada-Israel Committee continues to play
as a valued aid to parliamentarians.
This is an event which brings together politicians, senior
bureaucrats, media personalities and others active in the
political sector with more than 1,500 members of the Jewish
community from across the country for an evening celebrating the
special friendship between Canada and Israel.
As chair of the Canada-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group, I
am honoured to be able to attend this event. It is functions
such as this one which help build an even better bilateral
relationship between our two countries.
* * *
[Translation]
RAYMOND BRUNET
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to add my words of homage to those expressed by many business
people in my riding earlier this week to Mr. Raymond Brunet.
Raymond Brunet is the head of Ed Brunet et associés, a Hull
family business dating back nearly a century. He deserves
recognition for far more than his qualities as a businessman,
however, as he is totally devoted to the Outaouais community.
Raymond Brunet's construction company has made a name for itself
over close to four generations, and the community has benefited
greatly from the family's store of knowledge.
The Outaouais chamber of commerce and industry has named him
Personality of the Year for 1999. This recognition by his peers
is mirrored by that of the community as a whole.
My most sincere congratulations to Mr. Brunet.
* * *
[English]
EID-UL ADHA
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians of the Muslim faith are celebrating Eid-Ul
Adha, one of the major festivals of Islam. The festival is held
each year to coincide with the pilgrimage to Mecca which itself
is a major tenet of the Islamic faith.
Eid-Ul Adha is also a time for cultural and social gathering
with family and friends. In that vein I am pleased once again to
invite members of the House and the other place to attend the
fifth annual Eid-Ul Adha ceremony on Parliament Hill. The event
will be taking place this evening in Room 200 West Block starting
at 6 p.m.
I hope members will be able to join the celebration and
recognize the important contribution the Muslim community makes
to Canadian society. To them we say insh'allah they will
continue to prosper, as-salaam alaikum.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Highway 97 in the B.C. interior
should be recognized as part of the national highway system.
This highway is critical to the economy of the most densely
populated region in the B.C. interior. It is the principal
non-toll link between the west coast and the rest of Canada.
However, designation as part of the national highway system
alone is not enough. Parts of Highway 97 are badly in need of
major repairs. This costs money.
Last year the federal government extracted from B.C. motorists
over $1 billion in fuel taxes designed to build and maintain the
national highway system. It put back less than $300 million
nationally. Pro-rated out, we got back a mere 3% of our own
money. That is not good enough.
The federal government acts like it is doing us a big favour
when it gives us back a tiny portion of our own money. B.C. has
the most challenging highway system in Canada and it is in need
of repair.
I call on the federal government to return a more appropriate
portion of our highway taxes so that B.C. motorists and visitors
can drive safely on our highways.
* * *
1405
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the feeling of pride, anticipation and excitement so evident in
Nunavut last April 1 is still going strong.
As we approach the first anniversary of the momentous day, I am
proud to say that there has been evident change in the way our
territorial government serves the people of Nunavut.
From the law review customizing legislation to reflect Inuit
values to unilingual Inuit participating fully in the workforce,
to the first Nunavut Arctic Winter Games team, the people of
Nunavut see daily that the public government is inclusive and
everyone can reach their potential.
We have accepted the challenge and look forward together as
youth and elders celebrate both the past and the future in all
endeavours. Mutna. Thank you.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
at the time of the 1993 election, the Liberals promised to deal
with shipbuilding, referring among other things to a summit that
would be held the following year.
Nothing has been done since. The Liberal government has even
been so bold as to purchase used ships and submarines from other
countries. A coalition of unions was therefore struck in 1998
and decided to support four of the demands the shipbuilders'
association has been making since 1996.
Moreover, 150,000 mail-in cards have been sent to the Prime
Minister in support of these demands. All provincial premiers
support the adoption of new measures to assist shipbuilding.
At their 1998 convention, the Liberal faithful passed a
unanimous motion along the same lines. Now it is up to the
Liberal MPs to do the same this evening, by voting in favour of
Bill C-213, along with all the members of the Canadian Alliance
who have signed on to support my bill.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the
second time in less than a month, we have learned that the
Government of Quebec has apparently hidden the sum of $541
million since 1998.
In a special report released yesterday and covering the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1999, the Auditor General of Quebec
reported that the PQ government neglected to tell us that it had
received the sum of $37 million from the federal government for
farm income stabilization purposes.
These situations are beginning to cause some concern. Two weeks
ago the talk was of $841 million allocated by the Government of
Canada for health care, which Quebec had failed to use.
On behalf of my fellow citizens of Brome—Missisquoi, I say to the
squirrelly PQ government “Give Quebecers the money they are
entitled to”.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to express my support for the
initiative the Mike Harris government is showing in outlining the
funding cuts to health care in Ontario.
The Prime Minister seems to be a little confused on how to
approach the issue of health care. Two weeks ago he sent the
health minister to Alberta to chastise the province. Seven days
later the Prime Minister himself arrived to smooth things over.
The next thing we know, the Prime Minister is blasting Ontario
for bringing to light the federal government's serious lack of
commitment in funding for health care.
Is this Liberal leadership? The health ministers will gather
tomorrow to co-operate in an effort to bring viable solutions to
the table.
I am a little uncertain how challenging Ontario will encourage
the other provinces to approach the table with anything other
than trepidation. The provinces have been placed in an impossible
situation. Their pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears. This
government has accused Ontario of playing politics instead of
solving the problems. The Liberals should talk.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
minister of international relations, Louise Beaudoin, chose
criticism over diplomacy in taking Air France to task over its
imposition of English as the language of communication between
its pilots and its air traffic controllers citing safety as the
reason.
Minister Beaudoin should have instead pointed out that Canada is
one of the countries that best protects its two official
languages and uses them in all public services. She would have
better defended French in the world by showing what we do here
in protecting and promoting the French language and culture in
Canada.
In short, we say yes to defending French, we say yes to
promoting it worldwide, but we say no to raising a ruckus
overseas in an effort to revive federal-provincial quarrels yet
again.
* * *
1410
[English]
FUEL PRICES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the OPEC ministers have finally reached a deal to hike
oil production but no one should get too excited. After all, we
will not see any relief at the pumps until next autumn.
A 10 cents per litre increase for 12 months costs consumers $4.5
billion. But suppose you live in St. John's, Newfoundland. A
litre of gas will cost almost 85 cents at the pump today and
Newfoundland is now a producer of oil. My own province of
Saskatchewan is also an oil producer. At 75 cents per litre we
pay more than anyone else on the prairies.
The point is, pump prices follow crude prices up very quickly
but they sure take their time on the way down. That threatens
the inflation rate, our whole economy and it gouges consumers.
Just because we have not yet seen the inflationary impact does
not mean it is not a problem. It took almost a year after the
1973 and 1979 oil price shocks for the full impact to be felt.
The government needs an action plan now to protect our economy
but it has none. Consumers continue to lose billions of dollars
to foreign oil companies.
* * *
BANKING INDUSTRY
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
benefit from a banking system that is one of the most stable,
strong and efficient in the world. In fact just last month the
International Monetary Fund released a report praising the
soundness and stability of Canada's financial system, underpinned
by the banking industry's strong financial position.
Canada's banks are also strong contributors to the Canadian
economy. As major exporters of financial products and services,
almost 50% of bank earnings are made outside the country.
However, banks pay 80% of their taxes and base 90% of their jobs
here in Canada. The math clearly works to our benefit.
These facts are evidence of the importance of Canada's banking
industry to our economic well-being. The Canadian banking
industry is making a strong contribution and deserves our
recognition and respect.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
only thing that is increasingly clear with Bill C-20 is that it
is generating strong opposition everywhere. So far, those who
have opposed the Prime Minister's clarity bill have all been
crushed under the steamroller.
Last fall, it was the Liberal members who were silenced by the
Prime Minister. A few weeks ago, opposition members were gagged
time after time by the Prime Minister.
Now, it is the senators who are being targeted by the Prime
Minister.
In spite of that, the senators too are now finding that this
bill is undemocratic, that it does not solve anything and that
it is flawed.
Senator Gérald Beaudoin finds that Bill C-20 hurts federalism,
that the two legislatures are sovereign, and that a legislature
cannot give itself the power to judge the work of another
legislature.
What is the Prime Minister waiting to withdraw his bill?
* * *
[English]
ROBERT BURNS CAMERON
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a true Canadian hero.
Robert Burns Cameron of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia died recently at
the age of 80 after a storied life in service to his community
and country.
A graduate of New Glasgow High School, R.B. as he was known in
his beloved Pictou county went on to attend the Royal Military
College and with the outbreak of war was commissioned and went
overseas as commanding officer for the 1st Canadian Armoured
Division.
He was a recipient of the Distinguished Service Order for heroic
action at the gothic line in the second world war and also a
member of the Order of Canada. After an extraordinary military
career, as an astute businessman he went on to establish a number
of companies such as Maritime Steel and Cameron Publications Ltd.
For a time he was president of Sydney Steel and the largest
shareholder of the Royal Bank of Canada.
Senator Alasdair Graham in a stirring eulogy at the First
Presbyterian Kirk Church stated “The lights may have been dimmed
on Robert Burns Cameron, but they will never truly go out”.
To his beloved wife Florence, their children and grandchildren,
I would like to extend on behalf of the Right Hon. Joe Clark and
the PC Party of Canada our sincere condolences. R.B. lived his
life greatly with class and compassion. Philanthropist,
industrialist, hero and friend, in the words of his famous
namesake, a man's a man for all that.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the words former and Reform are spelled with exactly the same
letters but in a different order. Let us look at them.
F stands for fool which is what the Reform Party is trying
to do to Canadians.
O stands for zero which is the sum total of its policies.
R is for rich who is exactly who its flat tax will
benefit.
M is for the leader's name which is still the same, even
if it changes.
1415
E is for extreme, which is what Reform members are when
their true colours come out.
R is for regressive, which represents their policies on
gun control, education, health care, agriculture and any other
program that benefits Canadians.
Yes, F-O-R-M-E-R spells reform and reform spells hypocrisy, no
matter what name they go by.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today we got one of those audits that
the government has been withholding past the legal release date
under the access to information guidelines. I can understand why
the HRDC minister tried to hide this one. The information in it
is damning.
Let me quote one phrase: “In many interactions with HRD
managers we found that control appears to be a four-letter
word”.
Is it not that lack of control which led to this billion dollar
bungle in the first place?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has
been, but indeed we received the internal audit that we are
dealing with. We identified that yes, indeed, there is an issue
of control and that is why we are implementing the six point
plan. That is why we have the auditor general working with us to
improve the system.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not know which internal audit
the minister is referring to, but I am referring to the 1997-98
briefing book for senior management.
These audits continue to come forward. Let me quote again about
the concerns of ethics: “Weaknesses found in our special audit
suggest that the old virtues of prudence, probity, economy,
efficiency and effectiveness are not as deeply embedded in the
HRDC as they could be”.
Why?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is pre-eminently
important to me as Minister of Human Resources Development Canada
is to deal with the information in this audit and in all the
audits that we receive.
The fact that we are doing internal audits suggests that there
is an increase in control. The whole point of the undertaking
before us now is to improve the controls; not to suck the
information and the control back to Ottawa, but to find modern
methods of comptrollership so that we can continue to provide the
service which Canadians want and report to the taxpayer.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it would appear that there is a
deliberate effort to make sure these audits do not become public.
Let me quote again: “Only three in ten employees agree that
people can voice concerns about ethical breaches without
repercussion”.
This is 18 months old and these people are not satisfied with
what the minister contends to be her solution to the problem.
I would ask her this and I would like an answer. Why are HRD
employees being punished for being ethical?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to 18
months ago. Let us talk about the here and now. Let us talk
about the work that the men and women in the Department of Human
Resources Development Canada are undertaking as a result of
committing themselves to responding to the report of the internal
audit.
There are men and women working around the clock to review the
files, to implement the six point plan, to get the training that
they need. They are bound and determined to make a difference
and I am there to support them.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about yesterday.
Yesterday Canada's information commissioner charged that the
Liberals are holding up the release of internal audits in an
attempt to control politically damaging information. This latest
audit was done in 1998, but the government did not make it public
and even refused to release it under access within the 30 days
required by law.
1420
How can Canadians possibly trust a government that will even
ignore legal requirements to hide its wrongdoing?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, let us talk about yesterday and
the information commissioner and what he said. He said:
“HRDC's report will be a significantly positive one with regard
to its adherence to the statutory time limits for responding to
access requests”. He went on to say: “No other department
which we have reviewed in the time that I have been information
commissioner can boast of a record as good as HRDC”.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner also
said that those quotes were from a report that was done before
the minister started to screw-up the information flow from her
department.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask members to please be a little
more judicious in their choice of words.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, this is a quote from
the 1998 audit of the HRDC department, which we did not know
about before: “There is a need to improve the perception of
management's commitment to ethical behaviour”.
Is the absence of leadership committed to integrity not the real
cause of the billion dollar boondoggle?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member gives me the
opportunity to say that as Minister of Human Resources
Development Canada I have taken this seriously and we are making
effective change in my department.
She talks about a screw-up and the sharing of information—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: All right, that is one on each side, and we
will stay away from that word for today.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would ask her if she
thinks it is wrong that on February 21 we tabled with the
standing committee over 10,000 pages of information. I would ask
her if she thinks that it is wrong that since February 21 we have
provided the standing committee over 3,000 additional pages of
information and will provide more. I would ask her—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development signed contracts that
she did not respect. She appointed a trustee, Mr. Champagne, who
is the lawyer for one of the parties involved and also a
creditor in the Placeteco affair.
Two creditors in the bankruptcy, Messrs. Gauthier and Giguère,
both friends of the Prime Minister, signed a secret agreement
with the National Bank, in which mention was made of the
upcoming grant to pay back a $1 million loan. And the minister
says there is nothing to justify ordering a police
investigation.
What does the minister need to decide it is time the police
looked into the matter?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I need to know is that we have
reviewed this file completely, at the highest level of our
officials, and that the administrative review has indicated that
we have not breached any of the terms and conditions of the
transitional jobs fund program. Most importantly, what I need to
know is that there are still 170 people working there.
While they would have had us pull our money and close these
accounts, we stuck with these companies, and men and women are
working as a result.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
the beginning there were 81 jobs at Placeteco, compared to 78
now, which means three jobs were lost. Let us not get things
mixed up.
It is surprising to hear the minister say it is not important
that established rules are not followed; it is not important
that jobs are not being created; it is not important that her
department's rules or those of the Treasury Board are not
followed; it is not important that her signature is not
honoured, and there is nothing wrong with the grant being used
for purposes other than those for which it was intended.
Is the minister aware of the message that she is sending, of the
example that she is setting? What are we to think of a minister
who takes such improper measures?
1425
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is important is to make sure that
all of the information is shared. Yesterday they talked about a
contract and looked at section 10.1, which talks about
bankruptcies. They forgot to look at section 10.2, which gives
the government the option of continuing to work with the company.
On this side of the House we chose to continue to work with
these companies. As a result, 170 people are still working.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the attitude and the responses of the minister
are absolutely outrageous. This is scandalous.
The case we are discussing here is of such seriousness that even
the minister is involved through failure to stand by her
signature on the contract involving Placeteco.
Ten days ago, her department confirmed that there were 78 jobs
at Placeteco. This is three jobs fewer than before the payment
of the $1.2 million grant. Where is the proof the minister
refers to?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said time and again that there
were difficulties with this project, that the numbers of
employees went up and down, and fluctuated.
What is important is that today as we speak there are 170 people
who are working on this original contract. From our point of
view it was an investment worth sticking with.
I remind the hon. member that we are only but one partner. In
fact the Government of Quebec supported us in this undertaking.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister understood the question very
well, but is avoiding answering it. We are talking about
Placeteco, a serious matter.
Where are the figures showing the jobs created and the invoices
she says she has analyzed? What is she waiting for before
making them public?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at them. When the project
was first approved there were 64 people working at Placeteco and
49 at Techni-Paint. At various times there were as many as 135
working at Placeteco. Both companies are now doing well and have
the potential for more in the future.
Placeteco signed a five year contract for $8 million and there
are 78 people working there today, which is more than when the
project was approved.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has taken out full page ads on
health care so that it can carry on a spitting match with
provincial governments.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Shame on this government for
applauding expenditures on advertisements when it will not put
money into the health care system.
The government tried to justify these advertisements by saying
that the other guy started it. These ads may be good for PR, but
they are not good for ER.
Canadians are not interested in this kind of—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the member's
question, so I ask members to listen.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not
interested in this kind of fight. They want solutions and they
know the first place for that kind of solution is money on the
table to save health care and to move forward.
Tomorrow there is a critical meeting of health ministers. Will
the federal government bring cash to the table?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to have good public policy the people are entitled to
know the truth. As we said in the ads and as I said in my reply
to Premier Harris, and I am happy to see the NDP and Harris
together, we have restored funding to the provincial governments
in the transfers and they are receiving today 12% more money than
they were receiving in transfers in 1993-94.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1430
The Speaker: Order, please. We like to hear the
questions and the responses.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, is the Prime Minister really saying there is no new
money for health care? Is that his answer today at this critical
juncture?
Does the Prime Minister not realize we are at a defining moment
in the history of the country? We are talking about the future
of medicare, something that ties the country together.
Will the Prime Minister do what is absolutely necessary for the
future of our universal public health care system and give the
health minister a mandate to go to the table tomorrow with money
and ensure that medicare is here to stay?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a year ago we transferred $11.5 billion more to them. I
remember, as all members of the House should remember, that we
were congratulated by all the premiers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the response.
I ask members to listen.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this year in our
budget we transferred another $2.5 billion for health care to the
provinces.
The Government of Ontario and other provincial governments still
have money in the bank that they are not using. It is in
interest accounts rather than being used to improve the fate of
people who work in hospitals or are in hospitals in Ontario and
the rest of Canada.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Telile Isle Madam Community Television Association
has been receiving HRDC funding for a number of years. Telile
negotiated a long term lease with a commercial property owner.
After the lease was signed HRDC funds were then used to make
improvements to the property.
We have been informed that the owner of the property and the
chairman of Telile are one and the same person. He negotiated
the deal with himself.
Considering the involvement of HRDC money and the apparent
conflict of interest, will the minister tell us if she considers
this to be a judicious use of taxpayer money?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to review a
number of grants and contributions in my department, but not all. I
am not familiar with this case. If the hon. member would like to
give me the details I will look into it for him.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that because once again we are
talking about a long term lease, in this instance involving 10
years of inappropriate use of taxpayer money.
Would the minister undertake in her department to look into
whether the approval of this funding for the organization was in
fact a conflict or whether it was appropriate? Was there any
semblance of inquiry both before and after cheques were sent?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let us take a look at what the 1998 audit of Human
Resources Development had to say. It said “In many interactions
with HRDC managers we found that control appears to be a four
letter word”.
Why did the government allow billions of dollars to be handed
out without financial controls for at least 18 months between the
time of the audit and today?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department has done an extraordinary
job at improving its service delivery methods. The department
and Canadians appreciate and understand the value of grants and
contributions to them. We have taken extraordinary measures to
improve our relationship at the community level, in Liberal
communities as well as in those represented by that party.
As a result of the work of the internal audit we are undertaking
also to improve our modern methods of comptrollership, modern
strategies that will allow the department to deliver better
service and be accountable to the taxpayer. That cannot be
wrong.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the truth is that this government and this minister did
nothing for almost two years until they were busted by an access
to information request put forward by the official opposition.
They knew for well in excess of 18 months that there were huge
problems: no financial control and ethical concerns. They did
nothing.
Why did the minister and her predecessor do nothing while
billions of dollars in tax money was being handed out without
financial controls and while there were ethical concerns?
1435
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about perception.
What I want to talk about is the reality. The reality today is
that my department is working extraordinarily hard to make
improvements, to continuously improve our operations.
Canadians do not expect everything to be perfect all the time,
but by golly they expect us to make improvements when we get the
information, and we are doing just that.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when we look
at the present hike in gas prices, we see that, oil producers
aside, there are two big winners, the Government of Alberta and
the federal government, which are pocketing additional tax
revenue thanks to the profits of oil companies.
Can the minister tell us whether this is not the real reason for
the federal government's failure to take action in the present
crisis?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member must know that the reason for the hike in gas prices is
certainly the international cartel.
Yesterday, we heard that OPEC countries had reached an
agreement. The expectation is that gas prices will go down in
the weeks and months to come.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the effect
of an increase in world oil production would not only be modest
but might not be felt for a few months, maybe several.
Does the government not think it would be justified in giving
consumers a break right now by lifting the excise tax of 10
cents a litre?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member must know that taxes are levied at the federal and
provincial levels. I have always said that I was ready to sit
down with my provincial counterparts to discuss this issue.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, listen again to these quotes from the
1998 internal HRDC audit: “Greater emphasis should be
placed—on ethics and integrity”. “Accountability
mechanisms”—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary
Southwest can begin his question.
Mr. Preston Manning: Move a little further to the right,
Mr. Speaker, and that seems to bother some of them.
Listen to these quotes from the internal audit: “Greater
emphasis should be placed—on ethics and integrity”;
“accountability mechanisms not functioning”; “weaknesses in
financial controls continue to surface”; “lack of monitoring of
contribution projects”; and “weaknesses found in prudence,
probity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness”.
Why did the minister fail to address any of these concerns until
after the $1 billion boondoggle had been exposed?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us quote some other things from the
same report:
The majority of HRDC employees agreed that management in their
office consistently demonstrates a commitment to the importance
of ethical behaviour. Similarly, well over one-half of HRDC
employees surveyed agreed that employees in their office make
sure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely.
Let us get the whole story on the agenda.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, they did not do anything until after
they had been caught. The employees at HRDC were even
intimidated from reporting breaches of ethics. Listen to this
quote on ethics from the same audit:
Only three in ten employees agree that people...can voice
concerns about ethical breaches without repercussion.
The government was warned about this in 1998. If the minister
were concerned about these problems, why did she do nothing about
them until after the $1 billion boondoggle was exposed?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the hon. member that it
was our own audit, an internal audit, to which we were
responding. We were not caught by anybody.
It is part of our process of continuous improvement. We do look
at ourselves. We do identify where we can make improvements, and
we take action.
They should look at the six point plan, look at the work of the
department and look at the commitment of the men and women who
are ensuring that we build a system of modern comptrollership
that will be second to none.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
conference of ministers of the environment, which ended
yesterday, did not reach its objectives. Once again, the
federal government is merely putting off any real action off
until some other time.
1440
As well, its strategy for greenhouse gas reduction ignores the
realities of the provinces, where sustained efforts are already
under way.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Why is the
government refusing to recognize the efforts of the provinces so
that those that have already taken certain steps are not
eventually penalized?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we regret Quebec's departure from the meeting a couple
of days ago. We appreciate its desire to be proactive, but we
all really need to work hard together as a team on this issue.
I might caution the Quebec government against embracing the
European model as it did at the meeting. That model would mean,
for example, a massive increase in costs in Quebec for truckers,
farmers and consumers, directly contrary to the representations
made two minutes ago by the member for Témiscamingue.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
his decision to postpone the province by province breakdown of
objectives, does the minister not realize the federal government
is plunging companies that are prepared to take positive steps
for reduction into uncertainty, which cannot do otherwise than
to cast doubt on Canada's commitments at Kyoto?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are already in the process of implementing a system
of baseline protection to give companies confidence about the
future in terms of taking early action.
I might also say that with the European model the Quebec
government is embracing it would find, based upon that model, a
much higher target for Quebec than the national average. I am
sure that is not its intention, but it should be careful about
embracing models that do not apply in Canada.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, another new day and another new audit
at HRDC that shows the extent of the problems in that department.
The minister says that she wants the best system possible. I
would like to ask her how that is possible when the 1998 audit
shows that only 30% of the employees in that department believe
they can raise concerns about ethical breaches without
repercussion.
Could the minister explain to the House and to Canadians why 70%
of the employees in HRDC are afraid to bring up ethical breaches
in her department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of that party opposite continue
to show that they are stuck in the past. Here they are focusing
on something in 1998.
I would ask them to please take the time to look at the year
2000 to see what we are doing in the department to engage the
employees and to ensure that they can participate in improving
their system so that they can serve Canadians better.
I have been to operations in Calgary, Toronto and Quebec City.
The men and women of my department are standing tall, alongside
me, as we implement changes that will improve the system.
Canadians expect us to do that, and they will watch and judge us
by our actions.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the
minister would actually make those statements in the House.
It is very interesting that the minister refuses to release the
more recent audit through access to information. Eighteen months
ago the minister knew, from the audit in human resources, that it
warned of a loss of ethics and control which would lead to
serious problems.
How can Canadians believe that the minister will make any
changes when she did not make the changes that were recommended
18 months ago?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that this is the most
bizarre line of questioning I have ever been privy to.
For heaven's sake, let us just go through what has happened. We
did our own audit. We saw that there were places where we could
make significant improvements. We have said to the Canadian
public that we have identified where we can improve our business
and we will make those changes.
We are doing exactly what the public expects us to do to
continuously improve and to keep them informed about how we are
performing and how we are improving. I am not going to change
that approach.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Health did not deign to reply to my question.
Millions of dollars are being spent by his department to promote
genetically modified organisms, while no study has been carried
out to date on their long term consequences.
1445
Will the minister admit that, as Minister of Health, when there
is a general concern about this issue, it is his duty to
undertake, as soon as possible, a study on the long term effects
of GMOs on people's health?
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food are now putting together a
committee which will study the long term impacts of the GM
labelling.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently, we were
stunned to hear that Air France will impose English as the
language of communication between its pilots and the control
towers in France.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us if French is going to
remain in use in Canada's air space?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is simple: no. Canada's air navigation
system allows bilingual services in Quebec—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Transport has
the floor.
Hon. David M. Collenette: No, nothing is changed, because
Canada's air navigation system allows bilingual services in
Quebec, in the Ottawa region and in northern New Brunswick, and
the results are positive.
There are no problems with bilingual communications in Canada's
air space.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think statements by ministers are at 3 o'clock.
Let us get back to the news.
What is actually bizarre is that this minister did nothing about
this audit since 1998, until an access to information request was
filed by the official opposition. The minister says that she
knew nothing about this problem until November but the audit
clearly indicates that there were problems as far back as 1998.
It is a disaster for her anytime one of these internal audits
happens to slip out of her fingers because Canadians get to look
at the rot that is going on in her department.
Here is a quote from this report “Employees were not convinced
that they could report suspected contraventions of ethics without
fear of reprisal”. What kinds of reprisals did employees in her
department fear?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about a report from
18 months ago. That is two names ago for that party.
Not much has changed there as a result of that, but a lot has
happened in my department.
1450
The employees of the department, along with the senior executive
management and myself, are implementing real change. It is a
change that Canadians expect. As I said, the Canadian people
will judge us by our results.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what is unbelievable is that this minister tries to
downplay the kind of scandal that is going on in her own
department with these kinds of comments. It is unbelievable.
Let us go back to this report and look at another quote. In
this report it says that the communication on the importance of
ethics has not taken place at the operational level. Why not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about ethics.
If members of that party had any ethics they would stand and
apologize to the Canadian people for creating the myth that $3
billion has gone missing as a result of work in my department.
They would stand and say that it was not $1 billion. They would
stand and say to those communities, which they have cast
aspersions on, and to those individuals in my riding who have
received benefits from the grants and contributions, that they
were wrong.
* * *
HEALTH
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Tomorrow the minister will be meeting with his counterparts to
discuss the crisis of health care in this country. Everyone
knows we need more federal cash in the system. The Canadian
Medical Association said that it wants full restoration of
federal funding, plus an escalator mechanism to address future
needs.
In light of this, will the Minister of Health show some
leadership tomorrow and guarantee us that there will be an offer
of cash on the table with a plan to save medicare in this
country. Will he show that leadership tomorrow?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I believe Canadians know that if we are going to solve the
problems in medicare it will take more than just more money.
The NDP may believe that the answer is simply to pour billions
more into a system that is not serving Canadians well. I can
tell the member and the House that we believe, and I think
Canadians agree, that we need a plan, a long term solution to
make the system sustainable, as well as long term financing.
Tomorrow we will begin a process, which may last several months,
of working on that common plan toward common financing with all
governments in the country.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Well, Mr.
Speaker, the minister talks about a plan.
This government is now in its seventh year in office. Where is
the plan? The government has a plan for tax cuts but no plan for
health care. I want to know why there is not a plan for health
care.
Will he go to Toronto tomorrow with a plan and an offer of cash
on the table to save health care? Where is the leadership from
this minister? Does he not know what leadership is?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the NDP had a plan in their 1997 platform. They said
that we should have a floor of at least $15 billion for the
Canada health and social transfer. We have made it $15.5
billion.
They had a plan to put in $7 billion more to restore health
cuts. We have now doubled that and put in $14 billion more.
In November 1998 the leader of that party stood in the House and
said that what we really needed was $2.5 billion more in health
care. Since then we have put $14 billion more into health care.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, since the minister was unaware of the Telile
situation I will be glad to provide her with information.
I want to read from a memo penned by the chairman of Telile,
Silver Donald Cameron, to the executive. It states:
A principle to bear in mind is that the government wants to see
that the bill has been paid, but has no particular interest in
seeing where the money came from. We show them receipts,
invoices and cancelled cheques and they pay. That's it. In
principle creating a paper trail for community contributions is
simple.
1455
Upon review and if warranted, will the minister agree to her
departmental auditors taking a look at whether this organization
was making proper use of taxpayers' money?
The Speaker: We are getting into hypothetical questions
now. The last part of the question was in order but not the part
which was “if”. If she wants to answer, the hon. Minister of
Human Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will get the information from the hon.
member. As I have said in all my responses, we take all requests
seriously and we will act on them in a serious manner.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, tonight on the Fifth Estate Canadians will be
reintroduced to Stephen Truscott, a man convicted of killing
12 year old Lynn Harper 40 years ago. At age 14 he was sentenced
to death and ultimately spent 10 years in prison for a crime he
claims he did not commit. Shocking new evidence suggests that
there was compelling evidence in the hands of DND officials that
would have exonerated Truscott.
Based on what could be the most egregious miscarriage of justice
in Canadian history, will the minister agree that it is incumbent
upon her department to conduct a full public inquiry into this
situation?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not heard from Mr.
Truscott or his counsel in relation to this matter but if and
when we do we will investigate this matter thoroughly.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
First, I want to thank the minister on behalf of Canadians all
across the country for one of the best and most effective budgets
in Canadian history.
However, I do have one concern and that is the focus on debt
reduction. I believe it is critical that we aggressively address
our debt so future generations do not incur the same debt burden
that we have had to.
Will the minister please expand on whether he supports an
increased focus on debt reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are one of the few industrial countries that is
actually retiring its debt, $6.5 billion over the last two years,
over $20 billion of market debt. Our debt to GDP ratio was at
71% four years ago and today it is at 61%. It will be below 50%
in the next four years.
I congratulate the member for Simcoe North for having asked me
the first budget question since the budget was brought down over
a month and a half ago.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I know they are choosing sides on the leadership
question over there and a little plug like that I guess does not
hurt.
I quote from the 1998 audit of HRDC for senior management. That
audit laments this government's lack of openness. It stated
“Whether dealing with our special audits or the survey, often
there appears to be a reluctance to share information about
unfavourable results”.
Why did the HRDC minister ignore even her own department's
complaints about cover-up?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I do not know where these guys
have been. We got an internal audit. We, the department, made
it public. We are not hiding from anything. We, the Department
of Human Resources Development Canada, are going to change,
improve and respond to the needs of Canadians.
There is nothing here that is anything different than what the
Canadian public expects. We will continue with this kind of
action because it is what the people want.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
banks want to hold responsible those who are victims of theft
through the use of their automated teller cards, claiming that a
code of ethics is being discussed.
At the same time, public officials are saying that a code of
practice does exist and is currently in effect.
Will the Minister of Industry meet with bank officials to make
sure they comply with the code of practice to which they agreed?
1500
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be pleased to raise this issue with the banks. As members
know, we are currently setting up a new ombudsman agency, which
will deal precisely with this kind of problems.
* * *
[English]
CHILDREN
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if
failing medicare is not bad enough, the government has also
failed on its promise to promote the health of children through a
national child care program. This week in B.C. the government
lived up to its promise for child care to give B.C. kids a
healthy head start.
I ask the minister why has her government broken its promises so
many times to families desperately needing child care? No more
vacuous words, where are the federal dollars to back up the
commitment so that all kids can benefit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason the Government of British
Columbia is able to produce these services is because of the
national child benefit, the income support provided by this
government.
I point out that in the most recent budget we have increased
that contribution through the Canada child tax benefit and the
national child benefit by $2.5 billion. By 2004 a family of four
earning under $25,000 will receive tax free and fully indexed
$4,600.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whether he would be
prepared to provide emergency funding for wharfs between Port
Lorne and Delaps Cove. To my pleasant surprise he responded that
he had personally visited those wharves and that he had already
announced money to fix them.
What wharves did the minister visit in my riding and how much
additional funding is he going to provide for Delaps Cove,
Hampton, Port Lorne, Margaretsville and Parker's Cove wharves?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously did not
hear my response. I said I was in the maritimes and visited New
Brunswick. In fact I authorized $200,000 for his colleague's
riding in Robichaud to fix two wharves.
The hon. member has made representation to me about his wharves.
We will be looking at them and taking due consideration so
harbour authorities can operate safely and provide opportunity
for the fishing community.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Shimon Peres,
Minister for Regional Co-operation of Israel and Nobel laureate
and one of our most respected international statesmen.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-206—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on a point of
order raised on Friday, March 24, 2000 by the hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River, the whip of the official opposition,
concerning the status of private member's Bill C-206.
I would like to thank the hon. member for drawing this issue to
the Chair's attention, as well as the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington for his careful outline of events on March
27. I also thank the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader for his contribution to the discussion.
The point in question arises from an earlier ruling delivered by
the Chair on March 21 in which the list of 100 signatures filed
in support of Bill C-206 pursuant to Standing Order 87(6) was
declared invalid.
The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington was informed that it
would be necessary to submit a new list of signatures if the bill
is to be proceeded with under the provisions of that standing
order. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River protested
the fact that rather than submit the list of 100 signatures, Bill
C-206 had instead been part of an exchange of items of private
members' business. He argued that the item was therefore not
legitimately on the order of precedence and was preventing other
members from proceeding with their items under that provision of
the standing orders.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington indicated to the House
that the exchange had been necessary for reasons of ill health
and that the Speaker's earlier ruling had not precluded an
exchange of items if such was necessary.
[English]
I have carefully reviewed all of the elements of this case,
including the original issue raised with respect to Bill C-206,
the proceedings in the procedure and House affairs committee that
dealt with it and the 19th report of the committee tabled in the
House on March 17.
The issue here, as I see it, is one of fairness both to the hon.
member for Wentworth—Burlington and to other members who are
prepared to advance items of private members' business for which
they have gathered lists of at least 100 signatures.
[Translation]
While my earlier ruling on Bill C-206 did not preclude any
exchanges, I wish to make it clear that it is an item in
abeyance in the order of precedence. At the same time, I feel
now, as I did then, that given the special circumstances of this
case, the hon. member should be given a reasonable opportunity
to file a new list.
[English]
This is one of those decisions where one tries to be fair to all
sides. Consequently, what I am prepared to allow the hon. member
for Wentworth—Burlington to do is to have a further five sitting
days beginning tomorrow, March 30, in which to file a new list of
signatures. In the meantime, his item will return to and remain
at the bottom of the list. If after those five sitting days no
list has been filed pursuant to Standing Order 87(6), I will
order the bill to be dropped from the order of precedence and
placed on the list of items outside the order. It will in that
case remain eligible for selection in the next draw.
I thank all hon. members for their assistance in this matter.
* * *
1510
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among the House leaders of all parties and I believe that you
would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, at
5.45 p.m. this day, all questions necessary to dispose of ways
and means proceedings item No. 5 shall be put, a division thereon
deemed to have been requested and the bells summoning the members
rung for not more than 15 minutes;
That, immediately following the completion of the aforementioned
division, the House shall, without further ringing of division
bells, proceed to the other divisions standing deferred to the
conclusion of government orders this day, provided that the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Elk Island to the
motion proposed by the member for London North Centre shall be
deemed to have been withdrawn, and
That, following completion of all deferred divisions, the House
shall adjourn.
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have
permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The 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)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following consultations with
all the parties, I think you would find agreement for the
following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of
this House, Motion No. 30 in the name of the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, and Bill C-222 in the name of the member
for Wild Rose exchange places on the order of precedence for
private members' business.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The 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)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to 22
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to
present to the House reports from the Canadian branch of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the Conference
on Parliament and the Media, Building an Effective Relationship
which was held from February 14 to February 19, 2000 in New
Delhi, India, and the 49th Commonwealth Seminar which was held in
Westminster, United Kingdom from March 7 to March 18, 2000.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the third report
of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee recommends that
it be granted leave to travel from April 30 to May 10, 2000 to
Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador
and P.E.I. to continue its comprehensive study on aquaculture,
its statutory review of the oceans act and of fisheries issues,
and that the committee be composed of two Canadian Alliance
members, one Bloc member, one NDP member, one PC member and five
Liberals and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
1515
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123(1) I have the honour
to present, in both official languages, the second report of the
Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations
concerning subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations,
1989.
The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive
response to this report as soon as possible.
* * *
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-466, an act to
amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Halifax West
for seconding this very important private member's bill which is
now before the House.
As Canadians pay their taxes to government and to all official
levels, one little annoying thing they have to do is to put a
postage stamp on the envelope when they send it to Revenue
Canada. I believe they should be able to send those remittances
postage free.
This private member's bill will have sweeping endorsement by all
political parties in the House of Commons and will be passed
fairly quickly. I thank all hon. members for their nodding
support at this time and, when it comes up for debate, for their
unanimous consent in the House and in other place.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-467, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the hon. member for Halifax
West for seconding this bill, which is a step in the NDP
advancement toward getting taxes down for members of community
volunteer groups, in essence saying that what they do for Canada
in terms of volunteerism is very important.
When this bill gets sweeping endorsement from all political
parties, it will allow members of recognized service groups, such
as the Lions, the Kiwanis, the Knights of Columbus, et cetera, to
claim as tax deductions on their income tax returns the dues they
pay to those organizations on a yearly basis.
I know you will endorse the bill, Mr. Speaker, as well as the
other members of the House and of the other place.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by
2,500 concerned Canadians, mostly from the province of Quebec.
The petitioners ask the government to affirm that all Canadians
are equal under all circumstances and without exception in the
province of Quebec and throughout Canada.
1520
They wish to remind the government only to enact legislation
that affirms the equality of each and every individual under the
laws of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Quite a few members
have petitions to present today. I ask them to make a summary of
their petitions and not read them.
EDUCATION
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition signed by residents of the Bothwell, Alvinston and
Sarnia area.
They urge the government to amend the BNA Act to allow the
province of Ontario to fund and maintain one school system.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
concerning rural route mail couriers.
Rural route mail couriers are quite often earning below minimum
wage and working in less than ideal situations. They do not have
the right to collective bargaining as do other carriers in urban
areas and in the private sector.
Subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prevents
them from having these rights, and the petitioners urge the House
to repeal that subsection.
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed
by 503 people calling on parliament to quickly pass legislation
making it mandatory to label all foods that are totally or
partially genetically modified.
[English]
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
submit a petition signed by residents of Ottawa and the area.
As Canada has the second highest incidence rate of breast cancer
in the world, the petitioners are asking the Canadian parliament
to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement
and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance
and quality control standards in Canada.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 and on behalf of a number of my constituents I
would like to present a petition.
The petitioners ask parliament to withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the
opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure
that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in the
Meaford, Fonthill, Welland and Port Colborne areas of Ontario
seeking parliamentary support for the development, implementation
and enforcement of uniform and mandatory mammography quality
assurance in Canada.
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to table a petition signed by 60 people,
mostly from my riding of
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, calling on
parliament to quickly pass legislation making it mandatory to
label all foods that are totally or partially genetically
modified.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a petition under Standing Order 36 signed by many
citizens from the Summerside, Kensington and Miscouche areas.
They pray that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure
that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal
offence and that federal police forces be directed to give
priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 67
and 75.
.[Text]
Question No. 67—Mrs. Michelle Dockrill:
For the period covering January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1999,
what are the specifics of remuneration for members of the board
of directors at the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.):
Number of directors:
1994-95; 7
1995-96; 6
1996-97; 7
1997-98; 6
1998-99; 6
1999-2000; 6
On remuneration, each director receives an annual retainer of
$3,000; plus $325 per diem for attendance at meetings of the board
or any committee thereof; plus expenses.
Question No. 75—Mr. Leon E. Benoit:
How much money have Canadian farmers lost due to crop loses
since the government's ban of the 2% and 5% solutions of
strychnine left them unable to effectively control the gopher
populations?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): There has been limited, if any, economic loss to Canadian
farmers due to restrictions on the use of strychnine based
rodenticides for the following reasons: strychnine based poisons
are available to licensed applicators; anti-coagulants are
readily available; strychnine poison alone is not an effective
control measure; and an integrated strategy for controlling
pocket gophers is recommended and is the most effective method.
Each province has regulations for the use of strychnine. In
Saskatchewan, for example, the sale of strychnine is restricted
to pest control operators, farmers and persons authorized in
government approved pest control programs where the vendor
maintains a record of sales including the name, address and
signature of the purchaser along with the quantity of product
purchased. The vendor, who in this case is Saskatchewan
Association of Rural Municipalities, may have further
restrictions.
The annual losses in yield reductions and equipment breakdown
from pocket gophers for the province of Alberta has been
estimated at $14 million to $30 million annually. For the province of
Manitoba losses are estimated at $15 million annually. No
published data could be located for economic losses Canada-wide.
In 1997, 3.5 million to 5 million hectares of forage, primarily
alfalfa, in western Canada was infested with pocket gophers. The
reductions in productivity and damage to equipment are
significant and control is necessary.
Control of pocket gophers requires an integrated approach. There
are various types of control methods to reduce pocket gopher
populations. Control methods include trapping, gassing, flooding,
exclusion, encouraging natural enemies, and poisoning. Trapping
has proven to be an extremely effective control but is labour
intensive and is limited in the area one can control. Physical
control can include removing the food source, using pets to
discourage entrance into a yard, and noises, disturbing noise
placed in the burrow. Buffer zones are effective in isolating
certain areas from pocket gophers. An example of a buffer could
include spraying the surrounding area with a broadleaf herbicide
which would eliminate the pocket gopher's food source. Natural
predators such as owls and snakes will assist in control of
pocket gophers, providing their existence is promoted and
encouraged.
There are three types of rodenticides available on the market to
control pocket gophers: strychnine based, zinc phosphide based
and anti-coagulants. Strychnine and zinc phosphide are both
restricted and generally limited to use by licensed pesticide
applicators. Anti-coagulants are readily available to everyone.
Pocket gophers are very sensitive to the taste of poisons and
readily reject or limit intake of many poisons. They also have an
ability to metabolize certain amounts of these poisons and there
have been reports of resistance to poisons if provided in
sub-lethal doses. Field studies have shown that using strychnine
or zinc phosphide based poisons controlled 35% or less of treated
pocket gopher populations.
The recommended method of controlling pocket gophers is
called a border control strategy. This is used on fields which
were seeded in the last three years. This strategy requires the
trapping of gophers in the center of the field—new fields are
recommended as populations of gophers are low—and setting up
permanent control around the perimeter of the field using traps
alone or a combination of traps and bait set in existing burrows.
This strategy prevents pocket gophers from entering a clean
field.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion that
this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on behalf of my constituents in the riding of
Rimouski—Mitis in this debate on the budget.
1525
Each year, as February approaches, there is feverish
anticipation in the population.
For some weeks during the fall, the government, via the Standing
Committee on Finance, consults the public about its needs and
expectations in connection with the upcoming budget. Because it
is important for the greatest number of individuals and
organizations to be heard, the committee in question travels and
holds public hearings in the major cities of Canada. And I
thank all those who took part in these consultations.
Then February rolls around, and the media start getting
involved.
Day after day we are exposed to their hypotheses on what good or
bad news to expect in the budget speech. The closer we get to
D-Day, the more the press and broadcast media abound with
rumours and scoops.
Then the Minister of Finance's moment of glory arrives. The
cameras are all focussed on him, and while he is releasing his
budget to the entire deputation together in the House of
Commons, the journalists are writing their stories for the next
day's paper, or interviewing analysts who comment on the good
and the bad news in the budget.
Year after year, the scenario never changes.
Some groups are better organized than others and they are more
successful at getting themselves heard by government members.
They often retain the services of lobbyists, who are sometimes
former members of parliament or former ministers of the party in
office.
These groups manage to get themselves heard and some decisions
are made in accordance with their representations. For other
groups that are often have no voice, or that have no way of
presenting their case to the governments, the situation is more
critical. Their expectations are never met. These groups are
often disappointed by the budget, because their expectations are
not met, even though they were repeated in every city in Canada
the committee travelled to.
For several days after the budget speech, opposition parties
usually ask the government, during oral question period, about
anything that was not included in the budget, or about what has
been part of the public's expectations for several years.
But this year things were different. Three of the four
opposition parties totally ignored the budget brought down by
the Liberal majority, because of the administrative scandals
that currently exist within the government, in several
departments.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and all the Liberal
members were disappointed by the behaviour of opposition
members, but we had no choice, given the magnitude of the
scandals.
In spite of this rather exceptional situation, I am taking this
opportunity to say a few words on the budget.
I would be curious to know what people took from the latest
budget read in this House barely a month ago. I think the
operation held some striking surprises, so disappointing was
this budget and in so many ways.
The money set aside in it for health care is not enough to
permit the provinces to rebalance their budgets in this field.
The federal government ignored the call by the provincial
premiers and territorial leaders for a return of the transfer
payments to the levels of 1994, and, worse yet, the cuts
announced in previous budgets have been maintained. The
Minister of Finance decided to put the sum of $2.5 billion, a
one time grant, in trust.
There was little in the latest budget for the unemployed.
The eligibility criteria for benefits remain unchanged, and
seasonal workers will continue to be unjustly penalized by the
employment insurance reform. The unemployed have become a real
cash cow for the Liberal government. In budget 2000, the
government confirms it diverted a surplus of $6.5 billion in
1999-00 and that it expects a surplus of $5.6 billion in 2000-01.
According to the government's chief actuary, the accumulated
surplus will reach $31.356 billion by the end of 2000.
1530
It is a scandal that the government is collecting over $31
billion in contributions, not to provide a temporary income for
the unemployed, since 60% of them receive no benefits, but first
to reduce the government's deficit and then to give the
government some manoeuvring room.
Today, we can say that the pot is being used to cut the taxes of
the wealthiest and to fund the federal government's invasion of
the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, including their
jurisdiction over health care, but not to improve the situation
of workers unfortunate enough to lose their job.
As a consolation prize, budget 2000 proposes lower premiums but,
strictly speaking, the government has given no formal
undertaking to this effect. The worst thing in this horrific
scenario is that the Minister of Finance calls this tax relief.
In addition, the current EI system discriminates against women,
particularly those wishing to take maternity leave. It is true
that the government is preparing to increase EI coverage during
maternity leave from six months to one year. However this
Canada-wide intention is not what families in Quebec have in
mind. The Government of Quebec has its own plans, but the
Liberals do not want to negotiate. Once again, they have
thumbed their nose at the consensus in Quebec.
In response to questions from the Bloc Quebecois in the House,
the Minister of Finance is refusing to make any improvements to
the EI system.
Like the Coalition sur l'assurance-emploi, the Bloc Quebecois has
long been demanding that the EI system become a real insurance
scheme again and that premiums be used only for the purposes set
out in the Employment Insurance Act. But no improvements are
planned.
As for social housing, the budget contains only a few scraps.
The plan of the minister and the member for Moncton could be
called “In search of social housing lost”. Since the early
1990s, those in inadequate housing have paid the price of
budgetary restraint.
There is no way $268 million over five years—or $54 million
annually—will do the trick. For Quebec, this comes to less than
$20 million a year. One per cent of budgets—between $1.6 and
$1.7 billion more a year—would have been reasonable.
While it would not have met all needs, it would have helped to
bring the number of available units into line with today's
realities.
In the budget 2000 speech, the Minister of Finance said the
following, and I quote:
Secure social programs that recognize that real progress is made
by reaching for the top, not racing to the bottom.
Does this mean that his government places social housing and
those without adequate housing at the bottom of the heap?
A lot more could be said about the inadequacies of this budget—it
will certainly not be one for which the Minister of Finance will
go down in history. Most observers are agreed that surpluses
will be between $115 and $150 billion.
The Bloc Quebecois' conservative estimate puts it at $137 billion
over five years. We therefore think it obvious that the
Minister of Finance could have done much more with the surpluses
than he did this year. For instance, he could have come up with
$3 billion annually over the next five years for an
infrastructure program. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance
did just what he needed not to get his name in the history
books.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the comments of the member. Certainly
the comments about lobbyists and special interest groups
reflected the reality of a democracy. That is why, as
legislators, we have to be open to the input of all Canadians and
balance the legitimacy of their claims with the needs and
priorities of all Canadians.
1535
The comments with regard to health care were appropriate because
health care is the most significant priority for Canadians. We
know that health care costs will rise in Canada. They are rising
already, due to population growth, due to the aging of our
society, due to the cost of new technology and certainly the cost
of pharmacare.
However, I want to ask the member about EI. It is an issue that
continues to come up in this place. The member said that we
should return EI to a true insurance plan. Those were her words,
a true insurance plan, and the premiums to be used only for the
purposes prescribed in the act.
As a statement of principle I would agree with that. However,
there still seems to be this question, which should be addressed
by all legislators in this place, as to whether EI is meant to be
an income supplement program as opposed to income replacement
program. The member understands the difference between the two,
certainly with regard to seasonal workers. I would appreciate
the member's comments on the true insurance plan for EI and how
she sees it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Mississauga South for his question and comments. This is very
interesting.
The former Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon.
member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, was quoted in Le Journal de
Montréal, in February 1999, as saying:
There is no employment insurance fund. Let us be honest. The
money was spent. If we no longer have a deficit in Canada, it is
because these funds were used as indicated in the budget, for
the health sector and for other investments made by the
government.
People are told that if they work and have to contribute, it is
so that they will have an insurance if they have the misfortune
of losing their job. It is so that they can collect that
insurance until they can get another job.
In order to make it easier to contribute and have that
protection, the government made it a universal insurance.
Everyone must contribute, even though not everyone can benefit
from employment insurance, because some people are protected by
collective agreements and are very unlikely to lose their job,
or because there will always be work in their field of activity.
We should have an independent fund to manage the contributions
made to the employment insurance program.
Since these contributions come from employers and workers, a
joint labour management group could look after the fund, like
those that manage retirement funds in companies, and that fund
could be used by those who lose their job.
A reserve could be built up for bad years, but the fund would
truly be managed independently. In some cases, money could be
invested to promote employability if an activity sector has no
future and it is necessary to retrain people so they can find
new jobs.
This would offer much more flexibility than using the employment
insurance fund like communicating vessels, like the government's
cash cow.
Therefore, 60% of the people who work week after week, who put
money aside, thinking that they will get help if they have a
problem. But they come to realize that they contributed for
nothing and that their money was invested in other things.
I think it is outrageous to do this. If an insurance company had
done this in the private sector, it would have been taken to
court a long time ago for misappropriation of funds.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, It is with great
pleasure that I rise to speak to the budget.
After starving the provinces, Quebec, the population, and the
poorest in society in particular, with its latest budget, the
federal government is setting the table for a five course
election-minded meal.
1540
Unfortunately, not everyone will be invited at its table. Once
again, the less fortunate, the homeless, low income earners and
those in a precarious situation are not invited.
Moreover, the federal government's menu does not necessarily
suit all diets, especially not all constitutions. Also, so much
time will elapse between each course that a number of things
might go wrong. Naturally, the turn taken by our economy may not
be as positive as the finance minister seems to expect it to be.
Speaking of food and calories, according to CGA-Canada, the
Minister of Finance has served us a low calorie budget. This
organization told us the following:
It is the opinion of the Certified General Accountants
Association of Canada (CGA-Canada) that the Minister of Finance
dissipated his efforts in the federal budget unveiled today. The
minister's fingerprints are all over this budget, which give a
little bit to everyone but not enough in each case. It reflects
the prudent, optimistic and clever tinkering the government has
become a master at.
That is what the chair of the fiscal policy review committee of
CGA-Canada said. He stated further:
The federal budget will modestly lower the tax burden on
individuals, especially middle income taxpayers. This year, the
tax break for a couple with a total income of $60,000 could
amount to approximately $108.
To digress for a moment, the increase alone in the price of oil,
gasoline or heating oil this year will go well beyond the basic
tax relief families in Quebec and Canada may enjoy. This is not
the case just for the first year, but perhaps for the five years
provided in the federal government's budget.
The association also observed:
This document also refers to the owners of small businesses, and
states:
Some of Canada's small business people may like this budget.
for example, their tax rate will drop by 7% for small businesses
with business incomes between $200,000 and $300,000. But many
small businesses do not earn that range of income and won't
benefit.
These, in short, were the main remarks of the certified general
accountants.
The Bloc Quebecois carried out prebudget consultations in all
regions of Quebec. We fulfilled our responsibility as members
and as a political party. Then, after the budget was presented,
we consulted people as well to find out what they thought of it.
When we asked people if they were satisfied with the Minister
of Finance's budget, it was pretty clear.
I will quote the main observations made. First we were told “It
was smoke and mirrors”. We asked “Were you satisfied with the
budget?” They said “No, because there was nothing in it
for health care, education and income security”.
They said “No, because the cuts to income tax do not take effect
until next year, while the government has the manoeuvring room
to cut taxes this year”.
They said “No, because the unemployed and the provinces got
nothing”.
They said “No, because it is clear that they are going for
visibility and votes”. They said “No, because the priorities of
Quebecers were ignored; no, because the government is determined
not to take Quebec into account when it comes to child welfare
and families, although child welfare clearly comes under
Quebec's jurisdiction”.
1545
What did the Bloc Quebecois want? Nothing very complicated. We
could have easily put together a budget. We were asking for an
increase in transfer payments for health, education and income
assistance. Quebec is now out $1.7 billion annually.
It was therefore important to reinvest in social programs and it
is clear that that was what all Quebecers wanted to see.
As a result of this consultation, the Bloc Quebecois called on
the federal government to put $3 billion into an infrastructures
program, including $1.7 billion for social housing. These
requests were ignored. The government is offering a meagre
$268 million over five years for social housing.
We also called for an improved EI system, greater accessibility,
a larger reduction in premiums, higher benefits, and an
improvement in parental leave. What we got was a ridiculous ten
cent decrease.
The Bloc Quebecois also called for tax cuts and indexing
starting right away, not in 2001, the election year. Indexing
is not synonymous with tax cuts.
In addition, when we asked people what they thought the federal
government was doing wrong, it did not take them long to answer
“It ignores Quebecers' priorities. It continues to interfere in
areas of provincial jurisdiction. It creates a private,
independent trust with which the provinces must negotiate in
order to obtain their money. It wants to impose the social
union on Quebec when it has refused to sign”. They were also
critical of the Minister of Finance for cooking the books: the
surpluses are always larger than forecast.
It was clear from the prebudget consultations that people wanted
to see four main things in the federal budget. I will repeat
them because this is very important.
I referred to this briefly earlier, I come back to it and I will
come back, if I have time, to the specific cases in the riding
of Sherbrooke, to what people, including social and community
groups, said when we consulted them.
We cannot say often enough that the social transfer must be
significantly increased to enable the provinces to reinvest
starting this year in health, education and social assistance.
We will keep calling for a significant cut in taxes, for
improvements to the employment insurance plan and for a big
investment in infrastructures.
The Bloc Quebecois listened to the people, while the federal
government decided to ignore people's needs. With the federal
government, Quebec and the provinces do not have a whole lot to
meet the needs of the people in health care, education and
social assistance.
Instead of fully restoring the transfers to the provinces, which
have needs to meet, Ottawa is satisfied with a meagre
refinancing. The federal government is injecting $2.5 billion
over four years, when it should be reinvesting $4.2 billion for
this year alone in transfer payments to the provinces.
With the federal budget, the cuts already planned in the
transfers to the provinces will be maintained, and half of the
cuts will be on the back of Quebec.
1550
Quebec's meagre share of the $2.5 billion set aside by Ottawa is
not going to fix things. Furthermore, Quebec taxpayers will
have to wait because, for all intents and purposes, they will
not see any real tax cut this year.
Indexing for inflation, which costs the federal treasury
$3 billion, means only that people will not pay more taxes this
year. But the federal government's refusal to introduce
indexing sooner, as the Bloc Quebecois requested, means that
taxpayers have already paid close to $15 billion too much.
Instead of providing tax relief now, the federal government has
decided to wait until the 2001-2002 election year to cut taxes.
I will not be able to buy a lot with my tax cut or tax refund
this year, certainly not two or three full tanks of gas for my
car, but I might have just enough for a nice little toilet down
which I will gently flush the Minister of Finance's budget, just
so I will feel a bit better.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the member's speech. Having been on the health committee
with him, we have shared some experiences and he knows I have a
particular interest in children and family issues.
I was a little surprised by his comment that the Bloc had pushed
and asked for improvements in benefits and family leave. He
concluded that all we got in the budget was a 10 cent reduction
in the premium rate. Actually that is not quite right. I will
explain why.
Two years ago I put in a private member's bill, Bill C-204, on
increasing maternity and parental leave from six months to a full
year. He will recall that in the throne speech, in the Prime
Minister's speech and in the budget that program was adopted by
the government and included in the budget at a cost of some $900
million in additional benefits for Canadians. I wanted to raise
that for him.
I asked his colleague a question and I do not think I got the
answer. Maybe he can answer it. Does the Bloc have a position
with regard to the issue of whether EI should be an income
replacement system and a real insurance program? How would he
feel about the whole question of it being an income supplement as
it relates to seasonal workers? How will we address this
dilemma with regard to EI benefits?
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
What we have shared, more specifically, is a round of
consultations across Canada, from Vancouver to Halifax, where
the Reform Party had asked whether there were inequities for
individuals earning the same income, depending on whether this
amount was divided between two people or was the income of only
one person.
During these consultations on employment insurance and parental
leave, a lot of representations were made, which probably
inspired the Minister of Finance to introduce some tax relief or
programs. These measures might be described as steps in the
right direction, but they do not go far enough.
Looking at the limitations of employment insurance, given the
number of people who, following the reform, qualify for benefits
under the program mentioned by my hon. colleague in connection
with parental leave, the vast majority are basically denied
employment insurance benefits because they are unable to
qualify. Even when they can, these are often poorly paid jobs
that do not therefore guarantee a reasonable income on which
they could afford to stay home on parental leave.
1555
On the subject of employment insurance, in general, the member
mentioned that I spoke of 10%, but it seems to me I said 10
cents.
We can count ourselves lucky if we have a job these days.
Ideally, contributions should be as low as possible, while the
majority of the people needing them can draw employment
insurance benefits.
But, initially, let us set contributions aside. People who work
already have the distinct advantage of having a job. I am
convinced that, in a spirit of co-operation, people are prepared
to contribute to enable those who have the misfortune of losing
their job to collect benefits. So the plan must be improved in
terms of its benefits.
In this regard, I believe that the Minister of Finance has not
gone far enough. He has taken the surpluses and put them in
other programs. In the past, the employment insurance plan
managed the POWA program, which must come back. Increasingly,
businesses are closing their doors, laying off older workers.
There are surpluses in employment insurance. There must be a
program for older people again.
The employment insurance money must be used for those who have
worked. Those who have the pleasure of working are prepared to
contribute so that those who lose their job may benefit.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in today's debate on budget 2000. I
will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.
Let me begin by adding my words of congratulations to the hon.
Minister of Finance for delivering a budget that charts a course
to greater prosperity for Canada in this 21st century. Budget
2000 builds on the government's commitment to better the lives of
all Canadians. This is why we are all here. This is why we are
doing the work that we are doing.
I am encouraged to see that budget 2000 reflects the concerns of
my constituents, the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, who were
very much a part of the prebudget consultation process. During
meetings held in my riding I heard my constituents, who come from
the social agency groups, from community organizations, from
small and medium size business groups, say to me that they want
government action in three principal areas. They want us to give
them some opportunity for tax relief. They want to see some
reform to the tax system. They want more spending on social
infrastructure and greater economic productivity for Canada.
I was happy to share with them after the budget was delivered
that budget 2000 responded to their concerns. The budget is
based on four key principles: sound financial management, tax
relief, building an innovative economy and investing in skills
and knowledge.
Today I will speak briefly to the initiatives in budget 2000
which echo those concerns of my constituents. I will begin with
tax relief. The first priority in all the discussions that I
held was a tax relief plan in budget 2000, a measure that
Canadians have come to expect from the federal government. After
many years of sacrifice in order to eliminate Canada's $42
billion deficit, my constituents are beginning to see more of the
money they earn returned to them. I was pleased to see that.
My constituents were also pleased to know that budget 2000
introduced a tax reduction plan that will provide real and
lasting tax relief for all Canadians to the tune of $58 billion.
This five year tax plan is based on two key significant measures
which brought changes to the federal tax system.
First, the plan will restore full indexation. My constituents
were concerned about indexation and bracket creep. Budget 2000
addresses these concerns. My constituents will see the benefits,
especially those in the low and middle income bracket. They will
see an end to automatic tax increases and an end to the erosion
caused by inflation. They will see the results of budget 2000 in
deindexation.
1600
Second, the plan will reduce the middle income tax rate to 23%
from 26% beginning with a 2% drop to 24% on July 1, 2000.
These changes are real and permanent. They will benefit
families with children and low and middle income families in
Etobicoke—Lakeshore. It is important to note that low and
middle income Canadians in my riding will see their taxes fall by
at least 18% and families with children will see their personal
income taxes reduced by 21%. This reduction in taxes for
families with children is symbolic of the direction in which the
federal government is taking in its long term reinvestment in
Canada's children.
In addition to the decrease in personal taxes for families and
children, the government has made its third significant
investment to the Canada child tax benefit. Those of us who sat
on different caucus committees were asked to look at the
situations of families and at the child tax benefit to see what
we could do in that respect. We see an investment of $2.5
billion annually by the year 2004. The Canada child tax benefit
will increase maximum benefits to $2,400 for the first child and
$2,200 for subsequent children. This is not as high as we can go
but it is a move in the right direction. It provides additional
funding to support low and middle income families of $9 billion.
Other tax measures in budget 2000 that benefit my constituents
are the registered pension plan and the registered retirement
savings plan. We will see the elimination of the 5% surtax for
middle income Canadians earning up to $85,000. There are several
things within the tax relief measures that will benefit my
constituents and I want them to know this.
A second area of priority to my constituents is the issue of
productivity and the building of a strong and competitive
economy. We are living in an urban area with access to the
business sector and my constituents want to ensure that we are
competitive and that our young people have an opportunity to
prosper in the economy.
As Canadians living in a global economy with global challenges
and rapid advancements in technology, we are compelled to take
advantage of opportunities by developing our country's human
capital.
It is the people and countries who excel in innovation, who
develop and use new ideas and who use their skills and the tools
they need, who will enjoy the brightest future. Canada must
continue to invest in research and innovation and must continue
to support our small businesses.
1605
At a recent info fair in Etobicoke—Lakeshore we had over 1,000
people participating in workshops to see what can be done and
what the federal government is doing to assist small business. I
know that budget 2000 will help Canadian businesses to become
more competitive internationally by making the tax system more
conducive to investment, growth, job creation and innovation. The
fair was quite a show and tell in terms of what the federal
government has to offer in this regard.
Social infrastructure is another area that the budget has
addressed quite strongly because we recognized that it was a high
priority for the citizens of Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Canada.
Health care and education are also high priorities for the
federal government at this point in time.
I want to remind my colleagues also that budget 2000 has
committed us to the improvement of the quality of life of
Canadians and will support those things that we cherish and hold
dear, like our health care system.
In summary, budget 2000 represents a balancing of tax relief and
further investments in the areas of priorities to Canadians, such
as health, innovation, skills and knowledge. The budget has
responded to what we have heard from our constituents. For those
of us who are committed to our constituents and committed to
bringing their views back to the national level for a response, I
think we were all pleased to be able to tell our citizens that
their quality of life will continue to be unmatched in the 21st
century.
I stand in support of budget 2000. I join with all my
colleagues and all those who were pleased that this budget did
respond to their concerns.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with considerable interest to the member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore and I congratulate her on her speech.
One of the things that she did not mention, but one of the
things that I believe many of her constituents would be concerned
about, is the growing concentration of foreign ownership in this
country in recent years.
From the many studies that have been done, there has been a
virtual explosion in foreign ownership as a result of the low
Canadian dollar and the impact from the North American Free Trade
Agreement and other international agreements to the point where
many of our leading intellectuals are very concerned about the
future and viability of this country. Constituents in
Etobicoke—Lakeshore and certainly in Palliser ought to be
gravely concerned, especially the young people, whether there
will be jobs here in this country or whether they will have to go
to New York, Chicago or Denver in order to get work in the head
offices that used to be here.
I just wanted to ask the member if she too is concerned about
this trend toward foreign ownership in Canada.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Palliser for his question. I know his concerns are very much
like my own, which are for our constituents and for employment
opportunities for our constituents.
The whole issue of the free trade agreement is almost a two-way
street. We benefit as much from that agreement as do our
business people who have the opportunity to operate on the other
side.
On the issue of foreign ownership, I will respond by saying that
we live in a global village. The world is becoming much smaller
as a result of new technologies. Our business people are able to
move goods and services across borders which has created
opportunities for us to be innovative. We cannot really close
our doors or pull the drapes down, as I often say, and keep the
lights out because there is just no way we can keep ourselves in
a situation where we cannot respond to the free movement of goods
and services and people.
1610
As I have expressed, as a Canadian wanting to see us keep our
sovereignty and not lose a whole number of things, including
culture, et cetera, there is, at the same time, a recognition
that we are living in a global village.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a quick comment for my good friend in the NDP regarding
foreign investment. He might want take a look at my own riding
of Simcoe—Grey, at the billions of dollars that Honda has
invested in a plant, and ask those 3,500 or so employees if
foreign investment is a good thing or not.
Aside from that issue from the NDP about countries investing in
Canada, I will now address a question to my good friend and
colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I must first qualify that
by saying that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has truly been
a role model for us in the class of '97 insofar as how vocal she
has been in caucus and how she has truly demonstrated and carried
forward a message, not only from her riding and not simply from
Canada but from all across the world, on what the priorities of
this country should be, both economically and socially.
Going more specifically to the question at hand, I wonder if the
hon. member would, for my benefit and certainly for the benefit
of the members of the Canadian Alliance, extrapolate on the
benefits of extending the parental benefits from six months to
one year, and if in fact she thinks this is a good thing for
newborns and infants.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank
my colleague for his compliments. We do work with the Canadian
Association of Parliamentarians on population and development. We
also work with a number of the issues as they pertain to the
foreign affairs agenda.
In terms of the specific question, I think anything that would
enable a woman to get back into the workplace, anything that
would facilitate the nurturing of children, anything that the
government, through its policy and through its policy direction,
can do that would say that we care about our children in their
early years, that a woman can have the choice to remain in the
workplace, to get back into the workplace or to be facilitated
into the workplace, would be good policy.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pride that I rise today and address what I believe to
be the best and the most effective budget speech that has been
presented in the House in Canadian history.
Comparing it to previous budgets, there is close to unanimous
approval in the House that the budget effectively raised the
quality of life for Canadians and, more importantly, for their
children. I think that was evident in the fact that the
opposition party, the Reform—I have to get used to the new name
but I will not use the acronym—simply did not ask any questions
about the budget. Obviously, by virtue of that fact, it was in
total agreement or almost in total agreement with the budget.
I had a prepared text today to present to the House that
identified many incredibly great points for Canadians that were
contained within the budget. As I was sitting here listening to
my colleagues speak to the budget, I decided to break with
tradition, fire that speech aside and talk straight from the
heart about process, platform and policies, or lack thereof, from
some of the opposition parties.
What I thought I might do first is give Canadians an opportunity
to appreciate the process that goes into creating a budget and
the amount of grassroots involvement that is involved in creating
a budget, the calibre of which we recently saw on February 28.
I should first take this time to congratulate and acknowledge
the hard work of my Liberal colleagues from all across this
country, the one truly national party.
1615
What happens is, as the member of parliament for Simcoe—Grey, I
host exhaustive, extensive and very informative consultations
within my riding, from Alliston to the town of Blue Mountain to
Wasaga Beach to Collingwood, to allow constituents within my
riding to bring forward their issues, directions and ideas on
which direction this country should take both economically and
socially. Like many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, we
spend exorbitant amounts of time to ensure that Canadians, the
people within our ridings, have an opportunity to have their
ideas, suggestions and values incorporated in the minister's
budget each and every year.
We have had incredibly good and positive ideas come forward from
the riding of Simcoe—Grey. However, the process only works if
we have a minister who will do two things. The first is to
listen. He certainly did that, by virtue of the fact that he
presented such an incredibly positive budget, which speaks yards
to the amount of involvement that all of my Liberal colleagues
have participated in and contributed to.
The second, and equally important, is the fact that he
incorporates these ideas, values and economic suggestions about
how we might better the lives of Canadians in the budget. Again,
the budget exemplifies how he has done that. My hat goes off to
him. He has demonstrated over the past seven years a precedent
that will be difficult to match. He has offered a balanced
approach to governing the finances and the social priorities of
this nation. We have truly seen what was at one point a country
which was near economic ruin turned into one of the countries
that is put on the mantle of the G-7 or G-8 countries. Again, my
hat goes off to him for that.
However, the process at the end of the day only works if we have
one person who facilitates caucus and members of parliament going
to their various regions and ridings and who supports the
Minister of Finance and involves himself with the minister's
budgetary process. We are fortunate enough that the Prime
Minister offers the Minister of Finance that kind of support on a
day to day, week to week and month to month basis.
We talk about how the process works. At the end of the day, I
believe that the people who we truly have to recognize are the
Canadians who have taken the time to bring forward their ideas
and suggestions. The key point that many constituents in my
riding have brought forward is that they want a balanced
approach. They realize that there are those on the extreme left
who would have us do one thing. They realize that there are
those on the absolute extreme right who would have us do another.
What they are looking for is a balanced approach. They realize
the gravity of the situation if there is not a balanced approach.
The key word from my constituency was balance.
We talked about health care and the need for a collaborative
effort in health care. There was no finger pointing, as has been
done by the provincial Tories, that it was their fault or how Mr.
Klein has said it is their fault. They talked about a
collaborative effort. That is what they want. They did not want
simply to increase spending, they wanted the provinces and the
federal government, along with the municipalities, to work
collaboratively to make sure that medicare, the thing we are so
proud of both within our country and abroad, is sustainable,
accessible and honours the five principles of health care. That
is a message that I delivered loud and clear.
We also talked about such things as tax reduction and the
absolute need for it, insofar as creating a competitive
environment, not just within Canada but as we try to attract
investment dollars outside Canada and to ensure that the
brightest and best within our country stay here. On February 28,
when I witnessed the largest single tax reduction budget in
Canadian history, I could not have been more proud and more
pleased to know that our country now has the foundation for
incredible growth and incredible opportunity.
There were many other issues addressed through my consultation
process with my constituents, the third I have conducted since
being elected in June 1997. We talked about a children's agenda
and, again, the need for a collaborative approach. We need to
work with the provinces, the municipalities and non-profit
organizations. Our ministers, including the minister responsible
for homelessness, the minister for HRDC, the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance, have clearly indicated that that is
exactly what they are going to and what they want to do.
1620
When Canadians across the country are examining the budget and
the processes leading up to and after the budget, they have to
compare what our policies are as opposed to those of the
opposition, or lack thereof. I might cite as an example the new
party which was introduced in the House a few short days ago.
I might draw an analogy of how I view my role as a
parliamentarian with the role of everyone else in the House, as
well as the parties. Quite frankly, I view myself as an employee
of the constituents. I believe that I am here to do good work
for them. I view the role of the party as being the same. My
analogy would simply be this. Imagine if an employer had an
individual who for 10 years brought forward an enormous amount of
rhetoric, changing from one day to the next, flipping from right
to left, doing whatever he or she possibly could to try to
satisfy or appease the electorate. At the end of those 10 years
the electorate would finally realize exactly what the capacities
and capabilities of that individual were. I speak most
specifically to incompetence.
Imagine if one day that person, whom we will call Mr. X,
walked in and said “It has all changed. My name is now Mr.
Y”. Would that provide some incredible level of comfort?
Would that make it better? Has the platform changed? No. Has
the party changed? No. It is the same person sitting across the
way, with the same ideas, the same rhetoric and the same
right-wing policies.
I ask Canadians when they examine that party, whatever the final
name will be, to examine it on its platform and on its policies
and, going back to my key word, to look to see if it has a
balanced approach. I truly believe that this is one of the most
balanced and most effective budgets we have ever witnessed in
this great House of Commons.
I would like to direct my closing remarks to the future,
something which the Reform Party, the alternative or whatever,
fails to deal with, fails to focus on. My pledge to the future
is simply this. I intend to make sure that from February 29
forward the constituents within my riding, in fact Canadians all
across this great country, will continue to have an opportunity
to bring forward their ideas, their suggestions and their values
so that we might continue on this path of phenomenal success, not
only building on the greatest country in the world, but also
providing incredible opportunities for young people. That is
what we are here to do. We are here to build a foundation. We
are here to build a country which will be better off than that
which we were handed by our fathers.
When I asked my first question today in the House of Commons
about the budget and the focus on debt reduction, I was pleased
to see that the Minister of Finance will be focusing on exactly
that priority.
I look forward to any questions my hon. colleagues may have.
[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 Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member
for New Brunswick Southwest, Hepatitis C.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Simcoe—Grey. I think I got his
constituency correct, which the finance minister failed to do in
Oral Question Period this afternoon.
The member helped to make the argument which I was endeavouring
to make with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore when he referred
to the jobs that have been created in the car plant in his
constituency. What I was talking about were the head office jobs
that are being lost and what is referred to by some as the
hollowing out of Canada as the NAFTA kicks in.
The point the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was trying to make
was that there somehow is a balance between our foreign
investment in other countries and incoming foreign investment,
which is simply not substantiated by the facts.
1625
I would point out that Statistics Canada numbers, after a decade
of relative balance of inflow and outflow, in the last two years
have been staggering. Last year the imbalance was in excess of
$30 billion. A lot of that money is flowing into the country as
a result of our cheap Canadian dollar. What we are losing is
significant in terms of head office jobs, lack of critical mass
and forcing some of our youngest and brightest people to other
countries, with the profit flows going out of the country as
well.
That is the point I am trying to make on foreign ownership and I
would welcome the hon. member's response.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Palliser for his question. I appreciate his clarification,
because what he said was investment and ownership, and those are
two different words.
I try to encourage many members of the NDP to listen to what
economists and people in the country are saying. They are
telling the government to build a foundation upon which foreign
investment would be welcomed.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is speaking about
white collar workers and the need to maintain and enhance
opportunities for them. Based on the fact that the hon. member
is representing the NDP, I am quite surprised that he does not
recognize that there hundreds of thousands, in fact millions of
Canadians, in my riding and in ridings all across the country,
who are not white collar workers and who look forward to foreign
investment. The people in our Honda plant, the satellite plants
that feed it, and the countless thousands of workers throughout
my riding and all across the country look forward to foreign
investment because it provides good paying jobs.
Insofar as the hon. member's comments regarding white collar
jobs, all he has to do is walk through some of the plants and he
will see some of the best and brightest in Canada working in the
riding of Simcoe—Grey. If he took a ride down Highway 417 and
had a look at Kanata, for example, he would see some of the best
and brightest in the entire world.
Some of the white collar jobs could be attributed to foreign
investment. The reason they are occurring is because this
government and the Minister of Finance have created an atmosphere
in which investors from all around the world want to put their
money in Canada and we are the beneficiaries.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with
the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
I am not really happy to be here today. Today is March 29. It
is the birthday of my son, who is in Calgary. It is birthday of
my grandson, who is in Regina. Very frankly, I would much rather
be with my family today than to have to endure the lack of
respect that we get from members on the other side.
I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the budget and
the impact it will have on us and on our country in the future.
I suppose in that sense I am at the best place for my son, my
grandson and my other grandchildren because I am concerned about
what is happening in the country and the things we are missing
because of the mismanagement of the government.
There has been quite a bit of talk about what a positive budget
this is. As I often do, I would like to begin my talk to that
crowd of Liberals over there by saying that I would indeed give
them a backhand compliment, a reluctant compliment. I know that
they have a congenital disposition to spend and somehow they have
been able to resist spending all of the money that has come in
because of the booming economy of the last couple of years.
1630
First, I do not think the Liberal government can claim any
credit for the booming economy. I believe everything that has
happened has been despite the government. If we were not next to
the very buoyant economy of the Americans who have done things a
little better than we have and have thereby boosted their
economy, we would probably not be in this position.
Furthermore the prosperity we seem to have is also illusory.
Because of the value of our Canadian dollar every one of us has
taken a hit that is basically invisible since this government
took power by the falling of the Canadian dollar. The value of
the goods we purchase is more expensive than what it ought to be
when we import goods and services.
What we get for our product is greatly lessened in its value
because of exchange rates. That is just a simple fact, and it is
one which is not apparent to many Canadians. We are used to
calling a dollar a dollar and we forget that the dollar we are
dealing with now is worth only a fraction of what it used to be.
Sometimes when I speak to students I apologize to them because
of the fact that my generation and I allowed the last 30 years of
consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments to do what they
have done to the country. I sometimes just shake my head in
wonderment.
What a rich country we have. We are rich in resources, in mines
and in minerals. We are rich in agriculture across the country.
We have much potential. We have oil. We have natural gas. We
have the ability to produce because we have a very good
educational system which will prepare our young people to become
productive citizens, whether it is in engineering, in the medical
field or whatever.
What do we see? We see a huge debt that has been accumulated
over the last 30 years. We get governments like the one we have
now that are much more interested in the spin that they can put
on it than in what is actually happening, thereby, I feel,
effectively putting a blinder on the eyes of Canadians so that
they do not know what is happening. Governments sure are
successful at their messaging, at getting their message out and
making everyone feel good.
This is a feel good budget. This is a political budget. There
is much more in it for the politicians, for the Liberal
government and for their hopes of re-election than there is in
actual fact. Frankly I am very distressed when governments do
this.
I have asked a number of people how much money the Liberals put
into health care in the last budget. I received two answers. The
most frequent one was that they did not really know, but those
people who had read the paper and had taken notice said that it
was $11.5 billion. This is on the verge of not being factual.
Canadians have been deceived into thinking that there is $11.5
billion in the budget for health care. There is not. The
Liberals announced $2 billion that year, $2 billion the next and
then three years at $2.5 billion. It was not cumulative. It was
the amount that is above the floor from which they started.
I feel so inhibited, having been an instructor and a teacher for
many years. I would love to have a graph here to show that. When
$11.5 billion per year are added year after year, most people
have in their minds the idea that it is increasing year by year.
I do not think it is against House rules to use an imaginary
figure as a prop. In fact what has happened is that in the first
year they increased it $2 billion. In the next year there was no
further increase, so that was $2 billion. Then they added half a
billion and the next year there was no further increase, so that
was $2.5 billion. In the next year there was no further
increase, so that was $2.5 billion.
1635
The Liberals added up all those numbers over five years and
communicated that they had put $11.5 billion into the health
budget. It will not be finished until long past the mandate of
the present government because it was a five year projection. It
is very dishonest to do that when we are talking about a one year
budget.
There should be a very clear delineation so that Canadian
taxpayers can understand what is annual. I think it is good to
have long term planning. There is no doubt about it. The
further we plan ahead, the better off we are. However, it is
deceptive to claim this and then to message it when the facts are
quite different. It is wrong in that it lulls the Canadian people
into a deep sleep and a sense of happiness that all is well when
in fact because of what is happening that is not true.
Let us look at the tax cuts outlined in the budget. The
government is claiming $58 billion in tax cuts. Despite my age
and my size, even I am tempted to stand and click my heels. It
is incredible that we have $58 billion in tax cuts.
Let us look at what it really is. We have $7.5 billion in
social spending on child benefits. While the Liberals are
talking tax cuts and messaging them as such, they are really
saying that they are increasing spending for child benefits. That
is not a tax cut. It just is not. It does not reduce the tax
bill. For someone who has no children it has no application
whatsoever. They cannot claim that it is a tax cut because tax
cuts have to do with people who are paying taxes. They are
mixing together income and expenditures.
Let us look at the next one. During that same five year period,
and here they are talking five years again, Canadian pension plan
premiums will go up almost $30 billion. That too is a tax
because it is taken from people and it is given, to a great
extent, to people other than those who are paying it. To call it
an investment, dare I say it, is a falsification. It is not an
investment. It is a tax.
Then they are claiming another $13.5 billion. They are saying
that if they had not done away with indexation they would have
taken that much more tax away from the people. Now they say they
will not take it and therefore it is a tax cut. That is absurd.
The whole reasoning of the government is based on political
considerations and messaging. The facts just do not bear it out.
We will see in the future the effect it has on the economy and on
the taxpayer bottom line, on their paycheques. It just does not
add up and Canadians will be aware of that.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the
member opposite. Although he is a member of the finance
committee and is normally very learned on these matters,
unfortunately he has some of his facts on the budget slightly
confused.
When we talk in budget 2000 about $58 billion of tax relief,
that is an absolute minimum. If the economy continues at a rate
of 3.54%, we will be able to accelerate some of the measures more
closely into the years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The $58 billion is
an absolute minimum.
Despite the fact that many times in the House many of my
colleagues and I have tried to explain to members opposite, they
will not listen. The member opposite would like to call the
Canada pension plan a tax, but it is a contributions based
pension system. It is based on employer contributions and
employee contributions which go to a pension trust administered
by a board. The revenues do not go anywhere near the
consolidated revenue funds of the government.
The government has no access to these revenues. They are clearly
a program. Canadians value the Canada pension plan and are glad
that the government put it on a sound financial footing last
year.
1640
Having heard the evidence again that the Canada pension plan is
not a tax, would the member be prepared to accept that notion?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no and I will
explain why. As I said before, if it were an investment then the
person making the investment would have a choice and would be
able to get a decent return on his or her money.
The member is asking the wrong person this question. The field
of mathematics happens to be my profession. Just for the fun of
it, I sometimes solve little math and finance problems just to
keep my brain alert around this place when things get dull. I
have done these computations.
A young person subscribing to the Canada pension plan can expect
around a 2.9% return on his so-called investment. The difference
between what that is and what he could get if he were to invest
it almost anywhere else in the world is a tax. Quite clearly the
premiums are simply making up for the government's total
mismanagement. It is not listening to its actuaries and once
again is making political decisions with taxpayer dollars. It
has done that consistently and it is wrong. I stand by what I
say and I will discuss that subject with the member any time he
wants.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
hope Canadians are truly listening to the right wing rhetoric of
the member of the Canadian Alliance. Let us think about what he
was saying.
He picked holes in and wanted to gut the social programs of the
government that support low and middle class families who have
children. Members of that party do not want to support that.
They think that is not an investment and want to keep their tax
dollars. It is a lot like their flat tax which will benefit the
rich and not those who are in lower and middle class positions.
It is absolutely ridiculous.
The member stated for the record that the government should take
no credit for the financial picture the country is enjoying
today. I simply ask the member to go back in time to 1993, if he
can remember back that far when there was a $42.5 billion
deficit. The deficit is now gone. Which party in the House
brought forward the fiscal policies to eliminate that deficit?
That is the only point I want to know from the member.
Mr. Ken Epp: He is not going to be so fortunate as to get
only that from me, Mr. Speaker. I gave the government a very
mild applause for resisting the temptation of spending all the
money when it came its way. I gave it credit. It is quite
possible that during the Trudeau years governments would have
done it differently.
The member expresses some terms in a pejorative way instead of
debating what we are talking about. He said that they were here
to protect families whereas we on this side of the House would
tax them to death. That is not so. Our 17% flat tax would give
most poor people a 100% tax break. That is what would happen.
The Liberals are quite content to take $6 billion a year in tax
revenue from families whose income is $20,000 a year or less, and
they call themselves a pro-family government. They are taxing
them to death. They are killing them.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the
budget debate today. This the Liberal government's seventh
budget and it is pretty much more of the same. The first mandate
was high taxes and cuts to government spending. The second
mandate is high taxes and increased government spending.
The Liberals are trying to give the impression that they are
making massive tax cuts for Canadians. They are claiming that
they are cutting taxes by $58.4 billion. That is an illusion. If
we take a closer look, and they can argue the finer points, the
$7.5 billion are for the child tax credit. That is a social
program, the same as OAS and CPP. It is not a tax cut; it is a
social program. Government members should be upfront and honest
and say so.
1645
Some $13.5 billion of this supposed tax cut is a reindexation of
tax brackets. That is not a tax cut; that is just the government
promising Canadians it will not be robbing them in the upcoming
tax years, that it will forgo taking more tax money from them
rather than giving them real tax relief.
The $58.4 billion tax cut is also offset by the $29.5 billion
increase in CPP premiums. The taxpayer is actually only going to
see a $7.9 billion tax cut and that is over five years. That
equates to about $2.07 additional money per week for the
taxpayer. If that is what the Liberals think is a tax cut, it
certainly is not shared by the ordinary Canadian.
The Liberals have told Canadians that their priorities are going
to be that 50% of the surplus will go to new social programs and
the other 50% will be divided between tax cuts and debt
reduction. I asked my constituents if they agreed with the
government's proposals of splitting the money this way. Over
2,100 people responded and 73% said that they did not agree with
the Liberal proposal of splitting the money 50% for new social
programming and 50% between tax reduction and debt relief.
One of the individuals who said no to the Liberals' plan was a
Mr. Paul Martin of Blackwood Street in White Rock. It is
unfortunate that his namesake does not share his concerns that
this is not the way to use the taxpayers' money.
The Liberals are very proud of the $2.5 billion in new health
care spending. This afternoon in question period we heard just
how proud they are of this $2.5 billion in new health care
spending. If we look at it more closely, that is divided over
four years which means there is only $500 million per year in new
spending for health care. I do not need to remind the House that
health care has been shown to be the number one concern of the
Canadian people. It is the number one concern.
This $500 million a year means only an additional $81 million
per year for British Columbia. That is 1% of the B.C. health
care budget. That is what the federal government is adding in
new money to the crisis in our health care system. This is what
the government's response is to the highest priority of the
Canadian people. It works out to an additional $20 per British
Columbian.
It is interesting that the government in ignoring the priority
of the Canadian people decided to give an additional $226 million
to human resources development. This is the department that has
shown over the last number of years to have completely mismanaged
the Canadian taxpayers' contributions. Audit after audit after
audit is showing that department has not handled and controlled
taxpayers' money as it should have. And what does the government
do? It gives more money to the department that the auditor
general is saying has exceptional problems in controlling
spending.
I ask members on that side why the government is putting more
money into the black hole of HRDC than it is putting into health
care. Is it that building a fountain in the Prime Minister's
riding is more important than adding hospital beds across the
country? I would like to believe that the government has at least
heard the concerns of the Canadian people.
One of the other priorities outside of health care is that of
transportation.
This is one area in which the government should be increasing
funding and looking at as a priority. It is an area that is
completely disintegrating. The transportation infrastructure in
this country is falling apart. We are consistently getting
further and further behind and the government is doing absolutely
nothing.
1650
Last year the government collected $4.5 billion in fuel taxes
and spent only $150 million on highways. The budget this year
has put in only $150 million for highways. That works out to
about 150 kilometres of road improvement over the next four
years. Three years ago the transport committee reviewed the
highway infrastructure of this country and reported that it would
take $18 billion to bring our national highway up to a safe
standard. The government is providing less than 1% of the
required funds.
It is quite conceivable that the prairie provinces will have to
turn paved roads back into gravel roads because they cannot
afford to maintain them. Urban areas and border areas are going
to recognize and have to deal with complete gridlock in their
transportation systems.
Transportation systems are instrumental in helping our economy
with its trade obligations and its trade patterns. Trade is a
key contributor to Canada's economic well-being and
transportation systems are essential in moving our goods in order
to create this wealth. It is the creation of wealth through our
economy that allows us to sustain the social safety nets we have
in this country. It is imperative that the government recognize
the need to improve our transportation systems to ensure that the
economic growth can be sustained and will support the economic
growth of the future.
I would suggest that it is time for the government to show
leadership. It should show leadership by creating a safe,
seamless and integrated transportation network, not just
nationally but internationally and continentally.
It is only by the federal government showing leadership and
working with the other partners, the provincial governments, the
municipal governments and the private sector, that we will be
able to enhance our transportation system and ensure that there
is no gridlock, that the trade can move, that the wealth is
created so we can continue to afford the support for health care
and education that our citizens are demanding.
I would hope that the government would listen, would readjust
its priorities and would consider that perhaps spending more
money in HRDC is not what the Canadian taxpayers want. They want
their money to go into priorities like health care, education and
improved transportation systems.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
light of the bill which was introduced by Mr. Klein in Alberta, a
bill which will open ways for a second tier of health care, I
want to ask my colleague from the Reform Party a pointed
question. Does she support the bill introduced by Mr. Klein in
its present form? Does she support the five principles of the
health care system?
While she is on her feet I want her to tell me which part of the
budget she does not like. Does she not like the fact that we
have eliminated bracket creep? Does she not like the part of the
budget that reduces taxes for middle and low income Canadians?
Does she not like the part of the budget that puts more money
into the pockets of families with children?
1655
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member
for Ottawa Centre, I am not an expert in health care nor do I
profess to be, and I am not an expert on a bill coming out of the
province of Alberta. However, I will tell the hon. member that
the system we have had for 30 years is not working.
The member is fooling himself and the Canadian public if he
maintains that there is not already a multi-tier health care
system. Anybody who has the financial wherewithal goes south to
the United States for treatment. In my riding which borders the
United States, when people are told they are going to have to
wait 8, 12 or 18 months for treatment, they go to the United
States to get that treatment within days or weeks, if they can
afford it.
There is already a multi-tier health care system. The
government deludes itself when it thinks and tells Canadians that
that does not exist and that every Canadian has the same access
to good quality health care in this country. It is deluding
itself if it thinks that. The health care system that has been
in place for 30 years does not work. It has been proven that it
does not work.
The government would be well advised to open its eyes and its
brain and look at alternatives of how we can make our health care
system really work. The one it is supporting does not work. As
the leadership in this country it should be trying to find a
system that does work. All Canadians deserve access to the care
that they need regardless of where they live or how much money
they have. They do not have that in today's health care system.
The government should not be asking me whether or not I support
it. Canadians are asking the government what it has to offer
that will ensure they have access to health care when they need
it. They do not want to wait two years or 18 months or 15 months
for that care. They are looking for leadership and they are not
getting it from the federal government.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tempted as I
am to jump into the current debate, I think I will take advantage
of the very few minutes I have to make a few comments as I have
every year since I came to the House in 1993.
I will begin by congratulating the finance minister, members of
the House and literally thousands of Canadians who participated
in the development of this budget. They participate every year.
One of the things I particularly admire about our current finance
minister is that he instituted a process some years ago to open
it up. He took it out of the secrecy of a few backrooms and put
it in front of the Canadian people for comment, discussion and
debate in the committee rooms, church basements and school
gymnasiums across the country. That is what happens.
We are participating in a process which is extremely important.
I want to offer a couple of comments to my friends in the
official opposition.
The House of Commons in our history, which is British
parliamentary history, came into existence to oversee the taking
of taxes from people, to comment on and to act as a control and
accountability structure for the money that was taken from people
and given to the king. The watching, monitoring, criticizing and
the acting as a check and a balance on the government has been an
important function of this Chamber since its inception, yet this
year we had a situation that I have not seen before.
I am in my 12th year of elected office of which I spent five
years in a provincial house and I have never seen a situation
where the day after the budget was read, the official opposition
stood and completely ignored it. It could find nothing to
criticize or comment on. It is absolutely incredible to me how
the official opposition party, which has long prided itself on
being different and into some new politic, immediately realized
it did not have much to criticize and it switched tactics. It
got back onto something which it thought was a more fruitful
political ground but not necessarily more fruitful for the people
of this country.
1700
Next week it starts all over again. Next week we will begin a
series of meetings with people. We have looked at the
initiatives in this year's budget. We have looked at initiatives
that we would like to have seen in it. We are thinking anew
about some of the concerns that people have raised with us as we
have discussed these issues around the country. We will go once
more back into the same process.
I would like to use a very simple example just to highlight how
useful and how important this process is. The current
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I have had
an interest in employee stock ownership programs for some time.
It is an interest that was brought to each of us differentially.
In his constituency people approached him and started raising the
issue with him. In my constituency in Winnipeg people met with
me. Interestingly enough I wrote about it once in one of my
householders and a gentleman living a few blocks up the street
from my office came in to see me because he had written a book on
it.
We began a discussion. We did a little work on it. We took it
to the finance minister in that first year and it was felt that
there was not a lot of information on it. It was a complex topic
so we put it off for a year. During that year we went to work on
it. We met with more people and we built a database on it. We
had a better understanding of it and we made a presentation on it
again.
It is interesting that in this year's budget plan we are
beginning to see movement toward it. There is actually a
development of some stock option programs and a reference to
employee stock option programs in the budget plan, which forms
the basis of the work we will do this year. We will go back into
it one more time, drawing together experts from the community and
looking at how we might make it help small businesses in this
instance.
That is what this process is. Literally thousands of people
across the country will be invited to participate in the process.
In my constituency they come together two or three times during
the budget cycle in the fall. We will add our voice to that of
everyone else who comes before the committee. We will go to the
minister with our ideas about how we can improve the country.
That is what the budget is all about. There is no secrecy in
it. The finance minister has consciously run a very open and
transparent process, and I think he deserves an enormous amount
of congratulations on it.
This is why the budget has come through with such ease. People
see it as their budget. People see their concerns reflected in
it. There will always be demands for changes and improvements.
We will continue to work on that. We will continue to go back
into the cycle. We will continue to invite Canadians into the
process. It would be interesting to see if the official
opposition would take its responsibilities and not hide from
them.
* * *
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
BILL C-6—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be
reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)
with respect to the stage of consideration of the Senate
amendments to Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic
commerce by protecting personal information that is collected,
used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the
use of electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.
Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion
to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration
and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
* * *
1705
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member on his speech because his
words were very encouraging. He reminded all of us in the House
of something in which I firmly believe, that the role of
parliament is to limit the ability of the government to tax and
to spend.
We all know the history. Originally it was the king and his
horsemen around him who went around with a mace, the symbol of
which we have here. If people did not pay their taxes, I guess
they were clubbed on the head with the mace. We have that symbol
of authority in the House. It used to be that the king taxed
people too much. The people said that was the end of it and
parliament came into being.
As a member of parliament I would like to ask the member a
couple of questions in that regard. Has he ever voted against
the current king's requisitions? I say that advisedly. The Prime
Minister and the finance minister seem to come up with a budget.
It seems the only member on the other side who has ever voted
against a budget measure sits right now beside me over here. He
was censured by the government for doing exactly that.
Has the member voted in favour of an amendment to reduce it? For
example, in an previous budget the Reform Party at the time put
forward some amendments to reduce some departmental budgets of
billions of dollars by $10,000. At that time we made the point
that it was symbolic, just to show that parliament had the final
control on expenditures. Did he vote in favour of it? Does he
represent his constituents as an MP when he supports by his votes
the spending of money to make films like Bubbles Galore and
to hang dead rabbits on fences?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, actually on the final
question I am quite proud to say yes, I do. The rabbits were
hung on fences in my riding. I supported the display
wholeheartedly. I thought it was a very creative and interesting
piece of art.
The member asked a question and I will take it very directly.
Have I ever voted against a budgetary motion of the government?
The answer is no, I have not and I will not. I am a member of a
team, a member of a community. Teams work together. That is how
this place runs. That is how the government runs. That is how
human society runs.
We think that somehow this organization, this government, will
work with a bunch of independent members controlling their own
destinies all the time. It is a foolish, foolish symbol. The
reality is life. When more than one person is involved in any
exercise, it is an exercise of compromise.
We have processes for that. The processes are sometimes called
parties. We come together. We think. We work. We fight. We
argue. Do I fight? I fight strongly. I think some members will
tell the House that I am not the least bit shy when it comes to
discussions in my caucus, but when it comes to standing up with
my team, with the people whose values I support, yes, I support
them.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite. One line in
the budget of this year referred to the net public debt. We
heard the Minister of Finance say during question period today
that money was put toward the debt and the debt is being reduced.
The line item in the government's own documents from last year
indicated that the net public debt was $576.8 billion. This year
it is the same amount and next year it will be the same amount.
If money is being applied to the debt, why is it not showing up
in its own documents?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, I spent five years in
opposition. Members could go through some of my statements about
budgets and the way I would take particular terms, twist them
around and throw them back, so I cannot be too critical of some
of the things said here.
If we examine what has gone on in the fiscal management of the
country, the reality is that we are far better off today than we
were in 1993. Growth is at levels we never predicted it would
reach.
1710
Let us look at unemployment. I recall in the 1993 campaign one
leader saying unemployment could not fall. This was the leader
of the party that had been in power at that time for nine years.
He predicted that unemployment could not fall below 10%, and yet
we are substantially below that today.
Taxes are coming down. The debt is coming down. Employment is
up. There are some significant problems and there are problems
looming over the horizon as there will be throughout our lifetime
and into the future. What we have here is a very responsible,
reasonable and balanced approach to managing those problems, and
I have no trouble supporting it.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, my
question for the hon. member is very simple. As a member of
parliament who was elected in 1988, although I am not absolutely
certain of that, he is accountable not only for his current views
but also for his views on issues and policies that were debated
fiercely at that time and ultimately helped shape the country.
The Economist magazine 1998 preview listed several
policies of the previous government and indicated that those
policies provided the current government with the ability to
eliminate the deficit. I believe the article indicated that
credit for deficit reduction in Canada belonged to the structural
changes made to the Canadian economy by the previous government,
the Progressive Conservative government.
It listed free trade, the GST, and deregulation of financial
services, transportation and energy. More specifically it
identified free trade and the GST as the two policies which most
fundamentally allowed the current government to eliminate the
deficit. Where did the member stand on the issues of free trade
and the GST?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, it is always interesting
to hear members of the party, which I think is the most
discredited party in the history of Canada, say that deficit
reduction was because of their policies.
They were in power for nine years, during which time the debt
went up, costs escalated and unemployment went up. Things got
worse and worse and worse until Canadian voters threw them out.
Only one sitting member was re-elected and one new member was
elected. It was the lowest return of any government in the
history of Canada.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I asked the hon. member
where he stood on free trade and the GST. According to very
sound economic analyses, including probably the most credible
economics and current affairs publication in the world, The
Economist magazine, credited the structural changes made by
the previous government with eliminating the deficit, free trade
and GST, being the most important ones.
Unless the hon. member wants to be accused of being the patron
saint of hypocrisy in the House of Commons today, I suggest he
answer the question and tell us where he stood on the free trade
and GST policies that his government would not have had the
vision or courage to initiate.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, it is very simple. When
this government came to power it changed its fiscal policy. The
former governor of the Bank of Canada, supported strongly by the
previous prime minister, kept jacking up interest rates in some
forlorn hope that it would somehow solve all the problems. They
reaped the rewards. Their understanding of how to manage the
economy was so weak and so meaningless that they earned their
just rewards.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, some days the debate in here is better than other days.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. leader of the Canadian
Alliance.
1715
As we talk about what was and was not in the budget, one thing
we ask Canadians to do is to check their pay stubs. Compare those
of January this year with those of January last year and those of
January next year, and then factor in just what kind of a tax cut
they are getting from the Liberal government. It will not add up
to very much.
I want to touch on the concerns that people have brought to my
attention as we talk about the country and the well-being of
Canadians in general. The number one issue that keeps coming up
is health care. It has been on the table for a long time.
Canadians fear that the health care system is not going to take
care of them when they need it. They are worried that family
members who become ill will not get the care they need and that
it will not be available to Canadians on a universal basis.
We need to put into perspective what has actually happened.
While the government was cutting billions of dollars out of
health care since it was elected in 1993, the grants and
contributions to departments like HRDC were going up. We need to
keep in mind that the waiting lines are growing, that 212,000
people are on waiting lists for health care in this country
because of cuts that the government has made. All the time it
was doing that, it was increasing the grants and contributions to
departments like HRDC. That is not the way Canadians expect
their government to act.
We are looking for solutions to the health care problem and we
have heard a lot about Bill 11 in Alberta lately. I do not
believe we have seen legislation that is going to solve Canada's
health care problems. We have not seen it yet.
We and other Canadians have to allow ourselves to open up our
minds and get into the debate. Our country has a huge resource
of very knowledgeable people in the health care field, people who
know how to deliver it properly. We have to open our minds and
allow ourselves to create a system that is sustainable and
universally available to all Canadians. If we do not allow that
to happen, if every time someone comes up with an idea that is a
little different from the status quo, we jump on them and try to
beat them down, we are going to end up perpetuating the trouble
we have now forever.
Let us allow ourselves to have that debate and come up with some
sustainable solutions. Health care must be put at the top of the
priority list. Canadians want that. They are demanding it. It
is a concern to everyone.
As our population ages, as the seniors who helped create this
country need more and more care, it has to be available. As
people of my generation age, there will be a huge bubble of
people to take care of. All of these things have to be factored
in when we are looking at solutions.
I mentioned the trouble we have seen at HRDC with the
unaccountability of the government in handling taxpayers'
dollars. One thing Canadians are extremely disturbed about is
that the government takes money out of their pockets, takes it to
Ottawa and then mismanages it. We cannot have that.
We are hurting. We are paying the highest taxes of the
industrialized countries. The government takes the money and
mismanages it and we cannot track where it went. Grants were
given when there were no applications. No follow-ups were done
to see if jobs were actually created.
Day after day the HRDC minister stands in the House and drags
into this debate hardworking, honest, volunteer organizations in
all of our communities. She drags their names into this debate.
They are not the problem. The hardworking organizations that do a
great job are not the problem. The problem is the government and
the minister that is mismanaging their money. I feel sorry for
the groups that have been mentioned by the minister. She is
bringing them down to her level instead of raising herself up to
their level of accountability and hard work.
A little earlier I asked a question of the member opposite about
the debt.
1720
Again today the finance minister said the debt is being paid
down. However in the five year projection that was in this
year's budget documents, the debt does not go down; it stays at
$576.8 billion. It takes over $40 billion a year in interest
payments to service that debt. In a five year period that is
$200 billion just for the interest. According to the document I
am looking at which was produced by the government, the principal
does not go down one nickel.
When we think about the $40 billion that is being spent on debt
charges, what happens if the economy turns a bit and interest
rates go up a couple of percentage points? That will cause a
change in a hurry and it will hurt every program. Every
worthwhile need that citizens in the country have will be
affected.
The high cost of fuel is a huge issue from coast to coast to
coast. Certainly in my riding it is. A group of people has come
together to raise the awareness of the cost of fuel. There is a
tax component both provincially and federally in the cost of a
litre of fuel. That should have been addressed in the budget.
Where is the break for people who are on fixed incomes who try to
get by when their cost of living keeps going up?
On transportation, our highway system has degenerated to the
point where doing trade east and west is becoming difficult. It
has been run down. There are $4.5 billion collected in fuel
taxes and only a small percentage of that is put back into the
highway system. We have to do something about that.
Concerning our airports, the local municipality in the county of
Lethbridge negotiated with this government to take over the
operation of the airport on one condition, that the expense of
the on-site fire services be taken away. That was done. The
county took it over and now there is talk about putting that back
in. That is a $300,000 expense that was negotiated in good faith
by the local municipality with this government and now the
government is turning its back on it.
The whole air transportation industry is in turmoil. We have
not seen any solid answers from the government on that.
On the grain transportation system we have had the Estey report
and the Kroeger report. There have been many hours of debate
across the country by many organizations. The grain
transportation system on the prairies has to be reformed and it
has to be done immediately in order to bring some relief to our
beleaguered producers. Where is that? It is tied up somewhere.
The minister has not made an announcement on that.
We could go on and on. Recently programs have been announced
over and over by the government such as money for the disaster in
agriculture on the prairies and across Canada. Of the money that
was put aside to service the disaster component of the problem
that agriculture has right now, only 26% has got to the farmers.
Sixty per cent of the people who applied, who felt they needed
help, have been rejected. The system has failed.
We have held meetings across the country with farmers and farm
groups. These are quotes from people in Unity, Saskatchewan:
“AIDA created hope and then it slam-dunked us. AIDA takes your
figures and then invents its own and disqualifies you”. These
types of comments about a program that this government developed
are coming from people who are on their last legs struggling to
keep their heads afloat.
My colleague from Elk Island did say he had a small bouquet for
the folks across the way. I would like to give them one on
bracket creep.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce lobbied hard and we have
lobbied hard for years to get the tax brackets indexed with
inflation. Finally it has been done. But what the government
did with that figure is it took the savings that we will realize
from bracket creep because our taxes will not be going up and
said it was a tax cut. That is not a tax cut. It is just money
the government will not get its hands on. That has been factored
into the figures it has used in this tax cut of $58 billion, or
$85 billion, or whatever it is. It does not add up.
I will end my comments with that.
1725
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in reference to the comments
from the member opposite, I recall when the former leader of the
former opposition party, or to be more clear, the member for
Calgary Southwest, was in this House at the start of the budget
debate, he used the example of a retired couple, Paul and Fran
Darr of Calgary, Alberta with a total income of $28,000. He
related how this couple had come to him and said that they were
paying too much in taxes and they were tired of paying taxes. It
was the old pay stub or equivalent debate that the Reform Party,
or the alliance or whatever it is called, was putting forward.
I asked the tax department how much in federal income tax Paul
and Fran Darr of Calgary, Alberta would save with this new budget
2000. The answer was they would save 39% in their federal income
taxes.
When opposition members talk about pay stubs and all that stuff,
I ask them to check whether the pay stubs reflect even the budget
measures we brought into place in 1998-99. They certainly do not
reflect the budget measures we introduced in 2000.
Another thing is the transfers to the provinces for health care,
the CHST. For Canadians who are actually listening to the debate
they must be hopelessly confused and I do not blame them. There
is a way of twisting and contorting the facts. Let me again put
the facts on the CHST on the table.
In 1993-94 the total CHST transfers to the provinces were $28.9
billion. Forget equalization. In 1999-2000 they are now at a
level of $29.4 billion. They are completely restored from the
levels when we came into office. At the same time our direct
program delivery budgets are down $4 billion. Does that not say
something about the priority the government attaches to health
care?
In the intervening time, perhaps the member has had a chance to
go back to check the budget notes. Perhaps he would like to
clarify the points he made earlier.
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a
couple of points especially about family taxes, tax cuts and the
whole idea of getting the government's hands out of the pockets
of hardworking Canadians.
We put out a proposal on a 17% single rate tax. An income of
$28,000 has been mentioned. Let us look at a single income
family of four. This is federal personal income tax payable in
the year 2004. This is after the implementation of the
proposals. Let us look at a family of four earning $30,000.
Under this Liberal status quo budget and tax regime this family
would pay $2,541 annually. Under solution 17 the family would pay
$387.
That is substantial tax relief. That is the kind of tax relief
Canadians are expecting when revenues and budget surpluses are
going to be in the tens of billions of dollars, approaching $100
billion. That is the kind of tax relief Canadians expect from
their government, substantial tax relief that will leave more
money in their pockets, $200 or $300 a month, instead of the $200
or $300 a year that has been proposed.
Let us look at a family of four earning $40,000. Under this
Liberal government's status quo tax regime, that family will pay
a little over $5,000 a year in tax. Under solution 17 a single
rate tax, it would be $2,000. That is a 60% saving in taxes.
That is the kind of substantial tax relief Canadians are
expecting from their government when they are looking at huge
surpluses.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to be
the last speaker in the budget debate.
I sat through the spring session which began on February 7 and
it was interesting to think about what it was this budget was
trying to accomplish, what the great fanfare was all about. We
heard about how wonderful the budget was, how there was going to
be tax relief and how every Canadian would actually feel better
when they went to bed at night.
1730
As members know and have watched, superseding that we have
witnessed in the House day after day questions and serious
concerns about the actual financial mismanagement of the
government. Of course the Liberals brag all the time about how
they are great managers of our money, and yet we saw a billion
dollars not go missing or lost, as the HRD minister likes to
accuse us of suggesting, but go to many of the wrong places. It
has gone for political motivation, maybe buying a seat if someone
was in close danger of losing a seat in any particular election.
People have asked me why I have not actually asked a question
about the budget. This scandal and the billion dollar boondoggle
is the budget. It is about unbelievable spending and
unbelievable waste, and yet I noticed in the budget that the
government in all government departments will spend $13.3 billion
on grants and contributions. That is a pile of money. As people
across the country have watched the HRDC scandal and this amazing
boondoggle, they have said that they resent working hard, sending
their money to Ottawa in the form of tax dollars and then having
it disappear to various places.
The question is not whether some of the HRDC programs are good.
There are benefits in some of the things that have happened, but
that is a debate for another day. What we and Canadians across
the country are critical of is this unbelievable waste and
unbelievable sense that government has largesse and is free to
hand this money out to whomever it pleases for either political
or personal purposes.
That is the frustration which I think people feel across the
country, and it is probably not just in ridings that are not held
by Liberals. I have spoken to Liberal members of parliament who
have gone home to try to pump the budget as being wonderful, and
yet the question that comes back to them is about the money that
is being mismanaged. I think that all of us have been asked that
question.
I was at the Alberta Land Titles Registry just before the budget
came down. A fellow who was standing in line and did not
recognize me or my husband said “Maybe I should get an HRDC
grant for this”. We know, if people are hanging out in offices
or coffee shops or whatever and the level of discussion from
parliament has filtered down to the ground level so that people
are using it as buzzwords and saying things like “Maybe I should
get an HRDC grant”, that the public is starting to register
their frustration. They are saying that it is their cash and
they want a few answers.
When the budget talked about tax relief and told Canadians about
tax relief, I am not so sure they were convinced. People right
across the country are saying “Don't tell me, show me”. They
want to see physical proof on their paystubs that they are
getting tax relief.
I have to tell members that I have not been swamped in my
constituency office or on an airplane or in a washroom at Pearson
airport or on Parliament Hill with people saying that the tax
relief feels good. In fact I have not had one person tell me
that. They are hearing about that tax relief, but they are not
seeing it. The government has told them how wonderful it is, but
nobody has come thundering down to my door saying “I love this
tax relief. It feels so good”.
Let us look at some of the numbers. We were told, with trumpets
on budget day, that taxes will decrease $58.4 billion. That
ought to feel good. That is a pile of cash. That money is not
just going back into peoples' pockets, it means that the circle
is complete by not having to send that money to Ottawa in the
first place. The finance minister thought that $58.4 billion was
wonderful and that people would feel much better and happier.
I have never been good at magic, but what I saw happen that day
and in the ensuing weeks was probably one of the best magic acts
we have seen in a while. We put our hand in the hat, pull it out
and say “Wow, there is $58.4 billion in tax relief”. However,
if we look at it, the rabbit that came out of that hat has a
different thing to say.
1735
The finance minister said that the $58.4 billion in tax relief
was going to be over five years, but if we look at the numbers
and scratch a little deeper this is what we find.
Sure, we have the Liberal claim of $58.4 billion in tax relief
over five years, but then we have to do the math, the real math,
not the new math and not the Liberal math. If we did that we
would find that there is a minus. Over five years $7.5 billion
will be used for social spending on the child benefit. That is
not really tax relief. It is a social program, so we cannot
really say that it is tax relief. Off the top we have to take
$7.5 billion.
Then of course there is a mere $29.5 billion that has to be
subtracted in increased Canada pension plan premiums over the
same five year period. If a person was a responsible finance
minister or any other member of government they would say
“Whoops”. That really does need to be fit into the equation
because $58.4 billion is not all that it is trumpeted up to be.
Off that amount we have to take $29.5 billion because with the
shell game that the Liberals are playing they say they are giving
us $58.4 billion, but they forget to say that they are taking
$29.5 billion off in increased CPP premiums. Every single
Canadian who is working knows that since the beginning of January
they have had a few more dollars snapped off their paycheques in
CPP premiums. This could have been an oversight, it could have
been an accident, but we do have to figure the $29.5 billion into
the mathematical equation.
We have to make another subtraction from the $58.4 billion.
There is $13.5 billion in scheduled tax hikes which have been
cancelled. There are some pretty hot semantics. “We are giving
Canadians an amazing deal. We are giving Canadians $13.5 billion
in tax breaks, but in fact”—and this is the new math, the
Liberal math—“what we are doing is cancelling what Canadians
were going to be hit with”. Canadians really had not paid that
money anyway. They would have gotten stuck with paying it if the
program had carried on. The government is not really taking this
money off taxes. It was going to nail us with that, but decided
not to. I suppose that could be called a tax break.
I taught English, not math. Math is not my finest suit, but I
could figure that much out. If someone said they were going to
hit me with something and then said they were not going to hit
me, then I am not really getting a break. I am then told that I
will not to be hit quite as badly as planned by scheduled
increases. That is not exactly terrific. It is not a tax break.
Let us do the mathematical equation. I have a mathematician
sitting behind me, one of my colleagues, who knows his math
better than I do and some others in this Chamber. If we take
$58.4 billion and subtract $7.5 billion, and then subtract $29.5
billion, and then subtract $13.5 billion, that equals $7.9
billion in tax relief. That is not quite as glamorous as it
seemed when the budget was being delivered.
This will happen over five years, so we need to divide that
amount by five, which equals $1.58 billion per year. If we want
to work that amount down a bit, because that is still quite a few
zeros, let us look at it this way. This wonderful tax cut which
everyone is bragging about, while they are waltzing around the
country telling people how wonderful they are, equals $107.06 per
year per taxpayer. If that does not seem quite so glamorous, it
equals $8.97 a month or $2.07 a week.
I can understand why people have not been coming like rolling
thunder into my office out west to say they are thrilled with
$2.07 a week. A person cannot even go to McDonald's on that
amount. That is why people are not praising the government for
this wonderful tax relief which the Liberals bragged about in the
budget.
The Canadian public want straight answers on the billion dollar
boondoggle and where that money has gone. Canadians are far more
concerned about that than the $2 a week they will be getting with
this hotshot tax relief.
1740
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, maybe the new Canadian
Alliance has some new math, but under the old math of the Reform
Party, if we look at its tax plan, it said that in year three it
would give $26 billion worth of tax cuts and $26 billion worth of
debt reduction.
If we look at the surpluses that are being projected by eight of
Canada's leading economists, the way I read it, in 2002-03 we
should expect surpluses of $12.5 billion.
This is the same party that was asking for increases in
expenditures for the military, the RCMP, infrastructure and aid
for farmers. If we add $26 billion and $26 billion we get $52
billion, and then we have to add the additional expenditures
which the Reform Party was pursuing. It seems to me that would
be quite a bit more than $12.5 billion, which is the amount we
would actually have in surpluses. Maybe the Canadian Alliance
has some new math.
A person came to my office who was very excited and said “I
have heard about Reform's solution 17. If the government would
implement a flat tax, I would save a lot of money”. It turned
out that under the Reform Party's proposal for a flat tax that
person would save 39%.
I scratched a little more and, lo and behold, that person was
earning $200,000 a year. I scratched a little more and I
compared that with someone under the flat tax who earned $30,000.
They would only save 12%. Yes, there was someone who was quite
excited about the flat tax proposed by the Reform Party, but they
happened to be earning $200,000.
Mr. Lou Sekora: That is who they like.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Exactly, those are their supporters. But
the poor person and the middle income Canadian would not get the
benefit of that.
I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition could rethink the
math on her tax proposal and clarify things for the House,
because I think Canadians must be very confused.
Miss Deborah Grey: Madam Speaker, boy, there is a ramble.
If that is how the Liberals do math on the other side I can
understand why we have some pretty serious problems.
The hon. member is talking about a tax plan and $26 billion in
surpluses. The member would know that the most conservative
estimates of 2.5%, 3%, 3.5% in economic growth are very, very
conservative, so we have estimated those surpluses probably not
quite as hugely or as magnificently as the finance minister. I
think he was talking about $95 billion a year.
The member asked me a question about our solution 17. I would
like to tell him, as I certainly hope he knows, because I know he
does his research well, that WEFA, the economic forecasting think
tank, said that the solution 17 which we have proposed under the
Canadian Alliance would be absolutely workable. WEFA ran the
numbers once, twice, perhaps even three times and said that this
would be a workable solution.
I know the hon. member would jump up if he had another chance to
be recognized and ask who these people are who we found to come
up with numbers the way we wanted the numbers to be. In fact, it
is the very same group that does the economic forecasting and
think tank work for the Minister of Finance. That group ran
exactly the same numbers for him.
I put my faith in solution 17. It has been verified by the very
group that verifies the budget, the finance minister's plan. I
think if solution 17 were implemented it would be terrific.
There would be a basic exemption of $10,000 for person A,
and then the spouse would get another $10,000.
What if a person is not married? I was not married for it
seemed like forever, but I am now and I love Lew. If a person
does not have a spouse, he or she could claim a child as a
spousal equivalent. People would get a $20,000 exemption before
they would even have to think about paying tax.
I think the couple in Calgary to whom the member referred
earlier would be wonderfully blessed by solution 17.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant
to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on Ways and Means Motion No. 5.
Call in the members.
1810
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 137
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 106
|
PAIRED
Members
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1815
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the recorded division on the motion of the hon. member
for London North Centre in relation to privilege.
1820
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Brison
| Casey
|
Doyle
| Fontana
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Muise
| Price
|
St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Wayne – 15
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bélair
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Johnston
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mayfield
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wood – 160
|
PAIRED
Members
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Before I put the next question to the House, might I remind hon.
members, in light of the disturbance we witnessed, of Standing
Order 16(1) which states:
When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter,
walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or
disturbance.
I know hon. members love to hear the rules.
* * *
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday,
March 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading
stage of Bill C-13.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the ways and means motion, with
the exclusion of the member for Saint-Maurice and the member for
Scarborough—Rouge River, be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting in favour of this bill,
unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
oppose this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will be voting
against the motion.
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members
will be voting in favour of the motion.
1825
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I have to vote yea.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 192
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 49
|
PAIRED
Members
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-213, an act to promote shipbuilding, 1999, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday,
March 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage
of Bill C-213 under Private Members' Business.
[Translation]
The vote will take place row by row, beginning with the sponsor
of the bill. Then, I will ask the other members who are in
favour of the motion to please rise, beginning with the last
row, on the side where the sponsor of the bill sits.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bélair
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Brien
| Brison
| Bryden
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Cannis
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Epp
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Leung
| Lill
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Matthews
| McGuire
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Perron
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Wood – 146
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Cullen
| Elley
| Finlay
| Goldring
|
Grose
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Lowther
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Pankiw
| Phinney
| Ritz
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
| Strahl
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 27
|
PAIRED
Members
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
1835
Mr. Raymond Lavigne: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the hon.
member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière noticed that the Liberal
members from Quebec voted in favour of his motion.
[English]
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My seat may not have the best perspective from over here and I
believe I may have been counted as a yes and a no. Everybody
knows that this country needs a national shipbuilding policy, so
I categorically voted yes and only yes.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to know what you are going to do as the Speaker about the
hon. member for Calgary West getting up in the House with a sign
every time. Is he going to respect the House of Commons, yes or
no?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
appalled by the Liberal government's answer to the question I
raised in the House of Commons on December 3, 1999. The answer,
or rather lack thereof, provided by the Liberal government makes
me wonder if it really has control of government or not.
My question was a simple one: Given that the auditor general
commended in-house bids for military contracts for meeting all
the criteria of being good business cases, would the Liberal
government ensure that an in-house bid would be welcomed and
considered?
Incredibly, the Liberal government refused to answer this
question, spouting generalities instead.
I then became more specific, indicating savings projected in
supply chain business cases. My figures showed that the Liberal
government's projected savings from contracting out through
alternative service delivery may have been overstated. When I
asked the government to clarify the matter, the response I
received again did not answer the question at hand.
This leaves me very concerned indeed about who is in control of
contracts and expenditures in our military.
I received a letter from a constituent dated March 16 of this
year which stated:
We have had to fight tooth and nail to keep our jobs from going
out to contractors who charge the government ridiculous amounts
for the tasks we used to do and these contractors pay employees
just above the minimum wage. They (meaning the contractors) are
paid huge amounts for nothing and some of them have been fired
before completely their contract. We have a large battle ahead
of us just to keep our jobs from going to the private sector even
though we are the most cost effective organization.
1840
I am concerned that this whole contracting out process is a
waste of taxpayers' hard earned money. It makes me wonder if the
Minister of National Defence was out of town during the human
resources department scandal.
Another constituent wrote to me on February 17 stating:
The only people who are walking to the bank are the consulting
firms and military brass who are walking out one door in military
dress and walking back in with suit and tie working for these big
conglomerates. We were the guinea pigs for their first trial run
with Alternative Service Delivery, we cut our workforce by more
than half. We told these consultants we are the best bang for
the taxpayers dollars, but off they went to the bank.
I would like to direct the Liberals' attention to a report
produced by their own defence department and the comments made
therein concerning ASD:
Had the management of this Montreal-based CF supply and
maintenance infrastructure been turned over to the private sector
under the ASD program, it is doubtful whether the military could
have transformed it so quickly into such an effective third line
support organization.
When civilian military workers successfully beat the ASD
contract bids of private companies, the government abruptly
changed the rules of engagement to favour large corporations. The
bundling of bids provides for the awarding of contracts on a
national basis, not only a cheap shot at our military, but a slap
in the face to small business throughout the country.
What is the Liberal government's real agenda? An efficient
military or a privatized and gutted military with enough funds
for huge capital purchases but not enough to sustain the
dedicated men and women serving Canada in both civilian and
military roles?
Before rushing blindly into a minefield, will the government not
take time and fully explore what continued contracting out will
mean to the people of Halifax and elsewhere?
On behalf of the many Canadians who work hard and efficiently
for our Canadian forces and on behalf of all taxpayers eager not
to see their hard earned money wasted, will the Liberal
government review its contracting out policy within our military?
Will the government involve all of those affected in this review
and will it make the findings public?
Once and for all I ask for a direct answer instead of a sales
pitch from the Liberals about how wonderful and rosy things are
in the military.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Department of
National Defence and the Canadian forces remain very determined
to maintain a multipurpose combat ready force. They are,
however, obliged to run the defence program as efficiently and
cost-effectively as possible.
The department remains firmly in favour of ASD, alternative
service delivery, which is an important tool in improving the
efficiency of the organization by freeing up resources and
putting them to work where the need is greatest, that is
operational readiness.
In simple terms, the department and the Canadian forces must
devote their limited resources to the functions that they alone
can perform. To date, annual savings from ASD initiatives are
estimated at around $62 million. However, the department expects
these annual savings to increase to approximately $175 million in
the years to come.
[English]
Given the complexity of managing the supply chain for an
organization as broad as DND and the Canadian forces, the
department believes that the only feasible option is to pursue a
commercial approach through a competitive process. These savings
resulting from the supply chain project are expected to be
between 20% and 30%. Its aim is to improve the efficiency of
supply activities by introducing a competitive process and using
private sector expertise. The supply chain project will allow
DND and the Canadian forces to get access to critical logistics
expertise, innovation and leading edge technologies.
I can assure the House that the Department of National Defence
continues to make progress on various ASD initiatives. It will
continue to consult closely with all stakeholders, including
unions and employees.
The department is committed to proceeding in a way that is as
fair and as—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member's
time has expired.
1845
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am following up on a question I had for the health
minister on March 17 in regard to the compensation package for
hepatitis C victims.
It is no secret that all of us on this side of the House are
very disappointed with this package. To begin with, it only
covers the victims between the years 1986 and 1990. Victims
prior to 1986 are not included in the package. Victims after
1990 are not included.
To add insult to injury, aside from leaving out those innocent
victims prior to 1986 and after 1990, not one victim has received
a nickel of compensation from the federal government. Not one
single person.
Adding insult to injury once again, the only people who have
been paid by the federal government are the lawyers who are
handling this case. The legal nightmare that we envisioned has
evolved in the way we said it would. Only the lawyers have been
paid. There is something wrong with a package that only pays the
lawyers.
I asked the minister to take some leadership on this issue and
do something. For example, do what the province of Ontario and
the province of Quebec have done, which is to introduce a no
fault compensation scheme.
To conclude, I want to quote from Justice Krever's report. He
recommended without delay that the government, the provinces and
territories devise statutory no fault schemes for compensating
persons who suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of
the administration of blood components and blood products.
The federal government has simply not done that. We are asking
it to get on with the business of compensating those innocent
victims. We want action.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada
met the provincial and territorial representatives and, in March
1998, the Minister of Health announced a plan to provide
financial assistance of $1.1 billion to the thousands of victims.
[English]
By working collaboratively with the lawyers for the class action
plaintiffs, we reached a settlement agreement which was approved
by the Ontario, B.C. and Quebec courts in December 1999. This was
only possible because the Government of Canada went to the
provinces and to the claimants and proposed a solution to spare
everyone the potential of even longer litigation.
[Translation]
Immediately following approval of the settlement, the Government
of Canada transferred some $855 million into a trust fund in
order to compensate the complainants. In doing so, the
Government of Canada met all its obligations under the
settlement.
[English]
The federal government is very anxious that the administrator
begin processing claims and make payments as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Rest assured that our government is committed to helping all
Canadians infected by the hepatitis C virus.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)