36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 84
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| GUN REGISTRATION
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| KATYN FOREST
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| WINDSOR—ST. CLAIR
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| THE LATE TERRY FOX
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1405
| 4-H COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| DAVID LAFLAMME
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| JOYCEVILLE INSTITUTION
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1410
| NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| GREENHOUSE GASES
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| ROAD SYSTEM
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| RCMP
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1420
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1435
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1440
| GROWING OF CANNABIS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1445
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| WATERWAYS
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1450
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROMÉO DALLAIRE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1500
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ENERGY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of a Document
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TREATIES RATIFIED IN 1998
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1510
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
|
| Bill C-476. Introduction and first reading.
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Old Age Security
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Petroleum Product Pricing
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1515
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Rural Route Couriers
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Perth—Middlesex
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Health
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1520
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Transferred for debate
|
1525
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1705
1710
1715
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1720
1725
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
|
| Bill C-223. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1735
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1740
1745
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1750
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1755
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1800
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1805
1810
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1815
| (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Bob Wood |
1820
| Health
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Bob Wood |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 84
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 12, 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 St.
John's East.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I have an ode to the Canadian Alliance and the former
Reform Party:
C.A. so it seems
Are still living in dreams
As they continue to strive
To merely survive.
Changing their name
Still makes them the same
Changing their leader
Won't help them much either.
With Klees backing out, & Long jumping in
The battle within is about to begin.
So it's east versus west
To determine their best.
And so we must wonder
When we'll see their next blunder
'Cause as sure as the sun
More errors will come.
So it's back to the west
With pretensions of zest
After leaving in their wake
A political mistake.
Reform or C.A.
“What's the difference”, you say
As Canadians all know,
They're the “same ole”, “same ole”.
* * *
GUN REGISTRATION
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal plan to register firearms is shot full of
holes.
In 1995 the Prime Minister vowed registration would cost
taxpayers $85 million. Now documents reveal that the justice
minister overshot that target, spending a cool $81 million in the
last four months and the finance minister recently tried to plug
another hole by pouring in $46 million. To date, gun registration
has cost a staggering $330 million.
Only 13% of law-abiding owners have licensed their firearms. To
meet the deadline, the CFC must process 2,630,000 applications
and that does not include all the criminals the minister is
convinced will line up to register.
Go figure. Liberal math at its finest. Why does the minister
not put a gun to their useless legislation and just blow it away?
* * *
[Translation]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw hon. member's attention to an atrocity committed against
the Armenian people on April 24, 1915.
A total of 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives at the hands
of the Ottoman Empire. This year marks the 85th anniversary of
the Armenian genocide.
The Hellenic Republic was the first NATO member to denounce this
crime against humanity, followed by Belgium, which passed a
resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide in 1998. A
number of other nations have followed their lead and I trust
that my government will soon do the same.
[English]
This coming Saturday in Montreal I will have the honour to
represent the Prime Minister at a ceremony organized by the
Armenian National Committee commemorating the victims of 1915.
Whether we choose to name it a tragedy, a massacre, an ethnic
cleansing or a crime against humanity, it remains an historical
event that today would be described by the United Nations as
genocide.
I invite all my colleagues to join Canadians of Armenian origin
in remembering the victims of the first genocide of the 20th
century.
* * *
KATYN FOREST
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, April 9 I attended ceremonies in Toronto to
commemorate the 16th anniversary of the Katyn massacre.
For many the name Katyn has little meaning. However, to the
Polish community the name is associated with a crime without
parallel.
On September 17, 1939 forces of the Soviet Union crossed the
eastern border of Poland on the pretence that they would protect
the Polish people. More than 15,000 Polish officers were sent to
three Soviet secret police prison camps. On April 13, 1943
authorities discovered the mass graves of approximately 14,500
Polish officers in the Katyn forest, a short distance from
Smolensk, Russia.
It took the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 to create an
atmosphere where the truth would finally be revealed.
To honour the memory of the Katyn victims, memorials have been
built and wreaths will be laid on April 13 because these are
crimes so odious that even the lapse of time cannot lessen their
impact. Katyn is not only a Polish issue but one that affects
the conscience of the entire world.
* * *
WINDSOR—ST. CLAIR
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one year ago today the voters of Windsor—St. Clair
faced a dilemma: go to the opening game of the Detroit Tigers or
stay at home and vote for a new member of parliament. Wisely,
they stayed at home and hit a home run when they elected a
personable rookie to the House of Commons.
There was some concern that the fourth party might squeak
through because the late, great Shaughnessy Cohen was a tough act
to follow. But our candidate did not strike out, and he powered
past the token NDP opposition. I am positive that our colleague
from Windsor—St. Clair has inherited some of the true grit from
Shaughnessy whose spirit and tenacity is very evident in her
successor.
The constituents of Windsor—St. Clair can rest assured that
their member of parliament has more than lived up to their
expectations by going to bat on their behalf time and time again.
He is upholding the Liberal values of a caring, compassionate
commitment to all Canadians.
Congratulations to our colleague on his first anniversary.
* * *
THE LATE TERRY FOX
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago today Terry Fox started a courageous
journey that touched the hearts of all Canadians. I remember
seeing his own handwritten notes around our communities in Port
Coquitlam and Coquitlam promoting his upcoming venture.
Terry started out as a regular active teenager and ended up as a
Canadian and international hero. What made Terry a hero? He had
a vision and he pursued that vision with passion and persistence.
After losing his leg to cancer, he was determined to raise funds
and awareness to find a cure. As a result, millions of dollars
have gone to cancer research.
Terry once said “I want to set an example that will not be
forgotten”.
1405
His example has encouraged others to pursue other goals and
accomplish great things. Terry did not just talk about his
dream, he took action to make it happen. Although Terry is now
gone his vision lives on through the actions of others.
Thank you Terry for daring to dream and daring to do.
* * *
4-H COUNCIL
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in our gallery we have a
very special select group of young Canadians from across Canada
who are attending their 2000 National 4-H Citizenship Seminar to
increase their understanding of the function and structure of the
Canadian political system.
The theme of this year's conference is “Canada: One Nation, One
Heart, One Future” which features a comprehensive orientation of
Canada's political system and culminates with a group
presentation on the topic of “What I Want For Canada In The New
Millennium”.
The 4-H Council is hosting a conference entitled “Celebrating
Our Differences, Recognizing our Similarities” which includes
rural and urban youth from Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
At the many summer and fall fairs in my riding and across
Canada, 4-H members celebrate the heritage of rural Canada with
their very successful projects and displays.
I invite all members of the House to join me in welcoming the
4-H Council to this Chamber.
* * *
[Translation]
DAVID LAFLAMME
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend, the Quebec finals of the Bell Super Science Fair were
held in Chicoutimi. Top honours were carried off by a 12th
grader from Sherbrooke's École Montcalm.
David Laflamme won first prize for his life sciences experiment
on the “art of neuromodulating”. In it he studied the process
by which neurotransmitters release acetylcholine, low levels of
which may cause Alzheimer's disease.
This win at the Super Science Fair takes him on to the
Canada-Wide Science Fair in May, and then on to the international
event, to be held in Grenoble in 2001.
This is not David Laflamme's first such success. He presented
his research on the ageing process of the brain at the last
congress of the Association des médecins de langue française du
Canada.
I wish to convey to David heartiest congratulations from the
people in the riding of Sherbrooke. There is no doubt that his
passion—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
* * *
[English]
JOYCEVILLE INSTITUTION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on April 1, one inmate at Joyceville Institution in
Ontario was found carrying a concealed knife.
Rumours had been circulating for days among the 170 Joyceville
guards that cyanide had been smuggled inside with the deadly
potential for use in terrorism. However, prison management
refused to conduct a thorough search on, guess what, grounds of
violating prisoners' rights.
A minor riot erupted that Saturday night, so the warden finally
decided to lock inmates in their cells while he sent two teams of
eight guards to search the entire place, including possessions of
the 475 inmates.
It is no wonder that guards feared for their safety and that of
the prisoners when one realizes that the search uncovered needles
for illegal drugs, escape equipment, contraband used to brew
alcoholic beverages and more than 60 weapons, including over 20
homemade knives.
Today's lesson for the solicitor general is that the safety
rights of guards and well-behaved prisoners should get a higher
priority than those who continue breaking the law even while they
are in prison.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we were treated to another example of Bloc Quebecois
incoherence and twisted logic. The leader of the Bloc is
concerned about Canada's international reputation. From the
leader of the party mandated to break up Canada, this takes a
lot of gall.
Before he starts giving lessons, the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois should think back to the comments made by his own
boss, Lucien Bouchard, who, last week while still in France,
attacked Canada on the quality of its democratic life. This is
the same Lucien Bouchard, who has said in the past that Canada
is not a country, but a prison.
Let's get serious.
On the subject of Canada's international reputation, the Bloc
has nothing to offer but crocodile tears.
* * *
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate Mr. Peter Irniq on being appointed as the second
commissioner of Nunavut effective April 1, 2000.
Peter has long served the people of Nunavut and this appointment
will give him the opportunity to advance the Inuit culture and
language which is his great interest.
1410
This is a crucial and challenging period for Nunavut and I know
my colleagues in the House will want to join with me in wishing
Commissioner Peter Irniq all the best in his new role.
I would also like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank
the first commissioner of Nunavut, Helen Maksagak, for having
been such a gracious ambassador for the people of Nunavut as she
carried out her duties.
* * *
NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
recognition of national poetry month, I would like to read this
untitled work by Winnipeg poet Patrick O'Connell.
it's the thing you held most dear to you,
what you called an emptiness or a genuflection,
having made your bargain with the oval night
with the shuttle in the darkness of your loom...
and the way you were startled by the brittle air
when it call came back to you,
what you called a song from a room
while you did a perfect pirouette before a mirror,
when a whole new language
when another way of reckoning appeared
deep inside the crevice of your knowing...
O turn turn and turn again
were the words, you wrote, on the sky
This is published by Patrick O'Connell in a book entitled The
Joy that Cracked the Mountain.
* * *
[Translation]
GREENHOUSE GASES
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of the Environment keeps saying that a reduction in
greenhouse gases is one of his government's priorities.
However, oddly enough, at the meeting of environment ministers
in Otsu, Japan, Canada remained on its own, dissociating itself
from Germany, Italy, France, Great Britain, Japan and Russia by
refusing to set 2002 as the deadline for the ratification of the
Kyoto Protocol.
Canada is certainly not in the lead pack.
It had made a commitment to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by
6% of their 1990 level by 2010. But the federal government is
doing nothing. If it continues to do nothing, the figure Canada
will achieve by 2010 is a 35% increase, contrary to its
international commitments.
Instead of limiting itself to awareness programs and voluntary
action, Canada must specify its reduction objectives. Really,
the Liberals' will is nil.
* * *
[English]
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's Middle East relationship is important. We have
a long record of contributing to the peace process and we are now
forging closer ties to the region by developing new dynamic trade
and economic relations.
To reinforce these links, the Prime Minister is presently
engaged in an intensive program in the area, meeting with
business and political leaders, providing frank exchanges of
views with his hosts, signing important bilateral accords and
visiting our Canadian peacekeepers in the region, of whom we are
all so very proud.
The opposition is challenging what we are trying to achieve in
the region and is criticizing the Prime Minister's
straightforward approach and direct style, the very features
which have earned him popularity among Canadians and the
widespread respect of other world leaders.
Canada is a trading and peace-loving nation. The Prime Minister
is representing these central facets of our society to the
business and political leaders of the Middle East. I salute him
for his leadership in the area and suggest that his critics
abandon their partisan hyperbole in favour of supporting Canada
in its important endeavours in this region which has great
potential for our country.
* * *
[Translation]
ROAD SYSTEM
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
government announced a $4 billion investment to improve the
greater Montreal area's road system. It welcomed the
participation of the federal government and the private sector.
The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and the greater Quebec City area
are still waiting for a modern and safe road system to link them
to the major North American trade corridors. The region's
economic health and development are at stake.
I realize that the greater Montreal area is experiencing major
problems, but this is no reason to neglect the regions.
If public and private consortia, with federal government's
participation, are acceptable in the Montreal area, they are
just as acceptable in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and in the
greater Quebec City area.
* * *
[English]
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has visited only two places on
his seven state trip to the Middle East and now he has both feet
in his mouth. His failure rate is 100%, like an HRDC audit
report.
First he upset Palestinians by refusing to meet them in East
Jerusalem and joking about it. Then he upset Israelis by telling
Arafat to use UDI as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.
Yesterday he stepped on a landmine between Israel and Syria, and
in reference to the Sea of Galilee he said “It is better for the
Israelis to keep this body of water”. He is not taking the high
road of diplomacy and fairness.
1415
Canadians enjoy a reputation of peacekeeping and peacemaking won
from our decades of efforts to alleviate conflict.
The Prime Minister is writing Canada's foreign policy on the bus
between luncheons. He should have listened to Canadians, done
his homework and delivered Canada's message.
Bring him home. He is not fit to lead. He is damaging the
peace process rather than making progress in the region.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
RCMP
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, leave it to this government to run
one of Canada's greatest national symbols right into the ground.
The auditor general has revealed widespread organizational and
financial problems in the RCMP. These problems leave Canadians,
first, vulnerable to criminal activity and, second, they threaten
the security of our country, all because of mismanagement by this
government.
Why is the solicitor general not following up on these serious
concerns of the auditor general?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, we have and
always will take the auditor general's suggestions very
seriously, and we have in this case too. For example, the RCMP
has appointed a deputy commissioner to ensure that the
recommendations made by the auditor general will be followed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Perhaps with another six point plan, Mr. Speaker.
The auditor general has made many of these same complaints year
after year. Canadians rely on the RCMP for a lot more than just
photo ops with tourists. Millions of Canadians count on them as
their only local police force. CPIC, which is the nationwide
tracking program for criminals, is run by the RCMP and police
forces right across the country depend on it. Law-abiding
citizens are threatened because of this government's management
and the lack of it.
I ask the solicitor general again, why is he and his government
more concerned about pork-barrelling than policing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the
RCMP have far more competency than just posing for photo ops.
They are a very competent, well recognized police force in this
country and around the world.
This government is committed to the RCMP. That is why last
year, before the auditor general's report, we committed $115
million to ensure that CPIC was upgraded. This government will
ensure that all of the recommendations made by the auditor
general will be followed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me say too that under the
circumstances I think our RCMP are as competent as they can be,
which is in spite of this government, certainly not because of
it.
It is a matter of priorities. This government could protect
public safety, but instead it buys fountains for Shawinigan, a
high priority I am sure. We would think the government would do
everything it could to protect the taxpayers who fund its very
grant giveaways. It is sort of like being smart enough to guard
the goose that lays the golden egg.
The auditor general, time after time, has listed serious
concerns about the RCMP's ability to protect Canadians. Why is
it that boondoggles are more important to this whole government
than the safety of Canadian citizens?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only place I hear boondoggle talk is
from the Reform Party, and it is not about the RCMP.
The RCMP is a competent police force, which is well respected in
Canada and around the world and will continue to be so. That is
why this government gave $810 million in new money to ensure that
the RCMP has the resources to ensure the safety of the people of
Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister continues to
muddle in the Middle East, the auditor general released a damning
indictment of his government here in Ottawa. We would think the
guy who had an armed intruder in his own home would place a
higher priority on the RCMP. Yet the auditor general now
confirms that the RCMP's criminal tracking abilities are
seriously hampered and that its computer system is in desperate
need of an upgrade.
This government's financial commitment in its latest budget,
while welcome, is totally inadequate. Does the solicitor general
intend to get his grant from the HRDC minister for the computers?
1420
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what this government is committed to is
public safety. As I indicated previously, this government showed
how committed it is to public safety by putting $115 million in
place to ensure that the CPIC computer system is there for the
RCMP and all other police forces across the country.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the $115 million in the budget for
the RCMP will not even meet its existing needs, let alone its
projected increases.
The auditor general said:
There are delays of more than two months in entering records of
new criminals and new crimes of old criminals into the system,
and some files have taken over five months.
The reason for the backlog is a lack of available funds to hire
staff.
Why is it this government finds billions of dollars for
so-called job creation through HRDC, but will not create the
necessary jobs in the RCMP?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague does not understand
that the $115 million was put in place to modernize CPIC, the
computer system that is used by the RCMP and other police forces
across the country. As he indicated, the backlog of criminal
records has been cut by 40% and we expect that it will be
eliminated by the end of the year.
We are making progress and we will continue to address the
problems that the auditor general has identified.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have finally found out what happened to the Placeteco grant.
Claude Gauthier, the owner, says that $1,060,000 went to the
National Bank, $50,000 to Globax, and $80,000 to Placeteco's
working capital. That is how it shapes up.
Is the minister still going to claim that she has invoices
proving that jobs were created at Placeteco when the owner
himself says that the grant money went somewhere else?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts of our relationship with this
company have not changed. There is no basis for an overpayment.
We have invoices that support the investment that we have made
and 170 people continue to be employed.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, there are 78 jobs at Placeteco; the owner himself said
so. We are talking about Placeteco, a grant that went to
Placeteco and not to Globax.
What is going on here is troubling. The owner says that the
money went to Globax, the National Bank and the working capital,
and the minister tells us that she has invoices showing that
jobs were created. There is a contradiction.
The only way to straighten this out and hang on to the small bit
of credibility she still has left is to table the invoices
showing that jobs were created at Placeteco—not at Techni-Paint,
not at Globax. And despite what the owner himself says—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed some of the jobs we talk about are
in a company in the riding of the hon. leader's own member. I
think that member supports the jobs at Techni-Paint and the jobs
at Placeteco. We are talking about 170 people who otherwise
would not be employed. We think that is the right thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame. The admission by Claude
Gauthier, of Placeteco, in a televised report, that the $1.2
million grant went to pay off a loan to the National Bank and
bolster his company's working capital proves that the minister
does not have the invoices proving jobs were created.
With Claude Gauthier's statement, will the minister now admit
that she does not have the invoices proving jobs were created,
because, quite simply, no jobs were created?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again, there is no reason or
basis for an overpayment. We have the invoices. We have people
working. It would seem that the Bloc suggests that it was not
appropriate for us to stick with these two companies to ensure
that the people who are now working would have the opportunity to
work. I think we have chosen the right approach. I think the
Bloc's approach is wrong.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the problem for the minister is that the Prime
Minister himself said in this House that all grants not used to
create jobs were to be repaid. This is exactly what the
Vidéotron group did.
Now that it is clear that the $1.2 million grant to Placeteco
was used for purposes other than creating jobs, will the
minister demand the immediate repayment of the grant?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that there is no basis for
an overpayment.
We have investigated this file thoroughly. The invoices are
there to support the investment, and men and women are working.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in a
legal opinion released earlier today by the Canadian Health
Coalition, trade lawyer Barry Appleton described Alberta as going
down a one-way street toward health care privatization.
Here is what he said: “Under NAFTA, a province cannot
experiment with for-profit health care because the process will
be irreversible”.
In last week's letter to Alberta, the health minister
acknowledged that Bill 11 may have implications which will be
felt in provinces and territories across the country.
In view of that, what is the government's response to the NAFTA
threat?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we made our position very clear last week when I wrote to the
Alberta minister of health.
We identified four respects in which we thought there were
difficulties with Bill 11. In particular, we asked that the bill
be amended to prohibit the sale of enhanced medical services
along with insured services in a private for profit facility.
We contend that that combination imperils the principle of
accessibility, which is fundamental to the Canada Health Act.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we can
continue to try to ignore Mr. Appleton's opinion, but the last
time Mr. Appleton weighed in on an important trade issue was in
the case of the gasoline additive MMT. Mr. Appleton was right,
the Government of Canada was wrong, and it cost us $20 million.
If we get it wrong this time it will cost us our health care
system.
Will the government address the NAFTA implications, or will it
risk losing Canada's health care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is a little behind the times. Why should this
issue be any different?
If the member would look at the record, she would see that in my
correspondence with Minister Jonson in November of last year, I
squarely raised the NAFTA issue and identified the risk which
that issue presents to the health care system of Canada.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in 24 hours the Prime Minister has succeeded in shocking
Palestinian people on the issue of East Jerusalem.
Then, to get back on their good side, he said he would recognize
a new declaration of independence of Palestine, making the
Israeli people angry.
Yesterday, to try to fix his mistake, the PM made a comment
about one of the most explosive subjects in the peace process in
the Middle East, the ownership of the Sea of Galilee.
Once again, our message has to be heard. Will the cabinet bring
the PM home before the next mistake du jour in the Middle East?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think Canadians should be proud of the fact that the
Prime Minister is carrying out the first bilateral visit to this
region by any Canadian Prime Minister.
I understand our Prime Minister has been warmly welcomed by the
leaders he has met and all have been pleased with Canada's
participation in the region. No negative comments have been
raised during these private talks, or indeed in the media in that
area.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, that
makes three strikes in three days. If it were baseball, the
Prime Minister would be out.
Some hon. members: Out.
Mr. André Bachand: What I can say is that the Prime Minister is
busy rewriting Canadian foreign policy all by himself.
Officially, Canada's foreign policy does not recognize Israeli
control over the territories occupied in 1967, including the
Golan heights.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
1430
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen so many spin
doctors at work at the same time.
What I can say is that the Prime Minister is contradicting
Canada's foreign policy, which can be found on its Internet
site.
Is it not true that the Prime Minister is screwing up Canada's
current foreign policy?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an important, non-partisan observer in the region,
Professor Menachem Magidor, president of the Hebrew University,
said:
We admire Canada...because of its commitment towards peace and
prosperity. And we are all aware that it is due to your personal
leadership and courage, Mr. Prime Minister, that Canada is a
major player—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the answer of
the hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is more
sense and more weight in the words of the president of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, who is there on the scene and said these
words to our Prime Minister just the other day, than the nonsense
spoken by the Conservative Party, especially in light of the
experience of their current leader, Joe Clark, when he was Prime
Minister of Canada for a few months, something he will not be
again after the mess he made of his year as prime minister,
especially with respect to the Middle East.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general says that the government has
mismanaged criminal information. The Canadian Police Information
Centre, CPIC, is down 880 hours a year. It is handling 10 times
the volume it was designed for.
As a result, 20,000 law enforcement officers across Canada have
been precluded from making three million inquiries. What a gift
for the criminals. What is with this solicitor general?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times,
the government showed where its commitment was when it allocated
$810 million of new money to the office of the solicitor general
and $584 million of that to the RCMP.
Before that, $115 million were allocated to the very system that
my hon. colleague speaks about, the CPIC system. We are well
aware it needed to be updated and put in shape. We allocated
last year $115 million so the RCMP and other police forces across
the country would have the necessary tools to do the job.
1435
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about that $115 million. The auditor
general says:
Because the replacement project has been delayed for more than 10
years, there is uncertainty about whether the existing system
will be able to function until the new system is ready.
Why does the solicitor general have such an easy time finding
money for the drug research centre in his own riding but cannot
find money for the RCMP?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why I am interested in drug research is
that 50% of people who commit a federal offence are intoxicated
when they do so.
It would certainly make common sense to me that we address the
major problem, but beyond that we also addressed the CPIC problem
when we put $115 million in place to make sure that the computer
system was in place for all police forces across the country.
We indicated that we would give police the tools to do the job,
and we did just that.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Placeteco's
owner, Claude Gauthier, compared the HRDC grant to his wife
giving him some money to buy himself some fishing gear.
Incredible.
Do these rather astonishing statements made by the individual at
Placeteco who found himself the recipient of a $1.2 million
grant not say a lot about the attitude of those involved in this
affair, where the main person involved looks on the grant money
as an extremely nice gift from his friend the Prime Minister?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me say that the facts of the
relationship we have with the companies have not changed. There
is no basis for an overpayment to be established. The invoices
are there to support the investments we have made and 170 people
are working.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
how the minister can actually tell us there was no overpayment
when we know very well that a large part of the grant was for
the creation of jobs and not a single one was created. If no
jobs were created, is not every cent an overpayment?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were to follow the advice of the
hon. member, 170 men and women would not be employed in areas of
high unemployment.
Again I say that we believe we have done the right thing and we
believe their approach is wrong.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of Indian affairs. Yesterday the
minister admitted that he is failing aboriginal children.
His department mismanages the expenditure of a billion dollars a
year. It is supposed to be for aboriginal education. As a
result, aboriginal children are 20 years behind the rest of the
country. The minister has had 24 hours to do his homework. What
is his defence today?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government to government
relationship we have with the first nations is working very well.
In the last two years we have done significant remodelling of
the relationship with first nations.
The education dollars available to first nations are all
accounted for in those budgets, and they are continuing to work
on that.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general emphatically disagrees with the minister. The
minister talks about the studies that have been done and about
Gathering Strength as a response to the auditor general's report.
The auditor general says there have been over 22 studies done
over 20 years and there has been no improvement. The auditor
general says that Gathering Strength cannot demonstrate that it
will result in any improvement for aboriginal children.
Why should anybody believe the minister? Why should aboriginal
children believe him when he says that will be the answer to
their problem, and why should they have to pay for the minister's
mismanagement?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the member
stands and makes those kinds of comments, he might keep in mind
that the government transfers those funds to first nations and it
is under their control.
What he is doing basically is accusing the first nations and the
teachers who are working with those kids of mismanaging the
funds, and in fact they are not.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
GROWING OF CANNABIS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
few days, criminals will resume their illegal production of
cannabis in the fields of the greater Saint-Hyacinthe region.
These criminals will confiscate land and again terrorize
thousands of farm families. Nothing will have changed, despite
the government's promises.
How does the solicitor general explain that his government has
increased the RCMP's overall budget by $200 million this year
but that the number of full time RCMP officer positions at the
Saint-Hyacinthe detachment in one of the largest cannabis-growing
regions in Quebec will be cut in half?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, these
investigations are led by the SQ and supported by the RCMP. We
will continue to do so.
If a member shifted from one detachment to another, it would be
for internal reasons within the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not wish to speak about my case in particular, but does the
solicitor general realize that, because he is not assuming his
responsibilities, the Saint-Hyacinthe region RCMP will not devote
any resources this year to the fight against drug traffickers,
and that these gangs of criminals will be allowed to continue to
terrorize thousands of farm families—men, women and children?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern. I
can assure him that the RCMP takes this matter very seriously.
However, as I indicated previously, the investigation is led by
the SQ and then supported by the RCMP. The RCMP will continue to
support the SQ and other police forces across the country in
situations like this one.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general's report states that many of the
required assessments are missing and that there is inadequate
monitoring of aboriginal education programs by the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The auditor general could not figure out where the money went.
Maybe the minister would like to tell us, if he can and if he
will.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is well known that money
as it relates to education is being transferred through
agreements to the first nations school boards and education
systems on reserve and off reserve.
The hon. member should keep in mind that a vast majority of the
young people who belong to first nations go to school in
provincial schools, working with provincial administrators and
provincial educators. Those funds are all based on a per capita
basis for education purposes.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general speaks of sloppy administration,
inadequate monitoring and lack of accountability in the
minister's own department.
The minister says he has a plan to fix it, but here is the
issue. The lives of aboriginal children and $1 billion worth of
taxpayer dollars are at stake. That minister is responsible. Who
will the minister blame for the shambles in aboriginal education?
Will it be the provinces and the bands?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that
the member opposite and his party do not have a clue what they
are talking about.
If they knew what they were talking about, they would realize
that in the last 20 years alone we went from no students in
post-secondary education to 27,000 aboriginal students in
post-secondary education, a significant improvement.
That is not to suggest that we do not have a long way to go, but
the reason we are successful is that we are transferring the
control of those children to their families and to their first
nations.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Agriculture claims that GMO exports are not threatened.
Yet, farmers have experienced difficulties in selling certain
GMO crops, because European and Asian consumers do not want them
and support mandatory labelling.
Does the minister not realize that farmers are directly affected
by his reluctance to take action on this issue?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained a number of times, I
think almost daily, to the hon. member, the House and all
Canadians, what we are doing in order to provide the information.
The industry is working toward that. We do not have any major
trade problems at the present time. Some countries are saying
that they are moving toward a different set of labelling.
However, none of them have been able to indicate or prove that at
this time because they do not have credible, meaningful and
enforceable legislation in place.
* * *
WATERWAYS
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Great
Lakes and Lake St. Clair water levels are at historical lows. A
caution warning has been issued to mariners throughout the entire
system. As well, internationally designated safe harbours are
not accessible. Immediate dredging assistance is needed to assist
the commercial and recreational industries that operate on these
waterways. How will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assist
all boaters on our lakes this spring?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Essex. She has articulated to me, as have many members, the
difficulties private marinas are facing because of the low water
levels. I will certainly consider her representation and see
what options exist.
I think she knows that the DFO mandate requires us not to
provide dredging in the private marinas. I will consider the
representation and look at what options are available for this
difficult problem.
* * *
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Steve Hindle, the president of the union that represents
Revenue Canada auditors said, “When head office officials
overrule assessments by Revenue Canada auditors and doubles a tax
credit by tens of millions of dollars, it reeks of political
interference”.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Why is it
that every time auditors look into the government's management of
programs, they turn up political interference?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Canadian Alliance members
were well informed about the research and development tax credit
program, they would know that this is an administrative program
managed by the public service and based on the expenses incurred
by all the companies asking to participate in it.
Obviously, there cannot be any political interference in such a
process. That is very clear.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think political interference is everywhere. HRDC
employees are advertising and taking out radio ads complaining
about political interference. The RCMP is investigating in the
Prime Minister's riding. Now the president of the union for
Revenue Canada auditors is saying that there is political
interference.
Let me ask the minister again, why is it that every time there
is an audit, it turns up the smell of political interference?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously that member
of the Reform Party must be dreaming. There is no political
interference into the question of the management of the SR&ED; tax
credit. As I said in French, it is quite obvious that it is an
administrative process based on claims by corporations. We look
at expenses and then they are given the credits. It is as simple
as that. It is impossible to be politically involved in such a
process.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government tabled species at risk legislation
yesterday and already it is being described as an environmental
embarrassment.
When it comes to protecting animals or plants at risk, the
government is putting politics ahead of protection. The minister
could have and should have left it to scientists to decide which
species would be protected. Instead, he left this life and death
decision in the hands of the Liberal cabinet.
Will the minister commit to amending the bill so that scientists
and not Liberal politicians will have the final word on species
to be protected?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is correct at least to the extent that
the bill was tabled yesterday. The bill will be sent to committee
and he will find there is ample opportunity for examination and
any suggestions he may wish to make for change.
I would suggest to him that the proposals he has made here would
deny a right that people have had since the Magna Carta. In other
words, when one's livelihood or land is affected by government
action, one has a right to be heard. The socialists over there do
not seem to think that right is valuable; they do not seem to
think it is useful. We on this side of the House think it is
important.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to see endangered species protected
from extinction and they do not want to entrust that task to
Liberal cabinet ministers.
For example, if the beluga whale is in danger of extinction
because an aluminum company is polluting its habitat, the beluga
whale should be protected, period. This bill leaves the door
wide open for that company to lobby Liberal politicians not to
protect the beluga whale and its habitat. This is wrong and the
Liberal chair of the environment committee, that famous
socialist, says it is wrong.
Will the minister, despite his comments, admit the error of his
ways and allow scientists, and not politicians, to decide which
species are to be protected?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we now have these apologists for socialism
explaining their position. They are saying that no matter what
the social or economic impact on any scientific listing, nobody
will listen to the people, the industries or the communities
affected. It will all be done by scientists and the scientists
will not even take that into account either. They are only
considering the one question of whether the animal is endangered.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
here we go again with the Liberal government's slash and burn
policies.
The CBC is looking at closing down English language TV studios
in Montreal. Therefore local Quebec programming will be live and
direct from downtown Toronto. Does that not have a nice Quebec
flavour. Is this the new policy to better serve the anglophone
community of Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I guess the member must be clairvoyant because I
have not heard any news of any closures.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, if
it is not proposed policy, why are they even talking about it?
We know they have already considered shutting down CBC Radio in
Quebec City but have backed off on that now.
My question is simple. What is the future of local CBC English
media in the province of Quebec? I emphasize the word local.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the member has information on this issue I would
be happy to have him bring it forward. At the moment, my
understanding is that the CBC is looking at a number of options.
Not only have no options been made, but we have certainly
discussed nothing about it.
* * *
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROMÉO DALLAIRE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians feel a sense of loss today with the news that one of
Canada's most dedicated and respected military leaders is
retiring. Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire has served Canada
and the cause of peacekeeping with integrity and great personal
courage, especially as the UN commander in Rwanda in 1993-94.
Can the Minister of National Defence share with the House his
comments on the retirement of General Dallaire and what we have
learned from his horrible experiences in Rwanda?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire is
taking early retirement for health reasons. He has left an
enduring mark of dedication and duty to this country and to the
Canadian forces.
Rwanda has left a mark on him and on his life. He witnessed the
horrors of Rwanda. He witnessed the butchery of Rwanda.
1455
Let us learn the lesson and honour him by saying that we should
never allow that kind of thing to happen again.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of National
Defence may continue.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I think the House
has demonstrated its support for what I have just said. I know
all members of the House would join me in paying tribute to
Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire, to extend our best wishes and
our thanks to him. He has been a great soldier, a great patriot
and a great humanitarian.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to the union president for Revenue Canada's
auditors, yesterday's auditor general's report confirmed that
there is, and I want the minister to listen to this, “political
interference at Revenue Canada in the settling of tax credits”.
Head office regularly interferes and approves tens of millions of
dollars in credits that its auditors cannot justify.
Why is the head office of Revenue Canada, the revenue agency,
approving these tax credits that its own auditors cannot justify?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that
question. This is an administrative process involving the whole
department, and it is based on expenses.
I think that the report tabled yesterday by the auditor general
is an important and interesting document, which was prepared in
co-operation with the agency. It includes suggestions on how to
improve the program's operation.
I have a question for the opposition. Today, they are using that
report to score cheap political points.
Where were they when it was time to do something to improve the
credit? Where were they when it was time to work together with—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I remind members that they must always address the
Chair.
* * *
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in a newspaper interview, an RCMP spokesperson is quoted as
saying that Revenue Canada had not co-operated in the RCMP
investigation into CINAR, contrary to what the Minister of
National Revenue said on Monday.
Can the Minister of National Revenue tell us whether he is
prepared to enter into an agreement with the RCMP, as he has in
other cases, in order to allow the RCMP access to the data
required for evidence?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already said on
several occasions, there is one fundamental principle underlying
the Canadian taxation system, and that is the confidentiality of
all files.
That said, I can assure the House that we have co-operated in the
past, are co-operating at present, and will continue to co-operate
in future with the RCMP in all cases, while keeping in mind, of
course, the principle of confidentiality so dear to all the
people of Canada.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance
who I am sure is as concerned as anyone about inefficient and
ineffective tax expenditures. We note that the auditor general
has pointed out that for $2 billion in R and D tax credit
expenditures or losses in revenue, only between $20 million and
$50 million of new additional R and D has actually occurred.
Does the Minister of Finance not agree that it is time to assess
the R and D tax credit program on a cost benefit basis to ensure
that the taxpayers of Canada are getting the appropriate bang for
their buck?
1500
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the finance department study showed was that there
is a net benefit to the R and D tax credit substantially over and
above the amount of tax revenue that is lost. It is a very
positive program, as indeed is the entire support for research
and development in the country.
When we first took office we substantially tightened up the
program. However, the hon. member's question is nonetheless
valid to the point that what it says is that there is a balance
which has to be determined, and we will continue to make sure we
monitor that very closely.
* * *
ENERGY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for energy.
The governments of Newfoundland and Quebec are currently
negotiating a lower Churchill project. These negotiations will
not involve the power line to the island of Newfoundland unless
the federal government is willing to assist financially in its
construction.
Is the Government of Canada willing to assist financially in
building that line?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have undertaken, with the Government of Newfoundland,
to participate in an economic analysis of that particular
proposal, together with other possible options with respect to
the future energy requirements of Newfoundland. That work is
ongoing. I would expect that the outcome of that work could be
released in the next short while. In the meantime, I would make
the point that no financial commitment has been made.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF A DOCUMENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the fifth party, I
believe the Deputy Prime Minister read directly from a document
during question period today. Would he be able to table that
document for the House?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister
was quoting from the Jerusalem Post newspaper online. This
document is not translated. It is rather unusual to translate
newspapers, although I am quite prepared to have the text
translated and tabled. Actually I would be prepared to table a
copy of the Toronto Star as well, if the hon. member would
like one of those every now and then.
1505
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette has
asked that a document be tabled, as it was quoted. The hon.
House leader has said he has the document. I am sure that if he
has the document translated he will bring it to the House and
table it.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and
the member for Prince George—Peace River concerning the taking
of the division on Bill C-223, scheduled at the conclusion of
Private Members' Business today, and I believe you would find
consent for the following. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-223, all
questions necessary to dispose of the motion for second reading
of this bill be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
TREATIES RATIFIED IN 1998
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I am pleased to table in the House, in both official
languages, 47 treaties that came into force in 1998, a list of
which is also tabled.
[English]
As we have done previously, I am also providing to the Library
of Parliament CD-ROMs which contain electronic versions of these
treaties in order to provide wide accessibility to the text and
reduce the paper burden.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour
to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1999 annual
report of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the 1996-97 and
1997-98 annual reviews of the implementation of the Yukon land
claims agreement, and the 1998-99 annual report for the
implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene and Metis
comprehensive land claims agreements.
* * *
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, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 89
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee held a number
of hearings on the subject of Iraq, meeting with NGOs and other
Canadian experts, and we have put forward our submissions in this
written report.
No one seeks to rewrite history to absolve Saddam Hussein of
blame for the events in the gulf war, but the international
community was rightly united on the need to find and destroy
Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. Yet the
fact is that the international regime designed to maintain
pressure on the Iraqi regime, including both sanctions and the
separate enforcement of no-fly zones in Iraq, had a terrible
humanitarian impact on the people of that country.
[Translation]
The committee feels, therefore, that it is possible to remedy
the human tragedy in Iraq with all due expediency while
satisfying the imperatives of security. It has therefore
adopted this report in the form of a resolution in order to make
these recommendations available to the Government of Canada
without delay.
[English]
Canada has already played an important role in this issue in the
year since it joined the security council, and can still do more.
As president of the security council this month, Canada is
pursuing the reform of sanctions and we urge them to do more.
1510
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee recommends
that it be granted leave to travel from May 28 to June 8, 2000 to
Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador
and P.E.I. to continue its comprehensive study of 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.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 26th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in both official
languages, regarding the associate membership of some standing
committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this 26th report later this day.
* * *
[Translation]
FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-476, an act respecting the posting of
fuel prices by retailers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill is that, when a
fuel retailer causes a poster, label or sign to be posted
indicating the selling price for a fuel, the price must be
indicated without regard to any taxes imposed on the consumer
under an act of Parliament or an act of the legislature of a
province.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 26th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to see you in the chair.
There are some people in the country who are not thrilled about
the fact that the British Columbia Court of Appeal did, on June
30, 1999, dismiss the appeal to reinstate subsection 4 of section
163.1 of the criminal code, making possession of child
pornography illegal in British Columbia.
Possession of child pornography in B.C. is now legal because of
this decision, and because the well-being and safety of children
are put in jeopardy, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the
petitioners are asking that parliament be recalled at the
earliest possible opportunity—in fact we could probably do it
today—to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and
freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. court
of appeal decision and reinstate subsection 4 of section 163.1 of
the criminal code, making possession of child pornography
illegal.
OLD AGE SECURITY
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 my riding of
Pierrefonds—Dollard.
As the white paper issued by the government on March 6, 1996
admitted the fact that the law has been unfair to some
individuals in granting them old age security, the petitioners
are asking the Canadian parliament to grant old age security to
all seniors over the age of 65, irrespective of their country of
origin.
[Translation]
PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICING
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition bearing 3,600 signatures.
This petition has to do with petroleum product price increases.
The petitioners call upon parliament to take all necessary steps
to identify and recommend, as quickly as possible, concrete
means for dealing with the excessive price hikes for petroleum
products, and for permanently regularizing pricing.
1515
[English]
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a
petition signed by residents of the Whitby, Dundas and Grand Bend
areas.
The petitioners urge the government to continue studying the
adverse health and environmental effects of the fuel additive
MMT, with a mind to banning the substance as most other nations
have done.
RURAL ROUTE COURIERS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to present a petition on behalf of about 50 people in
rural Nova Scotia who are very concerned about rural route
couriers.
The petitioners believe that the couriers earn less than the
minimum wage in many instances, that they are not able to bargain
collectively to improve their wages, and that because they are
private sector workers delivering mail they are not part of the
bargaining rights given to public sector workers who deliver mail
for Canada Post.
The petitioners are very much in support of the removal of
section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibiting
rural route couriers from having collective bargaining rights.
PERTH—MIDDLESEX
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
submit petitions signed by residents in my riding of
Perth—Middlesex.
BILL C-23
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have
yet another petition from residents of Swift Current with respect
to Bill C-23. Unfortunately it is after the fact due to the
indecent haste of the government to bulldoze the bill through
parliament.
The petitioners give several reasons for their opinions. The
final one is that it would be an inappropriate intrusion and
discriminatory for the federal government to extend benefits
based on a person's private sexual activity.
Although it is too late, they have petitioned parliament to
withdraw Bill C-23 and that the opposite sex definition of
marriage be affirmed in legislation so that marriage is
recognized as a unique institution.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from 84 people. The petitioners call upon parliament to
enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition.
The petitioners are concerned with the high incidence of breast
cancer in Canada.
They call upon parliament and the Canadian nation to develop
programs that would assist women who are afflicted with or may
have this terrible disease.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure today of depositing three very brief petitions with
the House.
The first petition deals with section 43 amendments to the
criminal code. The petitioners ask parliament to not change those
particular provisions of the code and argue and put forward to
the House that the best interests of children are served, not by
the state but by parents.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition says that whereas Canadians are horrified by
pornography which depicts children and are astounded by legal
determinations that possession of such pornography is not
criminal, they petition the House to protect those children.
HEALTH
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present the last petition which argues that every
Canadian has the inherent constitutional right to freely decide
what medical procedures are performed on his or her body, whereas
many safety concerns regarding the anthrax vaccine have now come
forward in the United States.
The petitioners pray and ask the House of Commons that those
constitutional inherent rights will be respected.
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions. The first is on the subject of breast
cancer.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canada
has the second highest rate of breast cancer in the world and,
among other things, Canada has no legislation for mandatory
mammography quality assurance standards.
They point out that one in nine Canadian women will develop
breast cancer in their lifetime, and also that early detection
remains the only known weapon in the battle against this disease.
1520
The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control centres in Canada.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition, signed by a number of Canadians, including
those in my own riding of Mississauga South, is on the subject of
child poverty.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that one in
five children in Canada live in poverty. They also note that the
House of Commons on November 24, 1989 passed a resolution to seek
to achieve the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to use the
federal budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being Canada's children, and it appears that the government
has done just that.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. Q-80 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 80—Mr. Peter MacKay:
From the year of 1993 up to and including the present day, could
the government provide a detailed breakdown of the cost of the
chase vehicles, including the modifications and the gas mileage,
used in the transportation of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
For security reasons, details regarding the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, RCMP, protective operations for the Prime
Minister cannot be revealed. The RCMP is unable to provide
modification costs, gas mileage and the specific number of
vehicles utilized. However, the RCMP can state that the total
operation package, which incorporates the yearly average fuel
consumption and the maintenance program, costs approximately
$17,722.50. This amount also incorporates the fuel and
maintenance of the Prime Minister's limousine. Therefore, the
total fuel and maintenance program for the past seven years is
approximately (7 x $17,722.50) $124,057.00. The average purchase
price of RCMP escort vehicles is approximately $25,000.00 and
these vehicles are replaced on a rotational basis every four
years.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder
if the parliamentary secretary would be so kind as to tell the
people of Hamilton and Wentworth area when they would be able to
receive the documents pertaining to a Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers that was applied for on November 19, 1999
regarding the Red Hill Creek Expressway.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member knows that government staff work assiduously to
provide answers to questions and documents requested by members
in the House where they can be appropriately disclosed.
I would be pleased to provide a specific answer on that
particular motion forthwith and hopefully the matter can be
disposed of in the House shortly.
If the hon. member would like to call that item today, it could
be transferred for debate.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion No.
P-17 to be called.
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos,
correspondence and briefings since 1983 with respect to the Red
Hill Creek Expressway, and since 1994 with respect to the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Red Hill Creek
Expressway.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to the rules of the House, as a minister of
the crown, I would ask that this Motion for the Production of
Papers No. P-17 be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to
call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers No. P-10.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and
invoices relating to Canada's second report to the United Nations
on the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Departments of
Health and Justice are concerned, the second report of the United
Nations on the International Convention on the Rights of the
Child is presently in draft form and is therefore not yet
available in both official languages. All other documentation
and correspondence, which is not exempt from production, such as
internal departmental memoranda, is of a voluminous nature and
would require an inordinate cost or length of time to produce. I
would therefore would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, again in accordance
with Rule 97(1), as a minister of the crown I would ask that this
matter be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate.
1525
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 28, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak today at second reading of Bill C-32, the budget 2000
implementation omnibus bill.
[Translation]
Budget 2000 is an historic budget. As the Minister of Finance
stated in his budget speech, not only is the deficit a matter of
history, but the government is now projecting its third, fourth
and fifth balanced budgets in a row, something that has not been
done in nearly half a century.
[English]
However, there are other tangible reasons why budget 2000
represents a dramatic advance for Canada and Canadians. Budget
2000 addresses the fundamental challenges we face as a nation,
challenges we identified in last October's fall update.
First, as the minister said, the government will continue to
provide sound fiscal management. He said that the days of
deficits are gone and they are not coming back.
Second, the government will lower taxes to promote economic
growth and to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians.
Third, in order to ensure equality of opportunity, the
government will make investments to provide Canadians with the
skills and knowledge they need to get the jobs they want.
Fourth, the minister said that together we will build an economy
based on innovation.
All Canadians can be proud of the government's record. However,
as the minister also stated, it is not a record on which we are
prepared to rest. Canadians do not want to dwell on the past;
they want to focus on the future. Indeed, that is the message of
this budget.
Again, to paraphrase the minister, the government's challenge
now is to build on this newfound strength. The government is
sticking to its plan of sound fiscal management, lower taxes and
investing in skills, knowledge and innovation. Through this
plan, the quality of life for Canadians and their children will
be enhanced.
Quality of life runs the gamut, from access to quality health
care and post-secondary education, to healthy children, secure
families and vibrant communities. It also includes sharing the
benefits of economic prosperity with those who need support the
most. That is what we are doing through this budget omnibus
bill, implementing the budget's proposals to strengthen
post-secondary education and health care, and to help children
get the best possible start in life.
The bill we are debating today contains 10 measures that were
announced in the 2000 budget. Three of these measures are of
particular importance to the nation's well-being, starting with
our health care and education systems, continuing through better
assistance to families with children, and finally, financial
assistance to students. To provide these benefits on time, these
measures must be passed before the House adjourns this summer.
1530
[Translation]
First, this bill amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act to authorize payment of the $2.5 billion
increase to the Canada health and social transfer for health
care and post-secondary education to a trust in support of health
and post-secondary education.
[English]
Second, the Income Tax Act is amended to increase child tax
benefits and to provide indexed GST benefits as of July 2000.
Third, the bill amends the Canada Student Assistance Act to
ensure uninterrupted delivery of student loans after the current
agreement with financial institutions expires on July 31, 2000.
Again let me emphasize the timing for the passage of these three
measures is crucial. If we delay, it is Canadians who will
suffer.
The remaining seven components of the bill may not face the same
deadline. They are, however, just as important for millions of
Canadians and for the effective and efficient operation of
government.
These measures would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the
Canada Labour Code to double maternity and parental leave to one
year. They would increase the foreign property content limit in
RRSPs and other deferred income plans. They would amend the
Canada pension plan to allow provinces to redeem securities given
to the CPP investment fund. They would amend the Special Import
Measures Act to bring Canadian countervailing duty laws into line
with recent changes to the World Trade Organization agreement on
subsidies and countervailing measures. They would enable certain
first nations to levy a 7% tax on sales of fuel, alcohol and
tobacco products on reserve. They would amend the Excise Tax Act
to preserve the GST-HST base and avoid tax evasion.
I would now like to discuss each of these 10 measures in some
detail. I will begin with the $2.5 billion increase to the CHST.
[Translation]
The minister summed up the reasons for this measure in his
budget speech when he said:
The success that we have achieved as a nation has come not only
from strong growth but from an abiding commitment to strong
values: caring, compassion and insistence that there be an
equitable sharing of the benefits of economic growth.
[English]
For this reason the first announcement in the first budget of
the 21st century was that we would increase funding for
post-secondary education and health care. These are the highest
priorities of Canadians and they are ours.
Bill C-32 legislates a $2.5 billion increase in the Canada
health and social transfer. These funds will be distributed to
provinces and territories on a per capita basis and paid into a
trust from which they can draw down over four years, beginning as
soon as the bill is passed.
As hon. members know, the federal government transfers
approximately $40 billion a year to the provinces and territories
through three major programs to help them provide vital services
to Canadians. The first program is the CHST which supports
health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and
social services in the form of cash and tax transfers. It is
also the largest federal transfer. The second is equalization
which enables less prosperous provinces to offer comparable
public services to those in other areas of the country. The
final one is the territorial formula financing for public
services in the north.
The federal government has already acted three times before now
in the 1996, 1998 and 1999 budgets to strengthen the CHST.
Combined with the value of tax transfers, total CHST in 1999-2000
was $29.4 billion higher than in 1993-94. With this new
supplement it will be close to $31 billion for 2000-01.
That also incorporates the $11.5 billion added to the CHST in the
1999 budget.
1535
This additional support will provide an additional $1 billion in
fiscal year 2000-01 and $500 million a year in each of the
following three years for post-secondary education and health
care.
As I said, combined with the 1999 budget $11.5 billion
investment this means that the cash component of the CHST will
reach $15.5 billion in each of the next four years, an increase
of almost 25% from the 1998-99 level. If Canadians compare that
with the rhetoric of the opposition parties, they will understand
the government's huge commitment and priority attached to health
care and education.
As I indicated, this supplement will be paid into a third party
trust and the provinces and the territories will have the
flexibility to draw on it as they see fit.
The bill should be passed quickly in order to get much needed
money into the health care system to deal with the pressing needs
of Canadians. Some Canadians might wonder, if there is money on
deposit sitting there that is not being implemented by the health
care system in certain provinces, why the government would do
that.
We are responding to the very urgent needs of Canadians in the
health care system. Whether that is in emergency rooms, waiting
lists for surgery or whatever the case may be, the provinces have
the flexibility to draw on it as they need it.
[Translation]
Another key measure in this bill concerns child tax benefits.
As the minister emphasized in the budget, “assisting families is
not only the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do”.
Let there be no doubt, he went on to say, that one of the best
things we can do is to leave parents with more money at the end
of each month to invest in their children's well-being.
[English]
Budget 2000 does exactly that. To fully protect taxpayers
against inflation the budget restores full indexation of the
personal income tax system effective January 1, 2000.
This is the most important change to the Canadian tax system in
more than a decade. Indexation has applied to personal income
taxation for inflation but only when it reached over 3%. It has
been that way since 1986. Indexation will particularly benefit
middle and low income Canadians because of bracket creep and the
fact that these taxpayers generally receive the benefits under
the child tax credit and the GST credit.
As hon. members are aware, the Canada child tax benefit is a key
element of federal assistance to families. It has two
components: the Canada child tax base benefit for low and middle
income families and the national child benefit supplement for low
income families.
To further help families with the added expense of raising
children, the bill also increases Canada child tax benefits by
$2.5 billion annually by the year 2004. The government's goal is
to increase the maximum Canada child tax benefit for the first
child to $2,400 by then through fully indexing the Canada child
tax benefit, increasing both the base benefit and the national
child benefit supplement beyond indexation, increasing the income
thresholds at which the base benefit begins to be reduced and the
national child benefit supplement is fully phased out, and
lowering the reduction rate for the base benefit.
These changes will bring the maximum Canada child tax benefit
for the first child to $2,056 in July 2000 and to $2,265 in July
2001, well on the way to the five year goal of $2,400 which I
just mentioned.
For the second child the goal is to raise the maximum Canada
child tax benefit to $2,200 in 2004.
1540
This means that benefits to middle income families will be
substantially increased. For example, a family with two children
with an income of $60,000 will see its Canada child tax benefit
more than doubled from its pre-2000 budget level of $733 to
$1,541 by 2004.
Overall these increases by the end of five years will bring the
Canada child tax benefit to more than $9 billion annually, of
which $6 billion will go to low income families and $3 billion to
modest and middle income families.
The fact that low and middle income Canadian families are
depending on the Canada child tax benefit increases and indexed
GST benefits this coming July is another reason to pass the
legislation without delay.
[Translation]
The federal government is taking the necessary steps to ensure
that students who need student loans when they go back to school
in September will receive them in time. This bill ensures that
money will be available to students in need.
By way of background, the Canada Student Loans Program has
played an important role in expanding access to post-secondary
education since 1964.
Through loans and other financial assistance totalling over
$15 billion, approximately 2.7 million students have been helped
since then.
Annually, the program helps over 350,000 needy Canadian students
access post-secondary education.
[English]
Until now Canada student loans have been administered and
delivered on behalf of the federal government by financial
institutions, an arrangement that will expire on January 31,
2000. Bill C-32 ensures that the Canada student loans program
will continue to serve students after July 31 of this year. Money
will be available for student borrowers and there will be no
interruption in service.
The role of the Government of Canada is to provide the finances
necessary to support the Canada student loans program. Loans
will be administered by service providers on behalf of the
federal government. Service providers, which many financial
institutions currently use to administer their own loan
portfolios, are private companies that have the capacity to
administer loan portfolios including student loans.
Service providers would sign an agreement with the government to
establish loan accounts, maintain contact with the borrowers and
administer the loan once the borrower begins repayment. I want
to assure students that there will be no significant changes to
the program. Students who have already consolidated their loans
and are repaying them will not be affected at all.
Before hon. members ask about students who have difficulty
meeting their repayments, may I remind them that the federal and
provincial governments have greatly increased the assistance
available to borrowers having difficulties repaying their loans.
One thing is for certain. This new program will be in place for
those students who need financial assistance next fall. I am
sure hon. colleagues will support this measure.
The 2000 budget also does a lot for parents of newborn and newly
adopted children. It extends parental leave under the employment
insurance program and makes benefits more flexible and
accessible. At present, including the standard two week waiting
period for benefits, the EI program provides up to six months of
maternity and parental leave benefits for new parents. That is
15 weeks of maternity benefits for recovery from child birth and
10 weeks of parental leave available for both adoptive and
biological parents.
The maximum amount of child related leave will now be doubled to
one year. This will be done by increasing parental leave to 35
weeks, which can be claimed by either parent or divided between
them. Combined with 15 weeks of maternity leave and the standard
two week waiting period, the amount of child related leave will
be one full year.
1545
In addition, maternity and parental benefits will be made more
accessible by lowering from 700 to 600 the number of insurable
hours that must be worked to be eligible. Parents will be
eligible for benefits with as little as 12 hours of work a week
over the course of a year.
In addition, parents will have greater flexibility in choosing
whether one or both of them spend time at home with a new child.
Only one waiting period will apply rather than two as is
currently the case.
[Translation]
Finally, parents will be allowed to work part time while
receiving parental benefits in the same way as regular EI
claimants. This will help mothers, if they and their employers
choose, to gradually return to the workplace following their
maternity leave, and also enable parents to maintain their
skills and work contacts while taking parental leave.
[English]
Further, income earned while receiving parental benefits will be
treated the same as for regular EI benefits. Parents can earn up
to 25% of their weekly benefit or $50, whichever is higher,
without affecting their EI benefits.
All of these parental leave benefits changes will positively
impact some 150,000 families each year at an estimated annual
cost of $900 million.
In addition, the Canada Labour Code is being amended so that
employees in federally regulated workplaces will have their jobs
protected during the extended parental leave period.
I would like to move along now and discuss some of the other
measures in the bill.
For example, there is one measure that affects registered
retirement savings plans, RRSPs, and registered pension plans,
RPPs, which are the primary source of retirement income for
middle income Canadians. Several entities, including the House
of Commons finance committee, the Senate banking committee and
the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, have asked the
government to reconsider the current level for the limit on
foreign property investments in registered pension plans and
RRSPs. As a result, to provide better opportunities for
Canadians to diversify their personal retirement savings
investments through RPPs and RRSPs, the foreign content limit on
those investments will be raised from 20% to 25% for 2000 and to
30% for 2001. These increases will also apply to the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board.
Speaking of the CPP, there is an amendment in the bill that
directly affects the plan. Let me explain the background to this
change.
Following extensive public consultations, federal and provincial
governments agreed in 1997 on major changes to the Canada pension
plan which were enacted by parliament in 1997 and brought into
effect in 1998. The changes are expected to sustain the Canada
pension plan throughout the aging of the population and the
retirement of the baby boom generation.
Contribution rates are increasing in a phased manner. This will
create a sound, adequately funded plan whose earnings can help
pay for future benefits. The Canada pension plan provides a
basic level of earnings replacement on which tax assisted private
pension plans and RRSPs can build.
One of the important changes in 1997 supported by all Canadians,
perhaps with the exception of the Canadian Alliance party, was to
enhance the returns to plan members by investing in the market
funds not needed immediately to pay for benefits. A fully
independent investment board operating at arm's length from
government manages these market investments in the best interests
of CPP plan members.
1550
The CPP legislation allows all provinces to borrow from the CPP
for terms of up to 20 years. The proposed amendment before the
House is to allow the provinces to prepay their obligations to
the Canada pension plan in advance of maturity and at no cost to
the Canada pension plan.
The provinces asked for this change and federal and provincial
finance ministers agreed to it at their meeting last December.
This will provide more flexibility for provinces that are
enjoying fiscal surpluses as the economy booms and they are
looking for ways to reduce their debts. It also means that more
funds will be transferred to the CPP investment board and
invested in the market at higher expected returns.
Turning now to the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, these
amendments will bring Canadian countervailing duty laws into line
with recent changes to the World Trade Organization agreement on
subsidies and countervailing measures. The WTO subsidies
agreement contains provisions that rendered certain foreign
subsidies that satisfied very specific criteria immune from
countervailing duty action. These non-actionable subsidy
provisions lapsed on December 31, 1999 as a result of the failure
of WTO countries to agree to their extension.
The amendments in Bill C-32 allow for the suspension of
provisions in SIMA that implement these non-actionable subsidy
provisions into Canadian law. In addition to bringing Canadian
countervailing duty law into line with these recent changes to
the WTO subsidies agreement, these amendments will ensure that we
are not treating our trading partners more favourably than they
are treating us in countervailing duty investigations.
Bill C-32 also addresses first nations taxation. This year's
budget marked the fourth time that government has indicated its
willingness to enter into taxation arrangements with interested
first nations. As a result, the Cowichan tribes, the Westbank
first nation, the Kamloops Indian band and Sliammon first nation
all levy a tax on the sales of certain products on their
reserves. Personal income tax collection and sharing agreements
with the seven self-governing Yukon first nations are also now in
effect.
[Translation]
This legislation will enable 13 first nations, all listed in the
schedule that accompanies this bill, to levy a direct 7%
GST-style sales tax on fuel, alcohol and tobacco products sold on
their reserves.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will collect the first
nation sales taxes and the federal government will vacate the
GST room where the first nation tax applies.
[English]
In the future, interested first nations could be added to the
schedule through an order in council without the need for a
legislative amendment.
The Excise Tax Act is also amended in the bill. Among GST and
harmonized sales tax registrants there is generally a high degree
of voluntary compliance when it comes to reporting or remitting
tax. However, instances can arise where allowing a registrant
the usual remittance period can put these tax revenues at risk.
Where the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has reason to
suspect tax evasion in these circumstances, it has been powerless
to proceed with assessment and collection action. The bill
provides the Minister of National Revenue with the authority to
take immediate collection action to protect revenues in these
circumstances. The minister can now apply ex parte without
notice for judicial authorization to assess the registrant before
the normal due date and to take the necessary collection actions
to recover the money. The registrant will have the right to
apply for a judicial review of the court's decision.
I would like to point out that the Income Tax Act contains a
similar provision relating to the collection of income tax.
1555
In conclusion, I am confident that hon. members can be counted
on to pass this legislation with haste. Canadians across the
country are awaiting the benefits. We all know why this bill has
to be passed quickly.
[Translation]
First, the CHST increase must be enacted to get much needed
money into the health care system to deal with the pressing
needs of Canadians.
Second, in order for the child tax benefits and indexed GST
benefits to come into force on July 1, this legislation has to be
passed before the end of June.
And third, the bill must be passed in time for the student loan
program to be available for students entering school in
September.
[English]
I believe that one telling fact about the 2000 budget was the
respect it was accorded from hon. members opposite and from
Canadians in general. In fact, question period in this Chamber
the day following the Minister of Finance's speech was revealing
by how few questions were asked about the budget. Hon. members
opposite along with Canadians across the country knew that the
2000 budget delivered what the Minister of Finance promised: help
for low and modest income families with children, help for the
health care and post-secondary education systems, and help for
students who want to pursue higher education.
[Translation]
All are measures that build on the new-found strength the
minister talked about in the budget and which are designed to
improve the quality of life of Canadians.
This is a new budget signalling a new beginning for a new
century. Canada greeted the 21st century with a new fiscal
record and a renewed hope for improving the quality of life for
Canadians.
[English]
This is a government that cares and this is a government that
has a social conscience. The 2000 budget measures in this bill
reflect this. I urge my hon. colleagues to accord speedy passage
to this legislation.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise and debate Bill C-32, an act to
implement budget 2000.
I say to my friend across the way who has just spoken that if he
has a conscience, not just a social conscience, he must feel a
little twinge after what he said. He said some things that
really need to be responded to. I shall respond to them first
and then I shall deliver the body of my speech.
My friend across the way suggested that the official opposition,
the Canadian Alliance, did not ask questions about the budget the
day following its introduction in the House by the finance
minister. That is very telling; in fact, it speaks volumes about
the government, because during that question period the day after
the budget was introduced, every single question we asked was
about waste in government and about the scandal in human
resources development. Somehow my friend across the way thinks
that is not part of the budget, that the money which is
allocated, $15 billion a year toward grants and contributions,
somehow is not part of the budget. I guess the Liberals assume
it is part of Liberal play money.
Canadians pay a lot of taxes to fund the $15 billion which the
government uses so unwisely. I would suggest to my friend that
he may want to consider his definition of what constitutes
questions on the budget, because I would argue very strongly that
Canadians who have to pay those taxes, I can guarantee, feel that
it is part of the budget.
I want to comment in an organized way on budget 2000, on Bill
C-32, and I am about to do that. My friend across the way said
that we should pass this piece of legislation with haste. I
would argue that if we did that, we would be passing it with
waste. As I mentioned a minute ago, there is a lot of waste in
what the government does, and I am going to elaborate on that in
a moment.
I am going to argue that to support the government on Bill C-32
would simply be to entrench the terrible habits the government
has: the habit of underachieving, the habit of not addressing
huge problems which stand in front of it every day. Instead the
government tries to paper them over and throws some money at
them. It spends all kinds of money on reports and studies to
give people the impression of action, when that is not the case
at all.
1600
Let me remind my friend across the way of the huge problems that
face Canada today. We have a crisis in health care. Canadians
across the country are required to line up, queue up to get basic
services. This is ridiculous.
We are a country that spends a lot of money on health care
already. However, do we hear the government talking about making
some basic reforms so that we can ensure the money gets down to
the patients, that we have patient centred health care?
Absolutely not. Do we see a government that is willing to be
upfront and honest about how much money it actually delivers to
the provinces for health care? No.
In fact my friend just spent a long time talking about what they
have as done for health care. The simple fact is that in 1995
the cash transfers for health care were $18.8 billion. In the
next several years it will rise to $15.5 billion. In the interim
they cut it down as low as $12.2 billion. They cut the heart out
of it.
Mr. Roy Cullen: What about tax points?
Mr. Monte Solberg: I hear my hon. friend. In 1977 the
federal government agreed with the provinces to give back their
tax points. Tax points are tax revenue earned in the provinces
which goes to the federal government and is yielded back to the
provinces. That agreement was made 23 years ago. There were no
strings attached. No one said they had to go to a particular set
of services.
At what point does that money belong to the provinces? It is
not part of the cash transfer which the federal government
originally agreed to give to the provinces to ensure that things
like health care and higher education were funded. Absolutely
not.
If the government were honest for a moment, it would acknowledge
that cash transfers have dropped dramatically for health care.
Even with the money it put back in, it is nowhere near where it
was. The government has come nowhere near addressing the
problems in health care. All it can do today is pick fights with
the provinces.
Witness the problems with Ontario. Witness the problems with
Alberta right now. Its solution is to go to the level of
government that provides the services the moment it tries to do
anything different. The provinces are trying to find some way to
ensure that important health care services actually deal with the
needs of their own people. The federal government at every
opportunity dumps all over them and threatens to withhold
transfers. The only level of government which is showing any
kind of innovation is the provinces. The federal government's
answer is to hit them with the big hammer every time.
I do not think that is dealing with the problem. I would argue
it is trying to shift the blame to the provinces. I would argue
it is an abdication of its responsibility as the senior level of
government in Canada. It has completely abdicated its
responsibility.
There is an example of where budget 2000 and Bill C-32 fall
short of addressing a fundamental need of Canadians, which is
good and timely health care. It is not happening and Bill C-32
did not address it.
What are other examples of huge problems which the government
did not address? If we go through the entire budget, we find
piles of documents which are probably eight inches thick. Do we
ever see a mention of problems in human resources development, of
the mismanagement of funds?
If chief financial officers for a private sector company
produced an annual report which neglected to mention the type of
mismanagement the government is involved in human resources
development, in Indian affairs, in EDC, and in the scientific
research and experimental development tax credits, which the
auditor general reported on yesterday, and did not report on
those things, they would be fired so fast it would make their
heads spin.
They would probably be in big trouble with securities regulators
for producing a report that was so misleading.
1605
Does the government even feel a twinge of conscience about
producing a budget that does not mention these things? Not at
all. There was not a mention in my friend's speech across the
way of the problems in human resources development and the other
problems that have plagued the government over the last several
months. When people are not told the whole story it is the same
as telling a lie. I would argue that the government is not
telling Canadians the whole story.
What are some of the other problems that are not addressed in
the budget? Let us consider the fact that in Canada we have seen
disposable income virtually sit stagnant for 10 years. It has
finally risen about 5% over the last 10 years. Does the budget
deal with that problem?
My friend across the way will say that they brought in $58
billion in tax relief, but when we break it down is it really $58
billion? Let us go through the numbers. My friend talked about
the child tax benefit. Anybody who pays attention at all would
argue that it is not a tax break, that it is a social program.
What is the definition of a tax break? It is when the money is
left in people's pockets in the first place. It is not taken out
and redistributed so that some people get it back and some do
not. That is not a tax break. That is a social program. That
is what we do with the guaranteed income supplement and old age
security. Those are social programs. They are not tax cuts. We
cannot call that a tax cut. It is a social program of about $7.5
billion.
What about bracket creep? My friend mentioned that they
eliminated bracket creep and reindexed the tax system for a tax
break of $13 billion. Is that really a tax break? All that does
is cancel future tax increases.
We are happy the government has done it. It picked the pockets
of Canadians for a long time and milked the cow dry. That does
not mean all of a sudden when it quits doing it that the
government should be credited for cutting taxes. It simply is
not the case. It is a cancellation of future tax increases of
$13 billion.
The third trick it used was to suggest that if it cut taxes with
one hand and raised them with other somehow people would be
better off. That is exactly what it does. Let us consider that
over the next few years $29.5 billion will come out of the
pockets of taxpayers to pay for higher payroll taxes, Canada
pension plan taxes in particular. That largely erases any
benefit from income tax cuts that the government would bring in.
What is the net effect? Out of that $58 billion in tax relief
emblazoned in headlines the day after the budget Canadians will
get $8 billion. That is the real tax relief. When we break that
down per taxpayer, it means $100 in his or her pocket a year. It
should not be spent all in one place, that $2 a week. We could
go to Starbucks and it would be spent in a week. That is not
very much tax relief.
I remind my friend across the way that it is not simply a case
of ensuring we put more disposable income in people's pockets, as
vital as that is. It is also a situation where we have to remain
competitive with our neighbours to the south and other
competitors from around the world. I will get into that in more
detail in a moment.
We have talked about the government's failure to deal with the
problems in health care. It has failed to deal with the mess in
human resource development and the general mismanagement of
government. It has failed to deal with ensuring that people have
more disposal income.
Let us talk for a moment about Canada's competitive position.
Does it really deal with some of the problems that plague Canada
when it comes to our competitiveness? I would argue that it does
not. While this debate is occurring to some degree in academic
circles, and certainly the business community is vitally
interested and has taken the government to task a number of times
over this issue in the last little while, I would argue that it
is not happening in public often enough.
1610
It is time for it to start to happen. I also think many
Canadians are starting to see the connection between high taxes,
high corporate taxes, lots of regulation, obtrusive governments,
lack of competitiveness and back sliding against our
international competitors. It truly is a concern.
Let me talk about our situation when it comes to
competitiveness, especially in relation to the United States, our
biggest trading partner and certainly the country we are in most
competition with. Taxes in Canada, even after all the
government's changes or its alleged tax relief, are still going
to be far higher than they are in the United States. Why is that
a problem?
It is a problem for a number of reasons. First, if our taxes
are higher, those who are trying to run businesses charge more
for their products and services. They need to charge higher
prices in order to pay the taxes they have to deliver to
government. That makes them uncompetitive. It also means that
shareholders start to say there is a point at which it may make
more sense for them to move to some place which rewards
initiative. In many cases, unfortunately, that means moving to
the United States.
One of the great ironies involves a company called Clearly
Canadian that manufactures a soft drink. It had to move out of
British Columbia to Seattle. Clearly Canadian is now clearly not
Canadian. It was driven out by the tax policies of the
government. It is essentially a tax refugee and we see thousands
of them.
We also see all kinds of young people who were educated at
taxpayer expense at Canada's wonderful universities and colleges
being lured south to greener pastures by American firms,
typically, but also by other firms from around the world.
Why is that? In some cases people take a look at their tax
position in Canada and at the tax position in the United States
and say they would be better off in the United States. I am not
suggesting that is the only reason, but it is a reason for a few
people.
Because we have much higher taxes than those in the United
States, we do not have the economic activity which breeds the
type of economy that produces jobs like the economy in the United
States. Right across the border in the United States there has
been much faster growth over the last several years. As a result
it produces far more jobs.
Unemployment in Canada is at 6.8%, the lowest unemployment rate
in 18 years. Historically we are doing okay, but internationally
we are so far behind that it is unbelievable. Our rate is 70%
higher than it is the United States. It is also about 70% higher
than our average until about the mid-1970s.
With unemployment levels at that rate and when people can go
across the border and find jobs very easily, they tend to go
where the jobs are. When they go to the United States not only
are there more jobs but the jobs pay better because businesses
are desperate to find people and offer more money. When people
are hired there they find they have more money left over because
taxes are lower. Of course they end up being paid in American
dollars which are worth more than Canadian dollars. When people
go south of the border they win economically in four different
ways. There is a huge attraction to the United States.
The answer is not to criticize people for being disloyal like
the Prime Minister would do. It is not to bury our heads in the
sand and say the brain drain does not exist. The answer is to
learn from the mistakes of the past, learn from other countries
around the world, heed the advice of people affected by it and
start to make some changes which ensure that the economy grows
not as fast as the economy of the United States but much faster.
It is to ensure that we remain competitive and get ahead of other
countries so we can attract back some of this talent and
investment.
1615
We want to become a magnet for talent and we want to become a
magnet for investment. Bill C-32 simply does not do that. It is
like saying “We will grudgingly make some changes”, but it does
not catapult us into the lead, and we are critical of the
government because it does not recognize the problem.
Consider that between 1988 and 1998 Canada's output per capita,
which is a reflection of the standard of living, grew by 5% over
a 10 year period. In France it grew three times faster. In the
United States and Australia it grew four times faster, in Norway
six times faster, and in Ireland eighteen times faster. The
government should be ashamed of that.
That should be a wake up call. When it is punishing the people
because of inaction and the inability to make the connection
between public policy decisions and good outcomes for the people,
it should be ashamed if it cannot make that connection. Too
often this government uses the tools of government to make
decisions that not only do not benefit its people, but which
ultimately benefit the Liberal Party of Canada. There are so
many examples of that, I could stand here all day and talk about
them. That is a shameful legacy which this government is leaving
behind and there is much human wreckage in the wake.
What do we do when we are confronted by this sort of situation
in this great country, Canada, with its huge and bountiful
natural resources and wonderful human capital? We have an
educated nation. We have a nation of immigrants, people who have
brought their experience from around the world to Canada. We
have a history of being innovative. We are entrepreneurs. These
are our great natural advantages. What do we do to enhance those
advantages, to ensure that we get the most from what we already
have? What are the public policy decisions that we put in place
so that we can really mine our great resources, both natural and
human? I would argue that the very first thing we should do is
to stand out of the way of those people.
One of the first decisions any government should ever make is to
understand its own limitations. It should put limits on itself,
because governments cannot do everything. They do some things
well. They keep the peace well. They can be very helpful if
they remove the barriers to trade. They can be very helpful even
in redistributing income. I will concede that. However, once
governments go beyond that they get into very dangerous
territory.
The record of this government is littered with examples of that,
whether it be human resources development or the scandals that go
on in departments like Indian affairs, or even industry, or the
revenue agency's handling of the scientific research and
experimental development tax credits, which is absolutely
shameful. When governments go beyond that and try to pick
winners in the economy we have problems. As the finance minister
said—and I am sure he wishes he had never said
this—“Government cannot pick winners, but losers sure can pick
government”. Truer words were never spoken. I just wish that
he would listen to his own advice because this government
intrudes into the economy far too much and the result is that
Canadians are worse off.
When the government takes a dollar from the hands of the
taxpayer and puts it into the hands of a bureaucrat or a
politician, we end up with the taxpayer, an entrepreneur, a
business person, a homemaker, a student, being $1 worse off and
somebody else, someone who is a friend of the government, doing
much better. That is a lousy trade-off. It stinks. Many times
I would argue it is nothing but pork barrelling and patronage,
and it must come to an end.
What do we do now, once we have decided to limit government, to
put some clear restrictions on what government should do? We
start to take the resources that are freed up as a result of that
and put them into things which people care about. What are those
things?
1620
If we suddenly reallocated money from all of those grant-giving
agencies, what would we do with it? We would put it into higher
education. Absolutely. That is something which people value.
They want an educated populace in the country. They understand
that one of the things we can do to help make our country more
productive and allow people to live more enriched lives is to
ensure that they have an education. We support that. That makes
more sense than giving it to the human resources minister to hand
out to cronies and friends, which is crazy.
We could put it into health care. We have argued that we have
to do a lot more than put money into health care, but when it
comes down to making choices about how money should be spent by
government, I think most Canadians would concede that money is
better spent ensuring that we get medical services when we need
them instead of pouring it into a fountain in the Prime
Minister's riding, which is some of the crazy stuff that goes on
through human resources development and other agencies.
Let us make those kinds of fundamental choices. Let us
reallocate. We believe that there is $5 billion to $10 billion
in the existing envelope of spending in government today that
should be reallocated from things that are counterproductive and
low priority, and sometimes outright pork barrelling and
patronage, and put into things that people care about. I have
named a couple of them, higher education and health care, to name
just two. That is the first thing we do.
Second, once we have established that, we would ask what we
would do with the approximately $150 billion which will
accumulate in the next five year period over and above the amount
we spend this year.
I remind my friend across the way that in the November fiscal
and economic update the finance minister laid out a projection of
what the surplus will be that will accumulate to the government
over the next five years. When we get through all the
gobbledegook, it amounts to roughly $150 billion. What would we
do with that $150 billion?
We believe that after we have reallocated the waste that already
exists in government into things that people care about, like
health care and higher education, we should take the great bulk
of it and start to give it back to the people who earned it in
the first place. It is their money.
Do you realize how hard Canadians work today to look after their
families? It is incredible. People work very hard. All they
want is to be able to keep the money they earn.
I find it unbelievable that if a person is making $10,000 in
Canada today as a single person, that person has to pay federal
income tax. All these people want is the dignity that goes with
knowing they can support themselves and their families, if they
have a half-decent job and are working a reasonable amount of
time. That is all they ask. They are not asking a lot. They
just want to keep the money they earn. They are willing to pay
their share of taxes, but they are not willing to pay taxes to
all kinds of things that most people regard as wasteful and
corrupt. That is what happens too often today in Canada.
How do we do this? The Canadian Alliance has a solution. We
call it solution 17. It is a program of major tax relief and
important, if not sweeping, tax reform. It has three major
elements. The first element is that we would raise the basic and
married exemptions, both, to $10,000. Those people who are
making $10,000 in income would no longer have to pay any tax. A
two income family, each making $10,000, would still not have to
pay any income tax because they would have a basic exemption of
$20,000.
The second thing we would do is extend a deduction of $3,000 per
child to every family in Canada with children. A single income
family of four would not pay any tax on the first $26,000 of
income.
A single parent with one child would pay no tax on the first
$23,000. If there were two children, there would be no tax on
the first $26,000. This would help people at the low end.
1625
According to the Library of Parliament when it ran our proposal
through its modem, it found that 1.9 million low income Canadians
would no longer have to pay any tax to the federal government,
which is an outstanding social benefit of solution 17. It is not
the only one. I will say more about some of the other social
benefits of solution 17 a bit later on.
The third point is that if we got rid of the 5% surtax, got rid
of the 29% rate and the 26% rate, we would be left with one rate
of 17%. What would that mean to people if they had the big hike
in exemptions, the deduction for children, for every family in
Canada with children, and the dropping of the rates to 17%?
Obviously it would mean a huge tax cut for every Canadian. There
would be 1.9 million low income Canadians lifted right off the
tax rolls.
My friends have asked if there would be a tax cut for people at
the high end. Absolutely. Would there be a tax cut for people
in the middle? Absolutely. In fact, if someone was making
$50,000 a year, in a single income family of four, the tax bill
would drop by $5,000 in the fifth year of our program.
My friends have asked about somebody earning $200,000. That
person would also do very well. We want to reward people who
work hard and have in many cases the skills and the options to
leave this country, as many of them have already done. We want
to keep them here.
The top 1% of income earners in Canada produce 17% of all the
tax revenue in Canada. We want to keep those people here. The
top 10% produce around 50%. The top 10% are people who earn more
than $50,000 a year. Do we want to alienate those people and
drive them out? I do not think so. Those people bring in a lot
of revenue for government, so let us provide incentives for them
to stay in this country. Those people are the entrepreneurs, the
innovators, the people who form the new economy.
I want to point this out because it is a pretty important point
when we are talking about the new economy. In 1999 on the
NASDAQ, the new technology stock market exchange in the United
States, there were 165 initial public offerings for new Internet
companies. On the TSE over the same period in Canada, one year,
1999, there were four. There were 40 times more in the United
States. Why is that? Because the United States does not punish
people for being entrepreneurial. It encourages an environment
where there is capital accumulation.
Venture capital is extraordinarily important in ensuring that
new companies get off the ground. In 1995 there was 12 times
more venture capital in the United States than in Canada. By
1999 the gap had grown to 18 times more venture capital in the
United States than in Canada. Obviously there are incentives for
people in the United States to save and pool their capital. In
Canada it gets taken by the taxman. We have such high taxes in
Canada that people cannot save money to invest in new ventures,
as an example. That is why the size of Canada's new economy, on
the biotechnology side, is so tiny compared to that of the United
States, even on a per capita basis. It is not a 10th, it is like
a 50th of the size. The reason for that is, we do not have the
proper incentives in place to grow the economy.
The government had a chance with Bill C-32 and the budget to
address this fundamental problem, but it completely ignored it.
Solution 17 recognizes that we are in global competition. We
understand that. We would address these things by rewarding
people for taking a risk and not punishing them for the crime of
making a good living. There is nothing wrong with that.
1630
I do not believe in the politics of envy. I do not think we
should say because they have done well, we will now punish them.
That is crazy. People should pay their fair share. Under
solution 17, people at the high end would pay more than their
fair share. Let me give an example of what I mean by that.
Under solution 17, a single income mom earning $24,000 would pay
about $170 in taxes. Compare that to someone who makes $1
million, an income which is 40 times more than that of the single
income mom. That person's tax bill would be 1,000 times more,
and would pay about $170,000 in taxes.
I do not know how anyone could say that that system still is not
progressive. Obviously it is. Does it punish people at the high
end? No it does not. It drops the rate at which they have to
pay and encourages them to stay. In fact it will draw people
back. I believe that solution 17 would help Canada become a
magnet for talent and capital, just like Ireland has become.
I mentioned Ireland a few minutes ago. Ireland is an amazing
success story. Between 1988 and 1998, the output per capita grew
18 times faster than it did in Canada. How did it do that? What
did it do? It did a number of things.
Ireland put more money into education. We acknowledge that and
we are arguing we should do that as well. We probably should go
with some reforms because we do not believe just throwing money
at things is the right way. We think it is appropriate to put
some money into the transfers to the provinces for health care
and education.
Another thing Ireland did was it bought some labour peace. It
had had problems with squabbling between the private sector
unions and employers. It bought some labour peace and that is a
good thing, but that is not nearly the problem in Canada that it
is in Ireland.
The thing Ireland did which had the biggest impact was it
dropped taxes. It dropped corporate taxes dramatically. It
dropped personal income taxes and capital gains taxes. What was
the impact? As I mentioned, its standard of living has jumped
through the roof.
Ireland is a country that for 150 years lost population. Its
biggest export was people. Canada was one of the great
beneficiaries of that problem. In fact, my own ancestry can be
traced back to Ireland. Ireland was such a poor country for so
darn long but it finally figured it out. It understood there was
a correlation between smart public policy and prosperity,
something our government cannot seem to get through its head.
When Ireland figured that out, what happened? Now its
population is growing for the first time in 150 years. The
situation is that Ireland with 1% of the population in Europe now
gets 20% of all the new investment in Europe. So much money is
pouring in that it now provides its citizens with free university
education. It has a growth rate which is through the roof.
That could be Canada in North America. We could be what Ireland
is to Europe. We could be the place where all the money flows
to. The United States does not have to be seen just as a big
competitor. It can be seen as a big market, as an opportunity.
Why do we not mine it by making proper public policy decisions?
The government is so mired in the past. It seems so unwilling
to change even when problems are so obvious and confront the
government every day. It boggles the mind. It is still caught
up in a 1970s time warp where it thinks it can intervene in the
economy, and pick winners and losers. Ultimately it picks losers
and the result is we are all impoverished for it. That is so
wrong.
I remind my friends across the way that Canada has a long
heritage and history of having a standard of living which was
higher than that of the United States. As the industry minister
would point out, that is no longer the case.
John McCallum of the Royal Bank pointed out in a recent paper
that Canada's standard of living which was once the same as that
of the United States is now down to two-thirds. He said that if
we keep going the way we are going, in another five years we will
be down to 50%. Well, thanks very little.
I am not interested in that.
1635
We have to recognize the problem and make the public policy
decisions that will get us out of it, not to make us equal with
the United States but to move us beyond the United States. Why
can Canada with the resources it has not be the most prosperous
country in the world? We would be helping not only Canada and
our citizens if we did that but we would be helping the world
because that prosperity goes everywhere. Those are the types of
public policy decisions we should make. Solution 17 is part of
that. I have talked a bit about solution 17. I want to talk
about some of the other changes that we would make.
Another part of our overall fiscal plan is to take the entire
contingency reserve and the entire prudence adjustment the
government itself suggests we need over the next five years and
use it to pay down debt.
The government has taken a very tepid approach to debt
repayment. When it first came to power the debt was $480 billion
which became a debt of $583 billion and now it is down to $577
billion. We should pay down that debt more aggressively. Some
revenues are starting to come in. Let us make hay while the sun
shines. Our plan would pay down $34 billion over the next five
years compared to the government's $15 billion, a big difference.
Finally, we would also put another $15 billion into spending, $1
billion a year over the next five years. This would ensure that
there is money for things that people care about: health care,
education, defence, the RCMP, infrastructure. Those are
important things, a lot more important than some of the wasteful
things the government spends its money on.
I know my time is coming to a close and I regret that. I could
say a lot more, but I will be very satisfied with the 40 minutes
I have been allotted.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When the member for Medicine Hat speaks about solution 17 and
taking the working poor off the tax rolls, it bursts hope in the
hearts of Canadians from coast to coast. I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to extend his time so he can elaborate more
on that part of solution 17.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is hardly a point
of order. It might have been a point of order if the hon. member
for Calgary Centre was asking him to expand on his Irish
heritage. Nevertheless we will put the question to the House.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has asked for the unanimous
consent of the House to provide another 15 minutes for the member
for Medicine Hat to expound on his thesis. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Monte Solberg: I appreciate my friend's intervention, Mr.
Speaker. I will simply conclude by saying that the Canadian
Alliance believes that solution 17 and the larger policies that
we propose could propel Canada to be a world leader, a place
where people from all over the world will come because they will
be so attracted by the prosperity and the incredible standard of
living that we have. I would urge my friends across the way to
be mindful of this the next time they think about preparing a
budget. Let us hope that they do not get a chance to. Let us
hope we have an election before then.
I simply say in closing that as the Canadian Alliance is feeling
a new birth here, I encourage people across the way who are very
interested in solution 17 and to what we have talked about to
find out more about it by accessing our website Canadian
Alliance.ca. Of course we would love to hear from the public if
they are interested in this proposal.
I thank the House and my friend across the way for his
indulgence over the last 40 minutes.
[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, Veterans Affairs and the hon.
member for Mississauga South, Health.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise this afternoon to address Bill C-32, the Budget
Implementation Act, 2000, at second reading.
1640
The public did not know what to think of a government that has
budget surpluses. We heard many things, because budget surpluses
give ideas to people.
Some wondered “How will the government strike a balance? Will
there be tax reductions? Will the debt be lowered? Will social
transfers finally be increased?” Unfortunately people did not
realize that the government is secretive and that the Minister of
Finance stashes money away like a squirrel. The sharper ones
would have expected this budget to contain a number of somewhat
misleading elements.
We discovered quite a while ago that the government had much
bigger surpluses than anticipated, surpluses estimated at
$137 billion. This is not to mention the waste that we keep
hearing more and more about when we take a closer look at what
is going on in the government's administration.
The Minister of Finance once again mislead the public with
truncated budget forecasts. Indeed, most observers agree that
the surpluses will be between $115 billion and $150 billion.
The Bloc Quebecois did a conservative estimate of the surpluses
and came up with the amount of $137 billion over a five year
period. This is a huge amount. It is clear to us that the
Minister of Finance could have done a lot more, particularly in
terms of tax reductions and transfers to the provinces for
health, education and post-secondary education.
I would like to address the matter of transfers for health care
and education, because there is nothing or almost nothing for it
in this budget. The minister is releasing $2.5 billion for
transfers to the provinces. This amount is both inadequate and
a one time measure. In other words, the amounts allocated for
health care and education are pitiful, when in fact these areas
have been shown clearly to be priorities for taxpayers.
And yet the federal government has plenty of money to invest
where it feels like. We need only think of recent events, which
are ongoing in the House, in connection with the use of the
grants made by the Department of Human Resources Development.
For example, it has enough money for various foundations and
other organizations parliament has no control over, such as
$6.8 billion this year in order to waste money in the Department
of Human Resources Development—$1.3 billion annually—and to
distribute $1.4 billion in contracts without tender. Despite
all, the government still refuses to invest where it cut, namely
in health care and education.
To summarize the 2000 budget in terms of transfers to the
provinces, $240 million is being made available for health care
in Quebec, enough money to run the health care system for two
days. And yet the government has the means to do a lot better
with the accumulated surpluses. The $2.5 billion announced for
the provinces is far from enough. Quebec's share will be
$240 million for 2000-01 and $120 million for 2001-02.
Does it know that hospitals cost, for Quebec alone, $3.7 billion
a year, or $100 million a day.
Clearly, the amounts proposed by the federal government will not
enable the provinces to address the problems in their respective
health care networks.
We learn as well, in budget 2000, that the $2.5 billion will be
charged to 1999-2000. The budget for 2000-01 is charged to
1999-2000. This is a ridiculous level of social transfer, frozen
over four years.
As we can see, the minister is continuing his old practices of
transparent management. There has been a lot of talk of clarity
this spring.
1645
Here again this is a matter of playing with figures in order to
convince us that Ottawa cannot afford to give back to the
provinces and to Quebec what the Liberals have taken from them
in recent years. Quebec comes out a major loser in this entire
political masquerade. It has, in fact, borne the brunt of over
50% of total cuts to the Canada social transfer since 1994.
Finally, including the tax points under the CST, the Minister of
Finance tells us that, between 1999 and 2004, the total transfer
will be $156 billion. This increase is, however, solely the
result of the value of the tax points which, for the same
period, go from $14.9 billion to $17.2 billion.
It must be understood, however, that these tax points are not
transfers; they are revenues belonging to the provinces and to
Quebec.
Now, moving on the social housing, there is a considerable
difference between $54 million and $1.7 billion. The Bloc
Quebecois called upon the federal government to inject $3
billion into an infrastructure program, $1.7 billion of which
was for social housing.
These demands were the outcome of a broad public consultation,
yet once again the demands of Quebecers have been ignored. This
government is so arrogant as to totally ignore the unemployed,
although they contribute more than $5 billion yearly to the
minister's surplus.
Although his colleague, the Minister of Labour, promised a
concrete action plan for the homeless, the plan she unveiled
with much fanfare in December 1999 contains no tangible measure
for improving the situation. Yet the need is there, the public
can see it clearly, and social housing can also be improved in
various ways according to need.
So the government's inaction was immediately met with a wave of
protest. In all this, it appears that the pressures from the
Toronto area for short term assistance for the homeless won out
over the real needs of the homeless and those with inadequate
housing.
Since the early 1990s, those with inadequate housing have lost
out to budget cuts and the freeze on budget increases for social
housing. Since 1994, the government has been withdrawing from
housing completely. In fact, no longer do we hear anything
about new social housing.
The federal government no longer talks about helping those whose
housing is inadequate. All it does is maintain existing
commitments.
In the very early 1990s, it was estimated that budget cuts would
generate savings on the order of $620 million between 1991 and
1996. Taking the exponential effects of these cuts into
account, that is close to $3.5 billion over nine years that has
not been spent on this sector. Anyone visiting our ridings or
taking a look as they travel through this or other provinces can
clearly see that there are urgent needs in the area of social
housing.
There is no way $268 million over five years—or $54 million
annually—will do the trick. This is ridiculous. For Quebec,
this comes to less than $20 million a year.
These budgets will not even be allocated to social housing as
such but, rather, to renovation projects. I understand that,
after years of not investing, the immediate priority is to
renovate, because housing units have fallen into disrepair.
One per cent of the budgets, or $1.6 to $1.7 billion more per
year, would have been a reasonable investment to provide
adequate social housing. While these amounts would not have met
all existing needs, they would have allowed us to help the
social housing program to adjust to today's realities and to the
realities in the ridings and municipalities that have a real
need for such housing units.
1650
When he delivered his budget speech, the Minister of Finance
referred to “Secure social programs that recognize that real
progress is made by reaching for the top, not racing to the
bottom”.
Is this to say that, for his government, social housing and
those who live in inadequate housing are at the bottom?
During this overview of the 2000 budget, I also want to discuss
the indexing of tax tables.
In that regard, we say finally, because the Bloc Quebecois has
been asking for that measure since 1993.
Since 1994, the federal government has taken $17 billion out of
taxpayers' pockets, through non-indexation. It is important to
note that non-indexation is not at all the same as tax
reductions. It only means that Quebecers will not pay more taxes
because of inflation.
We must remind the minister that non-indexation is not a tax
reduction. In the 2000 budget, the government follows up on the
representations made by the Bloc Quebecois and by groups of
citizens to put a stop to hidden tax increases resulting from
non-indexation. However, that measure comes a little late.
Indeed, between 1993 and 2000, non-indexation will have generated
between $12 billion and $17 billion for the Liberal government.
As for tax reductions, they will only come later. We will have
to wait. Yet, the federal government has more than enough leeway
to redouble its effort to reduce the tax burden, as early as
this year.
Let us make no mistake, indexing is not a real tax cut. In
fact, with indexing, a taxpayer pays no more or less tax.
The 2000 budget informs us that the annual tax saving in 2004-05
will total $10.9 billion, including $6.2 for indexing. If we
subtract the tax savings for business from this amount,
indexation represents 60% of the alleged tax cuts. For the year
2000 alone, the estimate is that the real tax cuts will
represent only about 20% of the cuts of $3.3 billion the
Minister of Finance announced.
Now, I would like to address another matter, which has become a
daily matter of interest and that is the management of public
finances, a black hole of $10.4 billion.
It is important to address this in the context of a budget,
since the savings made could have been applied to such important
items as the social transfer, health care and education.
Since 1994, the Liberal government has created no less than 80
agencies that are not accountable to parliament. These agencies
spend $6.8 billion annually, without any control. If we add to
this figure the contracts given out without tender and the
fiasco at the Department of Human Resources Development, we end
up with $10.4 billion spent annually with no control.
When the government gives out money and delegates powers to
agencies, they have to be accountable. We have to know where
the responsibility lies. In order for us to know this, it is
natural to insist on control.
The government has come up with this formula of creating
agencies.
It is no trifling matter. The 80 agencies created since 1994
manage to escape these controls, because they are headed by
directors answering to a minister, who answers to another
minister, and when we look for ultimate control, we find none. A
black hole of $10.4 billion is no trifling matter.
Last November, the auditor general pointed out that over 77 new
agencies spending over $5 billion annually were not under the
control of parliament and were not accountable. It is almost
incredible.
1655
That means $5 billion that are outside the control of the public
as a whole. Three new organizations have been added in the
latest budget, as well as $1.7 billion. In 2001-02, then, this
makes $6.8 billion in public funds outside the control of
Parliament and of the public.
On the other hand, there is the black hole of Human Resources
Development Canada, which, on its own, represents $1.3 billion.
HRDC transfers to businesses and to individuals are absolutely
unmonitored. Where has the money gone? Were jobs created? If
so, where? Was there political patronage? These are questions
without answers, and this budget will not change a thing.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has been asked the
same questions over and over again for weeks, always with the
same responses; in other words, we have had no response
questions like the ones I have just asked, namely: Where has the
money gone? Were jobs created? Was there political patronage?
No answers. There were tons of documents, but each time we
looked into one in greater detail, we found that what the
departmental employees were giving as answers differed from what
was in the document we had been given. This is worrisome enough
when just one department is involved. Perhaps if we keep on
investigating further, more worthwhile discoveries will be made.
In this connection, I would like to bring to hon. members'
attention what the auditor general says in the highlights of his
report. The auditor general's report is our guide as parliamentarians,
whether we are in the opposition or the government, in
determining whether public funds have been properly managed.
I will give a few highlights of the auditor general's report,
which came out this week. The following comments are from the
report:
The federal government must introduce strong control mechanisms
in order to eliminate potential fraud in the immigration system.
I will come back to immigration in greater detail.
Education services for aboriginals must be improved in order to
clearly define what the federal government's role should be and
control spending.
Spending is still a concern. The auditor general has found that
there is a complete lack of control over spending. He is
sounding an alarm. The report also reads as follows:
The rules for the treatment of scientific research tax credits,
estimated at several billions of dollars, should be tightened.
What does tightening the rules mean? It means that somewhere
there were abuses, that things were not done according to
procedure. The report goes on:
The RCMP's outdated computer system is a cause of concern for
authorities, and the turnaround times for crime laboratory
analyses are a threat to public safety.
Bills were adopted in this House giving the RCMP increased
authority to conduct DNA tests for evidence purposes in rather
horrible cases. If the results take forever, there is a
problem. It is not a case of spending too much money, but not
enough.
The Department of Human Resources Development is getting EI
cheques out faster, but the odds of inaccurate payments have
increased. Things are just fine: more haste, less care.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors need more information
in order to better assess the risks posed by travellers entering
the country. If all manner of people can enter the country as
they wish, questions are in order. If this is what is going on,
it is probably because of a lack of staff and money.
Those areas with real, identifiable needs are perhaps where the
government should be throwing its money.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
member. The hon. government House leader.
1700
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member
who is making a speech.
[English]
At the request of an opposition member earlier today I committed
to table an article from the Jerusalem Post which spoke
glowingly, as most people do of course, of Canada's very fine
Prime Minister. I am now pleased to table this article in both
official languages.
I am still prepared to table several copies of the Toronto
Star whenever the House wishes me to do so.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I also thank the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert for her indulgence.
There have been consultations among all parties in the House
and if there is unanimous consent I would move:
That, in relation to their study on the Revolution in Military
Affairs and the Quality of Life in the Canadian Forces, the
members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Kosovo, Yugoslavia
and London, England from May 19 to May 26, 2000 and that the
necessary staff accompany the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 28, 2000, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will now
discuss immigration.
The auditor general's report contains some rather startling
information concerning immigration, such as the fact that it can
take up to three years to process an immigration application.
One paper noted the following:
Crushed under the paperburden and the lack of resources,
Canadian offices abroad sometimes take over three years to
process immigration applications from entrepreneurs or skilled
workers.
I continue with another quote on immigration:
It is no surprise, notes Mr. Desautels, that Canada has not been
achieving its immigration objectives over the past few years.
While good candidates have to wait for long months, others get
ahead by using false statements—a phenomenon that is more and
more frequent, according to the auditor general, which is
worrisome—or with the complicity of unscrupulous agents.
For 1998 alone, the department's Office of Professional Conduct
admitted that some 500 visas had been either lost or stolen.
Moreover, there is no reliable computer system—
This is almost unbelievable in the year 2000.
I continue to quote the article published in La Presse by
journalist Vincent Marissal:
Another risk for Canadians is the uselessness of the medical
tests imposed on newcomers.
In addition to being overworked, Immigration Canada doctors have
been using the same tests for 40 years, namely tests for
tuberculosis and syphilis.
It is time, says the auditor general, to review the list and,
perhaps, to add...new communicable diseases...such as HIV or
hepatitis B and C.
Anyone who has travelled abroad extensively is well aware of the
risk, in certain countries, of picking up diseases such as
hepatitis B and C. I am not talking about AIDS, because I think
there is public awareness about this issue.
1705
We welcome these people here and do not have them undergo any of
these tests, because we cannot afford them, because we do not
have enough doctors and because we are buried under paperwork.
I cannot get over it. I am talking about Bill C-32 and defending
the interest of Quebecers in connection with a budget containing
excessive spending and very substantial surpluses, but, daily,
we see absolutely incredible problems.
In my riding, I have the honour to have many immigrants. There
are two universities in my riding. I often have occasion to
speak with these immigrants.
I knew of the complexity of many problems, but I had no idea the
inconsistencies of the immigration system were so chronic, so
persistent and of such magnitude.
I had a look at what this budget reveals. As members know, my
interests lie in agriculture and biotechnologies. I would like
to indicate what I found in the budget pertaining these two
favourite subjects of mine.
The sum of $90 billion is to be allocated over three years to
the federal departments and agencies regulating the processes
and products of biotechnology. There is nothing to rejoice
about here. As the ministers of finance, health and agriculture
seem to live in a bubble, it is a good idea to remind them where
things stand in the new biological technologies approval
process.
On September 30, 1999, 200 federal experts on food quality and
safety wrote to the Minister of Health, Allan Rock, to tell him
of significant gaps in research on GMOs, for example, because of
the shortage of personnel at the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency. Their letter reads in part:
The letter goes on to say:
The Agency is in a conflict of interest situation because it
must, on the one hand, ensure that foods are harmless, while on
the other hand encouraging food production and export.
It also states that the system's administration and deregulation
strip those involved of responsibility as far as meeting their
obligations is concerned.
This is not the first reference made to stripping of
responsibility and to impunity.
It was not an easy decision for two hundred federal government
scientists to abandon their usual reserve and sign their names
to such a letter, thus endangering their jobs. They were so
concerned that they felt they had to speak out. These are
career scientists; they know what they are talking about.
Quoting again from the letter:
We do not test these products ourselves. No Health Canada
researcher is assigned to transgenic foods, because there is no
funding for such research.
What planet is the Minister of Finance from, if he believes that
these $30 million yearly are going to make it possible to solve
all problems, including ethical ones?
What is of concern in connection with the new technologies and
the GMOs is that, when approving transgenic products, the
federal government depends on research that has been carried out
by the companies, limiting itself to reviewing or approving
them. It does not carry out any systematic counter-expertise on
all plants and all food items headed for market, because it
lacks the experts to do so.
dm
The government uses the concept of “substantially equivalent”,
by virtue of which genetically modified plants or foods
resembling traditional ones and with similar-appearing
composition are not subjected to more detailed examination.
According to the federal deputy minister of health himself,
speaking before a Senate committee in the spring of 1999, the
government did not, at that time, have any expertise whatsoever
in genetics. As he put it, “its labs are not really up to it”.
1710
While the approval of new drugs may take years of in depth
studies, the approval of transgenic foods takes only a few
weeks. How can the government guarantee the safety of these
foods without adequate expertise and independent scientific
studies?
In May 1999, this same Deputy Minister of Health said, regarding
Health Canada's capacity to evaluate GMOs, that the department
was not as ready as it should be to face the enormous changes
that would occur over the next ten years—yes, ten years—in the
area of human, animal and plant health.
In fact, public resources in the area of genetically modified
foods are sorely lacking, as this same Deputy Minister of Health—when
you think of it, he is my favourite—said in May 1999
before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry:
We must strengthen our capacity in the genetics area...We do
not, at the moment, have the capacity on board...Some of our
labs, in particular in the environmental health area, are not in
good shape.
The changes that we will see over the next decade in the field
of human health, as well as animal and plant health, will be
enormous. You asked whether we are prepared.
My answer: Not as well as we should be by any stretch of the
imagination, but we are engaged in trying to become better
prepared by building up a genetic capacity within the
department...ensure that consumers know what they are eating.
I have been advocating this for a long time. I have been asking
for the mandatory labelling of transgenic foods for a long time.
Thirty million dollars per year is very little when we have to
start from scratch, when we need laboratories, geneticists and
experts, and when we need to inform the public.
One thing scared me when I looked at the budget for the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency. I noted that projected expenditures for
the year 2000 are $266 million.
In 2002, the figure is down to $261 million; in 2002-2003, it
sinks again to $259 million.
Earlier, I mentioned a ten-year time line; what is clear from the
figures is that every year spending forecasts for the agency
responsible for the food safety of Canadians drop further,
although we live in a world undergoing huge changes—this is a
rapidly evolving field right now. There is cause for concern.
As the agriculture critic, I must say that the Agriculture
Income Disaster Program is aptly named. It was a disaster to
administer, first for westerners, who were the first to turn to
it, and things went from bad to worse when it came the turn of
easterners.
The difficulty of using this program discourages a good number
of farmers and, at the end of the road, the resources they
obtain are a far cry from what the program promised.
I also wanted to talk briefly about agricultural subsidies.
Right now, while Canadian farmers receive $140 a head, American
farmers are getting $340; in the European Economic Community, it
is $380. We share our entire east-west border with the United
States; a Canadian farmer raising the same crops as his American
counterpart driving his tractor on the other side of the fence
receives $200 less a year.
I can understand that the ideal would be to change world trade
policies, but when one is competing on a daily basis, this is
very tough.
I had also prepared a brief speech on small farms. According to
a study done in the United States, they are the lifeblood of
agriculture. The same is true here. Here, they have not even
been defined.
What are we to make of this? How can there be a policy to help
them if they have not even been defined?
1715
I urge the government to include in its coming budgets, to adopt
policies that take into account the whole agricultural sector,
as well as disparities and the competition we face abroad.
I could go on and on, because agriculture was overlooked in this
budget. There are no programs for it. The department's budget
is also getting smaller. When we subtract the money for
agriculture income disaster programs and income security for our
farmers, there is not much left in this budget for the
agricultural sector to get excited about.
As a citizen, I have no reason to be happy with this budget.
The Liberal government is not controlling its spending. If I
were to do the same thing in my family, I would be in big
trouble.
It is spending a little here and there to get votes and is doing
nothing to resolve the problems it created in the health care
and education systems in all provinces, not just in Quebec. We
are all demanding a return to the social transfers of 1994.
As the agriculture critic, I am equally disappointed. This
budget reveals how little vision this government has in the farm
income crisis. Although this is not the subject of my speech,
we need only think of the ad hoc injection of public money for
western farmers through transportation subsidies.
These are ad hoc measures.
They are not long term measures. Farmers in all the provinces
are calling for long term policies to ensure their survival, and
they have been exemplary in what they have been doing to ensure
the sustainability of agriculture.
I am also concerned about the positions this government has
taken in the matter of the GMOs, where its head in the sand
policy calls into question the system monitoring the safety of
our food and our exports.
I have tried to paint a clear picture. As my colleague before
me said, we could spend a day talking about the budget. I would
like the government to remember the important points. As far as
I am concerned, the accountability of those responsible is
vital. If the government drags in all sorts of red herrings and
establishes all sorts of agencies so no one is responsible, that
bothers me. Wastage bothers me just as much.
As for the $10 billion hole, we wonder where the money went.
The government could bring it back for transfer to the provinces
in the areas of health, education and agriculture, which is my
greatest interest.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to say a few words in the debate on the budget
implementation bill before the House. We have had a budget
before the House for quite some time. When we deal with the
implementation bill, we have to ask ourselves what kind of a
society we want and what the goals and objectives should be in
terms of the budgeting process for the Government of Canada.
For the first time in a long while we have a surplus with which
to work. The minister said in his budget update in November that
he thought there would be a surplus of around $100 billion over
five years. It will probably be more than that. It may be $110
million or $120 billion or perhaps even more, because in general
the economy is doing pretty well.
If we look at the growth rate in this country compared to that
in the United States, it is actually quite high. Revenues to the
government are increasing. When the growth rate is high fewer
people are unemployed and fewer people draw unemployment
insurance and welfare. There are fewer costs in the social
services system and therefore the coffers of the government
continue to expand and expand.
We have no idea for how long this economic expansion will last.
We have no idea how long the expansion of government revenue will
last. In many ways it is very difficult to project into the
future. We have to work with the numbers we have. For the first
time in many years we have a budget surplus that will go on for
quite some time. This is different from the last part of the
1980s or throughout the 1990s when we had to talk about how we
deal with debts and deficits and how we deal with valid programs
that could not go ahead because of the fiscal crunch.
1720
We now have choices before us and we have to decide what kind of
an agenda we want. When I think of the agenda of the future I
think what should motivate us is doing the most we can for the
common good of the Canadian people in terms of creating a society
in which there is more equality of condition and more equality of
services. People should be empowered through a better democratic
system. We should build a society on co-operation and play an
international role in terms of development in the third world and
the promotion of world peace. Those should be the goals and the
objectives.
If we are to fulfil a goal that speaks to doing the best for the
common good, it seems to me we should start now by reinvesting in
programs that were cut back by the government a few years ago in
the fight against the debt and the deficit, namely our social
programs.
If we look at the last number of years and take health care as
an example, a tremendous sacrifice was made by the health care
sector to fight the deficit. About $30 billion have been taken
out of the health care system. That is an awful lot of money,
and we have problems in health care today.
We all know that the only problem is not money. The big problem
is that $30 billion are missing. Another way of putting it is
that when the Minister of Finance decided to radically cut back
on health care and social programs in his budget of 1994-95 the
payments made at that time compared to the payments now show a
deficit of about $4.2 billion a year. To get back to 1994-95
levels it would mean an increase in spending on health care of
around $4.2 billion a year. That extra money would go a long way
in terms of making sure that we address our health care problems.
Another thing about health care is that even in its most recent
budget the government decided that health care and social
programs were not priorities. Indeed the priority for the
Minister of Finance was a tax cut of some $58 billion over four
years. In other words, for every dollar in tax cuts the
government will put two cents into health care. That is not the
right priority.
The right priority should be to reinvest once again in our
social programs, in particular health care, to build a strong
health care sector and make sure that we serve people so that
they can go to hospital or to a doctor and obtain equal service
regardless of income or background. That is not the case.
Because of this some provinces like Alberta are introducing a
bill like its bill 11 to set up a partially privatized health
care system. I disagree with bill 11. I disagree with that
direction. Under the NAFTA if Alberta does that and allows a
privatization of health care or a two tier system in health care,
it will have to go right across the country because the
corporations in private health care have the right to do it not
just in one province but across the country. Therefore that is a
dangerous precedent to set.
One reason that is happening is the big cutbacks in health care
to Alberta, to every province in the country. In my province of
Saskatchewan about 13 cents on the dollar come from Ottawa and 87
cents on the dollar are paid by the province of cash injection
into health care. In Ontario about 89 cents are put up by the
Ontario taxpayer and about 11 cents are put up by the federal
government in terms of health care.
At one time the federal government paid 50 cents on the dollar
in terms of funding health care when medicare was founded back in
the 1960s. After the seventies it started to pull back, to
withdraw. Now that we have a fiscal surplus, a fiscal dividend,
a major part of it should go into health care to make sure we
have a public health care system for each and every Canadian
citizen. If we do not do that and the provinces start to
privatize, we will lose health care and end up with a two tier
American system that is unfair, unequal and very expensive.
A greater percentage of the GDP in the United States is spent on
health care than in Canada.
We have a public health care system in this country. In that
country there is a mixed system. Some 48 million Americans do
not have any health care. Those who do not have health care are
mainly the poor people, particularly the black people in the
United States because of the socioeconomic condition that they
find themselves in.
1725
It is extremely unfair to have a health care system that is
built on the size of a person's pocket book or bank account and
not on treating people as equals. That is the way we are going
unless we convince the Minister of Finance and the government
across the way that the time has come to put cash on the table
and make sure that we build once again toward Ottawa paying up to
50% of the cost of health care in Canada. That should be our
number one priority.
In addition, we have the whole question of education and the
federal government withdrawing money for post-secondary
education. There is a need to reinvest in young people for
post-secondary education, for skills, for training and for
research and development. If we are to build a strong society
and a strong economy in the years that lie ahead, knowledge
becomes extremely important. Knowledge is extremely important in
terms of building a strong economy. We need a strongly
motivated, highly knowledgeable and highly educated workforce. It
is the obligation of the federal government to put up more money
to make sure we have a workforce that is highly trained and
highly skilled.
Those should be the major priorities of the government across
the way, but it seems to me that the government has been
intimidated by what we used to call the Reform Party. I am sure
the Chair would agree that the Reform Party has had a great
impact on the agenda of Canada which calls for smaller
government, cutbacks in health care, cutbacks in education,
cutbacks in the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, and cutbacks
in anything that has to do with the common good or the sense of
community. It wants to cut back, cut back, cut back and reduce
the role of government, to the point now where the size of
government spending is 11.6% of the GDP, the lowest level since
the second world war.
I do not know why the Liberal government is afraid of the Reform
Party in terms of setting the agenda. The government across the
way is the real Conservative Party. We have a more Conservative
government now than we had with Brian Mulroney in 1984 and 1988
till 1993.
That has been the agenda, but that is not where the people of
the country want to go. In poll after poll after poll they are
saying that health care is number one. We need a public system
of health care. It should not be privatized. We do not want a
two tier American style medicine. That is what the Canadian
people are saying. For that we need more federal money going
into health care.
My Liberal friends across the way should not be intimidated by
this reborn Reform Party, the Canadian Conservative Reform
Alliance Party of Canada. The last time I looked at the Gallup
poll it is still sitting at 9%, so why be afraid of it? Why have
an agenda that is going to the right and is more conservative
than the Conservatives?
We need real progressive change. We need some social democracy.
That is where the Canadian people are at and that is what the
Canadian people want.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, most of what this member said is ridiculous. He somehow
seems to think that unless we promote socialism we are not doing
the country a service.
The fact of the matter is that the more freedom we give to
individuals and the more we promote free enterprise and
competition, the better off we will all be. I would like to
simply ask—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will have to
interrupt the hon. member because I have to give the right to a
30 second reply to the hon. member.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the member wants more
free enterprise, more competition and more private sector
activity. I assume he was referring to health care. My answer
is no, that is not what Canadian people want.
They have told us time and time again that they want a public
health care system adequately funded by the federal government
and the provinces to serve the people. That is the age of the
dinosaur and that is not the way we are going.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act
and to make a related and consequential amendment to another act
(protection of spouses whose life is in danger), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all parties in the House
for agreeing to defer the vote, which would normally have taken
place at the end of the 45 minutes of debate this evening, to May
2. I appreciate that.
I would also seek the consent of the House to have five minutes
at the end of the debate tonight to wrap up or have the right of
reply.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as the solicitor general critic for the Canadian
Alliance, I will speak in favour of Bill C-223, particularly from
the perspective of what we can learn from the existing RCMP
source and witness protection program, which has been in effect
since 1984.
I note from a news release by the former solicitor general dated
March 23, 1995 that they wanted to upgrade and strengthen the
existing program by the following criteria: clearly defining
admission criteria for witnesses; ensuring that cases are dealt
with in a consistent manner across the country; setting out the
responsibilities and obligations of both the administrators of
the program and individuals entering the program; clarifying the
management structure within the RCMP for the day to day operation
of the program, thereby increasing accountability; and finally,
providing for a complaints procedure and requiring the
commissioner of the RCMP to submit to the solicitor general an
annual report on the operation of the program.
I am sure these were good intentions on the part of the
solicitor general of the day back in 1995, but I have to report
that it unfortunately has not been completely successful. I have
had interviews with people who have been under the witness
protection program and I am aware that there are some distinct
problems with the program.
In another document from the former solicitor general, we have
the criteria for the admission to the RCMP witness protection
program: the potential contribution the witness source can make
toward a particular police investigation; the nature of the
offence under investigation; the nature of the risk to the
individual; alternative methods of protection that are available;
danger to the community if the individual is admitted to the
program; potential effects on any family relationships; the
likelihood of an individual being able to adjust to the program;
the cost of maintaining the individual in the program; and, any
other fact that the commissioner of the RCMP may deem relevant.
These are all worthy goals and objectives. After talking to
some of the people who are currently in the program, I know that
the issue of the nature of risk to the individual is one which
unfortunately is highly suspect.
Relative to the existing program, not to the proposed program,
let us be clear that at the time the people become involved in
the witness protection program, probably the majority of them,
they are not people at that stage in their lives who we would be
happy to invite home for a cup of coffee. These are people who,
typically at that time in their lives, either have been
compromised by a given situation they have been involved in with
the other people involved in criminal activity, or are perhaps
tied up with drugs, alcohol or other problems of that type.
However, these people perform an exceptionally valuable service
to the law enforcement agencies in Canada. What typically is
happening, in my judgment, is that they are being left hanging
out to dry by those same law enforcement agencies.
Some do become involved in the program but, more frequently, they
actually end up signing agreements with the enforcement authority
under duress, to the point where an officer may say “If you do
not get on side with me, I will blow your cover. I will reveal
your identity”.
1735
A very important case for jurisprudence recently took place in
the case of Mr. Francs. After he had made an agreement in good
faith with the law enforcement people he was spirited quickly out
of Vancouver to a motel in Chilliwack along with his family who
were absolutely petrified. He was told “I am sorry, it really
did not work out. We will have to get something else
organized”. The judge rightfully came down like a tonne of
bricks on the enforcement authorities.
The final thing I would say on this particular case is that
there is further confusion. The justice department then goes to
these people, who are trying to get their day in the sun in a
court of law, and says “You must reveal evidence”, which is
evidence that if revealed would not only compromise themselves
but would also compromise the RCMP investigations or the police
investigations.
The reason I am in favour of this bill being voted on and going
to committee is so that we can look at the entire picture. We
can look at spousal protection and at the whole witness
protection program because it is in a sad state of disrepair and
desperately needs work. Above all, this is not only for the
protection of society but also so those people who have been
drawn into the program can receive proper protection for
themselves, for their loved ones and for their families.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-223, an act to amend
the Witness Protection Program Act.
I want to thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River
for introducing the bill. This matter involves the issue of
improving safety and security for spouses whose lives are in
danger. It is obvious to me that improving safety and security
for victims of spousal violence has or should have the support of
the members of the House. It definitely has my support.
When the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River introduced
the bill he noted that this was a non-partisan matter. I agree,
it is a non-partisan matter. I want to provide my input to this
debate in a way that respects its non-partisan matter.
I do not think that there is any real debate that measures ought
to be in place to protect victims of life-threatening
relationships. I believe that the only questions are what form
these measures should take and how we can improve upon what is
currently in place. These are important questions that deserve
careful review by experts who work in the field of family
violence.
In Canada we already have numerous measures against family
violence in place. Let us look at some of them. First, we have
laws that prohibit and punish the physical violence that is
frequently a tragic part of abusive relationships. As we are all
aware, however, these laws have not always worked. In the past
our society has been far too accepting of family violence. Law
enforcement and justice officials themselves have not always been
sensitive, and still today are not necessarily as sensitive as
they should be to the issue when it was, in the past, brought to
them and when, still today, it is brought to them.
However, we have recently made some progress in this area.
Through education and prosecution guidelines, we have sought to
ensure that the appropriate criminal charges are brought against
persons who commit these acts. We have also had success in this
regard, although I must agree, as many in the House would state,
there is room for improvement. While such measures are not the
whole answer, they obviously play an important role in deterrence
and in providing sanctions against perpetrators of family
violence.
1740
In addition to the standard criminal justice measures against
violence, we also have measures which are more specifically
relevant to spousal violence situations. An important measure of
this type is the prohibition against criminal harassment found at
section 264 of the criminal code.
We must remember that criminal harassment, such as stalking, is
frequently a prelude to spousal violence. Further, beyond the
direct physical violence that it can lead to, stalking can also
cause significant harm in and of itself as the constant fear of
violence takes it toll on that victim.
The Minister of Justice recently announced that she would
recommend that parliament lengthen the maximum penalty for
criminal harassment from five to ten years. In appropriate
cases, those who carry out criminal harassment would then be
subject to dangerous offender provisions, allowing for the
imposition of indefinite sentences. That is a move forward.
Criminal code measures providing deterrents and sanctions must
work in conjunction with other measures. Shelters and transition
houses have played an important part in addressing safety and
other needs of family violence victims.
I am sure a lot of members, if not all members in the House,
have shelters within their own riding. I have one in my riding
and it performs a real service to victims of family violence and
to the children of the spouses who are victims of family
violence.
I also wish to acknowledge, as was pointed out earlier in the
debate, that there was a tragic incident in a Montreal shelter
where this safety, which this bill wishes to address, was
breached and a woman was killed by her spouse. Such an incident,
however tragic, should not take away from the important and
positive role played by shelters and the dedicated people who
staff them.
The responses to family violence that I have mentioned are not
sufficient in and of themselves. Broader prevention initiatives
are vital to making a long term difference.
Historically, family violence has been hidden in silence and
denial. We have already done much to bring it out into the open
but more has to be done. Notably, governments at all levels,
the federal, the provincial, the territorial and the municipal,
have supported counselling and education to help encourage
recognition and reporting of the problem.
In addition, victims receive counselling for immediate trauma
and long term psychological harm. It is important to remember,
as well, that counselling is not restricted to the victims alone.
Prevention can be and has successfully been addressed to those
who engage in abusive behaviour. In fact, I have been told that
there are over 100 treatment programs in Canada for perpetrators
of spousal abuse.
As I have said, such counselling and treatment programs, both
for victims and abusers, are supported by governments at all
levels. Non-governmental organizations often play a key role in
delivering the services.
At the federal level our support is provided through such means
as the Family Violence Prevention Initiative and the National
Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention. These
initiatives, and those I mentioned earlier, have made Canada a
leader in efforts to put a halt to family violence.
Nevertheless, we must still recognize that even these initiatives
are not always enough.
This brings me back to Bill C-223. The bill identifies an
additional type of assistance that can sometimes be offered. It
involves such measures as the relocation of the victims and the
continuation of their lives under new identities, away and safe
from their abusers. It is a form of assistance similar to that
currently offered under a process called New Identities For
Victims of Life-Threatening Relationships. Human Resources
Development Canada co-ordinates this joint federal, provincial
and territorial ad hoc initiative.
As was recognized by members from both sides of the House
earlier in the debate on this bill, providing a new identity to
victims of spousal violence is a measure of last resort.
1745
The reasons for this are clear. Restarting lives in such a
manner can involve considerable challenges and hardship.
Therefore, it must be a measure of last resort. We must be
careful that the use of such processes does not place additional
burdens on persons who are already victims.
This brings me back to the issue of Bill C-223. The witness
protection program offers protection to persons who assist law
enforcement. It is very much a program with a specific law
enforcement purpose. It is typically used in matters of
organized crime.
I have been informed that the issue of spousal protection under
the witness protection program is one of the options the current
new identities working group which the government has set up will
be examining. However it is only one among a number of options.
In fact, preliminary consultations with victims groups and those
who work in the field indicate it might not be the best option.
Other options, such as a separate more fully developed new
identities initiative, are also being considered.
It is for this reason I ask the House today in a non-partisan
manner not to support Bill C-223. During the time that this
matter is being examined by a federal, provincial and territorial
working group in consultation with victims representatives, we
should not go forward with a bill that predetermines and imposes
a single option. We should allow for the possibility of a
multitude of options. This is especially the case if preliminary
consultations have indicated that the option provided under this
private member's bill is not necessarily the best option.
Instead, we should let those involved in the working group devote
their energies to considering the best way to build upon that
which we already have in place.
Spousal abuse is a serious issue. Governments at all levels are
addressing this issue and are looking for the best options to
provide protection to those spouses.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise today on behalf of my NDP colleagues to
indicate that we support the referral of Bill C-223 to a
committee. I commend the hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River for bringing forth a bill on a very important and vital
subject for the well-being of our communities.
Domestic violence and spousal abuse is a very serious problem.
My wife and I have taken in a number of foster children. I can
recall a situation involving one young girl we were looking
after. She was around 15 years old at that time. I recall her
talking about when she was younger that her parents would engage
in domestic violence. Her father had an alcohol problem. He
would come home and beat his wife and sometimes the children if
they were around. She talked about having to gather together her
siblings and flee into the woods in the darkness of the night to
keep them safe while her father raged with violence against her
mother. It was a very sad situation.
We know that the whole issue of domestic violence affects not
only the spouses but also the family members. We see children
often being forced to take on adult responsibilities and share a
kind of guilt which they should not have to in their young lives.
1750
I would like to provide some background with respect to the
bill. This bill was introduced during the first session of the
36th parliament as Bill C-494 and died on the order paper as a
result of prorogation in the fall of 1999. The bill was
subsequently reintroduced as Bill C-223.
This enactment would amend the Witness Protection Program Act to
extend the scope of the witness protection program to include
persons whose lives are in danger because of acts committed by
their spouse, former spouse, common law spouse or former common
law spouse.
The Witness Protection Program Act was passed by parliament in
1996. Under the current act, spouses are only addressed in their
role as witnesses against criminals. There are no references to
the possible need to protect persons who are victims of the
violent actions of their own spouse or former spouse. They are
not covered under the definition of witness in the current act.
The Witness Protection Program Act provided a legislative base
and a structure for decision making for the RCMP witness
protection program. Although it had been in existence since 1984
as an administrative program, it did not have clear criteria or
rules or an accountability structure. Accountability is very
important.
The act introduced a list of factors to be considered in
deciding whether a person should be admitted to the program. It
defined protection as including relocation, accommodation and
change of identity, as well as counselling and financial support.
It provided for protection agreements to be entered into and
specified their requirements. The act established a criteria and
process for terminating protection. It also provided for
agreements to be entered into with provinces and municipalities
for which the RCMP provides policing so they could be a part of
the national program.
Although they are not covered by the RCMP program, spouses who
are in such danger that they must flee their surroundings and
change their identities are not completely unprotected at the
present time. Two federal government departments, Human
Resources Development Canada and Revenue Canada, administer a
little known ad hoc process called new identities.
With the help of information from police, women's shelters and
victims groups, the program helps desperate women in life
threatening situations gain a new identity and relocate by
providing them with a new social insurance number and ensuring
continuity of federal social benefits. The program has no
specific mandate and no separate funding so the assistance it can
provide is not comprehensive. Bill C-223 would improve upon that
situation.
While there have been some concerns raised that more resources
should be committed to women's shelters and front line policing
rather than the type of initiative under Bill C-223, the NDP
strongly believes that both are needed. It is not one or the
other. We feel that both are needed and that every effort must
be made to ensure the safety and security of the vulnerable in
our communities. As I indicated earlier, families are very
vulnerable when it comes to domestic violence.
We in the NDP support strengthening provisions of the Witness
Protection Program Act to allow for greater protection of
spouses. We in the NDP support this legislation but at the same
time we must make it clear that this is only a measure of last
resort and that a substantial increase in resources for women's
shelters and protective measures for victims and their families
must remain the priority.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
to register my support for the private member's bill that has
been introduced by my colleague from Prince George—Peace River.
I commend him on his care for Canadian society in bringing
forward this important piece of legislation.
The legislation would allow protection under the same sort of
provisions as those in the witness protection program for people
whose lives or whose children's lives are threatened by a spouse
or former spouse. This is a very important piece of legislation
because we know there are an increasing number of individuals in
our society who have nowhere to turn for protection from the
violence of a former spouse or intimate partner. This is a sad
commentary on our society but it would be an even sadder
commentary if we as legislators turned a blind eye to the
distress of these individuals, most of whom are women.
1755
It is important that we as a society offer real and meaningful
protection, protection with teeth, to people in these very
difficult circumstances. This bill would do that. It sets out a
common sense framework without a lot of red tape but with some
clear criteria and some clear resources that would offer real and
meaningful protection to Canadians in this kind of distress.
Sadly all of us in our circle of acquaintances through business
or by being members of parliament have had people come to us or
have talked to people who are in absolute terror and distress
because they do not know how to protect themselves from a violent
former partner. There is nothing more tragic than that kind of
distress and situation where people literally are vulnerable and
have nowhere to turn.
I do not want to take up too much time in order to allow two
other individuals to speak in support of the bill. I did want
the opportunity to put on record my own strong support for the
bill. It will be administered partly through Human Resources
Development Canada and will build on the new identities program
in that department. This is a very positive step for Canadian
society. I urge all members of the House to support the bill.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow the lead of previous members
who have spoken to this very practical and useful piece of
legislation that is before the House.
Bill C-223 in essence broadens the mandate of the witness
protection program to include abused spouses. This is a very
worthy and worthwhile endeavour. The sad thing is that it would
not be necessary if the government were approaching this in a
proper way with respect to some of the existing programs and
legislation. Increased spending on policing, for example, to
better protect spouses from domestic abuse coupled with tougher
sanctions that might be handed down by judges would also
accomplish much of what the hon. member is attempting to achieve.
There is certainly a need for greater funding and greater
resources with respect to counselling programs for the abusive
spouse as well as the victim. There are programs such as New
Leaf in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, where individuals like Bob
Whitman and Ron Kelly work extremely closely to address the
actual problems of individuals who have involved themselves in
this violent behaviour. That type of proactive intervention is
what is needed and what the government and all governments should
be encouraged to do.
The Liberal government however has not made a concrete
commitment to allocate money to deal with and protect society
from violent predators. Although it has proudly stated its
record with respect to the $810 million for policing and
protection which sounds like a great deal of money, the reality
is that money will be spread over three years. Sixty-two per cent
of those dollars allocated will not be available until 2001-02.
Therefore the bulk of the money is committed outside the
government's current mandate. This is a very arrogant and I
would suggest deceptive tactic that breeds further cynicism.
Under a responsible government, Bill C-223 would not be needed.
Yet the government's sketchy record of protecting the public
especially those most vulnerable in society has made legislation
like this necessary. The slow reaction time of the Department of
Justice unfortunately is legendary. The minister herself once
described her department as the world's worst law firm. That is
a damning condemnation of her own department which she
administers.
Currently abused spouses, most often women, endure a living hell
as they try to protect themselves and their children from the
wrath of an abusive spouse. There are many safe houses set up
across the country. Bryony House in Halifax and Tearmann House
in New Glasgow perform an incredible service on shoestring
budgets.
Victims who move to these shelters do so to escape a very
dangerous and volatile situation and relationship. The problem
is they cannot remain anonymous and eventually they may be found
by their abusive spouse and face violence or even death.
The government has not addressed this and I would suggest that
Bill C-223 is very much a necessary and laudable piece of
legislation.
1800
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the family
and the protection afforded by this type of bill. It is
consistent with our support of law and order and the protection
of society and of victim's rights.
I was speaking with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester
about another very worthwhile program that is alive and well in
the country, Crime Stoppers. Once again it is something that
fosters greater participation between members of the community
and police in an effort to address a very volatile society at
this time.
We feel that the amendments brought forth by this type of
legislation to the witness protection program are very worthy.
We agree that the hon. member has brought forward the legislation
in a timely fashion. It would broaden the mandate.
We also agree that Canada's anti-stalking laws can further be
expanded as well. I know that Senator Oliver in the other place
continues to do extraordinary work to strengthen the laws related
to stalking, section 264 of the criminal code, which is a very
serious situation as well. Other members have alluded to it.
Still stronger laws to protect people and bring about a way to
protect their individuality and identity when they are fleeing an
abusive situation can be further buttressed by a commitment of
resources from the government. We must be wary of those who
might attempt to use this program in an unlawful manner, for
example to change identity to escape creditors.
Bill C-223 protects us against this as well because it has a
very detailed list of criteria and factors that the witness
protection program would have to consider before admitting a
person into its umbrella of protection. They have to display the
need, that life is in danger, that there is danger of a
psychological or physical injury, and that the situation is such
that it would warrant the protection afforded.
A current example is the new identities for humanitarian reasons
type of legislation, an unofficial program that began in 1992 and
works under the HRDC department. Revenue Canada will not reveal
the names of persons who conduct the program, but it ensures that
their income tax history, child tax benefits of the victim, et
cetera, follow them into their new lives without linking them to
their past names.
There are programs that promote this type of protection. The
problem is that the criminal code cannot force an individual to
testify against a spouse and eliminates potentially very
incriminating and damning information that police and prosecutors
need to obtain a conviction of a spousal abuser. There is often
a great deal of intimidation and threatening behaviour that
follows. A new and improved witness protection program could be
mandated to protect crown witnesses and help with the furtherance
of justice in this regard.
I commend the member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing
forward the bill. It very much furthers the interests of
justice. Forwarding the bill to the committee is a very
worthwhile venture. I applaud the efforts that he has made and
those of members who have spoken in favour of it. It is a very
sound, common sense initiative. It furthers the protection of
victims in most severe cases of spousal abuse.
It is necessary. At the very least this debate has brought
government attention to the lack of funding that has been
afforded this problem and at best will bring about further debate
that will address the problem. The Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada wholeheartedly supports this initiative.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Price George—Peace River for bringing
forward the bill. He brought forward not simply the initiative
he has proposed to the House through his bill but generally the
issue of domestic violence, which I am sure is of concern to all
Canadians.
I did write a monograph on the subject of domestic violence
called “The Tragic Tolerance of Domestic Violence”. I want to
share with the House a couple of the facts I found in my research
in doing that.
First, members will know that the cycle of violence includes
three phases: the tension building phase, the explosive incident
and the honeymoon phase. Without getting into too much detail
there is a cycle.
It starts when things begin to deteriorate and then there is an
incident, a battering or some other incident, qualifying as
domestic assault. Then there is the denial and then there is the
make-up. Then we have a cooling off period. Then it comes
around.
1805
In my research I found that the experts agree that the cycle of
violence continues, a week later, a month later, a year later.
It will continue to the point where its velocity increases. The
intensity increases. In fact, the certainty of serious bodily
harm and maybe even death becomes a reality.
There are other consequences of domestic violence which I think
are worth noting. About 40% to 80% of children witness domestic
violence, which is a very significant number of our children. In
52% of violent relationships in which children witness the
violence, women feared for their lives, and in 61% of abusive
relationships where a child is a witness, the violence was
serious enough to result in the woman being injured.
Children witnessing violence against their mothers experience
similar emotional, health and behavioural problems as children
who themselves are directly abused, which basically says that
witnessing abuse is as bad as being abused. It amplifies the
fact again that it is not only the partners who are affected, it
affects entire families, and it affects children.
In a Canada-wide study of abused women, women reported that
their partners had abused their children physically 26% of the
time, psychologically 48% of the time and sexually 7% of the
time. An estimated 30% to 40% of children who witness violence
against their mother by a partner are also abused directly by the
partner, whether or not he is the father. Children who witness
the violence are at risk of further violence, either as a
perpetrator or as a victim.
Violence in the home is experienced by children, and in
adulthood those children are more likely to become perpetrators
of violence. That is even more reason for us to take very
seriously the need for attention to this important issue.
Members might ask what the experts say about the reasons a woman
might not leave an abusive relationship. Here are some of the
more common responses. They hope that the relationship will get
better. They do not want to break up the family. Her partner's
abuse isolates her from her family and friends. She fears for
her own and her children's safety. She depends on her partner's
income. She has lost her self-esteem because of her partner's
abuse. She has nowhere to go. Her partner has threatened to
harm her if she leaves.
These are some of the more common reasons someone would give for
not wanting to leave a domestic situation of violence.
In my research I found that only 5% to 15% of cases of domestic
violence are actually reported. That is very significant. If
violence starts small and grows over time, the earlier it is
dealt with the better. I concluded that the most important thing
would be to encourage the reporting of cases of domestic
violence, because the people themselves, the partners, cannot
solve the problem. Both of them need help.
The thought of laying a charge against an intimate partner is a
very serious step, with potentially enormous consequences. It
could end the relationship or it could lead to more serious
violence. The evidence shows that the intensity of domestic
violence increases after the breakup, not before. That is when
all is lost. It is over. That is when people really lose it.
I wanted to raise these points simply to say that I think this
is an issue that should be talked about much more by the House.
This is one opportunity. I hope it inspires other members to
raise initiatives which will bring to this House a matter which
affects not only men and women, but children and society as a
whole. We are all affected by this and we should all be part of
the solution.
The tragedy of violence against spouses is a complex problem
which has no simple solution. It will take a comprehensive
strategy of both preventive and remedial approaches, and it needs
the active support of all concerned, both men and women.
I thank the member for bringing forward the bill. I believe he
has some support. I am sure we can work out how to do this.
Again, I thank all members for their support.
1810
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to advise the House
that if the hon member for Prince George—Peace River speaks now
he will close the debate.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my closing remarks I
thank colleagues from all the parties that participated in the
debate throughout the three hours which began on November 26,
1999. This is the last 45 minutes of debate.
I especially appreciate the comments made by my colleagues from
the other opposition parties who indicated their support. They
will be encouraging colleagues within their parties to support
Bill C-223, recognizing that Private Members' Business votes are
free votes.
I am deeply saddened that government members who have spoken,
with the exception of the hon. member for Mississauga South, have
indicated that they will not be supporting this private member's
bill. The hon. member for Mississauga South said it all just a
minute ago, in the sense that this is an incredibly complex and
horrendous issue. To only suggest to Canadians that it warrants
some two hours and 45 minutes of debate in the Chamber is
appalling.
I would have hoped that all members in a very non-partisan and
constructive way would have seen fit, when it comes to the vote
on May 2, to support the legislation and send it to the justice
committee. Then we could hear directly from experts, victims and
people who have worked in the industry of protecting people from
domestic violence and spousal abuse and come up with a concrete
plan of action on how to address the issue.
I am not suggesting for a minute that Bill C-223 is the be-all
and end-all. It is far from it. When I designed this piece of
legislation it was with the understanding that if it were sent to
committee it could be amended. It could be improved upon by
members of that committee following suggestions from witnesses.
It was with the recognition that this is only one tool.
Some of my colleagues from other parties and from my own party,
the Canadian Alliance, spoke about the need for increased
resources for law enforcement, the need for increased counselling
and rehabilitation efforts, and the need for tougher deterrents
for those who would ignore restraining orders and continue to
stalk their former spouses.
Although the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine
spoke in support of the general thrust of the bill, she concluded
her remarks by saying that she would not be supporting the
legislation because of the existing ad hoc program that we have
all recognized in our comments and that they are pursuing a
multitude of options. Somehow she thought that by supporting
Bill C-223 it would limit the options.
I would suggest just the opposite. By sending this bill to
committee we could open up a whole range of options. Therefore,
in the final minute of debate, I am calling on all members of the
House over the course of the two week Easter break, an
appropriate time of year, to go back to their ridings, consult
with their supporters, and come back in a non-partisan way and
consider supporting the legislation on May 2.
I am sure that tragically they will find, as I have found in my
own riding, there are dozens and perhaps hundreds of people
living in fear for their lives. It does not just affect spouses.
It does not just affect adults. It affects children of all ages
who live every day in fear for their lives.
What a tragedy it would be if members just turned their backs
and said that we had to study it more and let the bureaucrats do
what they could, without the support of members of parliament
working together in a non-partisan way to help these people.
1815
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 6.15 p.m., the time
provided for debate has expired.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary
to dispose of the motion are deemed to have been put and a
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
May 2, 2000, at expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to pursue the issue of Canadian soldiers wrongfully sent to
Buchenwald concentration camp during the second world war. In my
question to the minister just before Christmas I asked that the
minister:
I was very concerned that the minister chose to ignore that part
of my question. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. This
Liberal government has gone out of its way to ignore these brave
Canadians.
In response to a letter I wrote on this topic, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs said that in other countries compensation was
paid for civilians, such as people working for the Red Cross and
other similar wartime efforts I assume, who were sent to
concentration camps.
The issue remains on the table. The Canadian troops who
suffered the horrors of living in Buchenwald deserve compensation
and it is up to the Liberal government to ensure that
compensation is delivered.
It is appalling that the Liberal government tried to buy the
silence of these veterans for about $1,000 each. One of these
veterans, a constituent of mine, William Gibson, made it clear
that this so-called compensation was offensive. This constituent
who survived the horrors of the Buchenwald concentration camp
sent the cheque back to the Liberal government with the word
“refused” across the insulting payoff of $1,098.
These veterans were interned in the Nazi Buchenwald
concentration camp instead of a prisoner of war camp where they
should have been sent under the Geneva convention. Other
governments have had the ability to convince the German
government to provide appropriate reparation. Our government has
failed itself and failed these brave Canadians miserably.
I do not understand the inability of the government to secure a
just settlement for these Canadians. Is it a matter of
incompetence or is it simply that the government cares little for
the plight of a small handful of 26 veterans?
Perhaps even more insulting than the cheque to these Canadians
were the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his
accompanying letter. He said, “I am delighted to be able to
close the chapter on this longstanding issue”. Delighted
indeed. It is now over eight years since the plight of these
veterans was discussed in the January 1991 report of the
subcommittee on veterans affairs entitled “It's Almost Too
Late”. Over eight years later I should say it is almost too
late.
This issue was raised again in committee in 1994 and in letters
to the veterans affairs, defence and foreign affairs ministers in
1997. I have raised this issue time and time again for over a
year now and the government still admits defeat where other
governments have succeeded.
A letter from the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to
my office admits failure with these words, “Canada has embarked
on several démarches requesting prisoner of war compensation from
Germany, but we have had no success”.
I will close with a comment my constituent made when addressing
the Nova Scotia government committee on veterans affairs in
February of this year:
We have been fighting for German compensation since 1945, but we
haven't got it yet and I don't know if we will ever get it
because I don't think there is anybody in Ottawa who has the
intestinal fortitude to go after it.
I ask the Liberal government to respond now to this issue. I
sincerely hope we will not be subject to a litany of what the
Liberal government claims to have done about other issues. Let
us talk about this issue.
These Canadian veterans deserve a government that will stand up
for them and ensure they receive the compensation they are due
from the German government. Anything less is unacceptable.
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax West
actually raised two issues in his original question last
December: the compensation issue for the merchant navy and the
question of compensation by Germany for Canadian airmen
imprisoned at Buchenwald. Although the member has chosen to
focus his remarks tonight on the Buchenwald question, I would
like to address both of his issues since I know he has a deep
personal interest and a commitment to both matters.
I am pleased to report on the progress that has been made in
recognizing the heroic contribution of the merchant navy to
Canada's war effort.
1820
On February 1, 2000, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced
a tax free package for Canada's merchant navy veterans and their
surviving spouses. This package is compensation for post-war
demobilization benefits provided by the armed forces but not the
merchant navy veterans.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has received more than 10,000
applications for the merchant navy special benefit. Today, close
to 1,000 cheques have been issued to eligible merchant navy
veterans or their surviving spouses. These payments will be paid
out in up to two disbursements, depending on length of service.
Thanks to the tremendous effort and leadership of veterans
organizations, they agreed upon compensation of $20,000 for
service of more than 24 months, $10,000 for service between 6 and
24 months, and $5,000 for service between 1 and 6 months or for
less than 1 month if captured, killed or disabled. An additional
20% will be paid to any veterans receiving these benefits who
spent time as a prisoner of war.
As expected, when processing the applications the department is
finding that a percentage of these applications do not fall
within the guidelines agreed upon with merchant navy and national
veterans organizations. For instance, some individuals served
with the armed forces and so have already received benefits. Some
were on vessels in coastal waters but do not meet the
qualifications for war related services.
I reassure all merchant navy veterans and their families that
the Government of Canada recognizes their valiant efforts on
behalf of their country and that Veterans Affairs Canada is
giving the merchant navy the special benefit and priority that it
deserves.
I now want to address the issues of compensating Canadian airmen
who were—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member has run
out of time.
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I had the opportunity to pose a question during question
period with regard to the issue of sudden infant death syndrome.
It is a terminology and maybe a condition which mesmerizes people
because we do not hear very much about it. However we do hear
about it from time to time in communities.
During much of the work I have done with regard to the healthy
outcomes of children, one of the phrases that sticks in my mind
about its impact was from the psychiatrist in chief at the sick
kids hospital in Toronto. She said that a secure, consistent
attachment to an engaged, committed adult was one of the most
significant indicators or preconditions for a healthy outcome of
a child.
While doing some research on healthy outcomes of kids I came
across a report by Dr. Christopher Ruhm from the University of
North Carolina, produced in April 1998. The paper was entitled
“Parental Leave and Child Health”. He studied 25 years of
population data from nine European countries and found a 29%
reduction in infant mortality where parental leave of at least 50
weeks was taken. I found this really fascinating.
In the study he went on to highlight the significant benefits of
breast feeding as result of the longer parental leave which the
government has now introduced in its budget. In fact my Bill
C-204 proposes to extend parental leave benefits to a full year.
The report also talked about breast feeding and about the lower
incidence of sudden infant death syndrome. That is one of the
reasons I wanted to raise the question again.
There appears to be a pattern. There appear to be linkages. I
am hoping by asking the question that maybe we could find out a
bit more about what Health Canada is doing to investigate the
trends and linkages between the healthy raising and nurturing of
children in those vital formative years and the incidence of
sudden infant death syndrome.
I am here tonight again to ask if the parliamentary secretary
could please advise Canadians and the House about other things
Health Canada is doing to examine sudden infant death syndrome.
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sudden infant death syndrome or
SIDS, also known as crib death, refers to the sudden and
unexpected death of an apparently healthy infant, usually less
than one year of age, which remains unexplained even after a full
investigation.
Although the specific cause of SIDS remains unknown, several
risk factors have been identified through scientific research,
including the tummy and side sleeping positions and exposure to
tobacco smoke before and after birth.
1825
SIDS is the leading cause of death in Canada for infants between
one month and one year of age, touching the lives of three
families in this country each week.
Health Canada, through the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance
System, collects and analyses infant mortality information. Since
1980 the overall rate of SIDS deaths in Canada has steadily
declined. This decline in SIDS rates coincides with the
identification of risk factors and public education regarding
these factors.
In 1993 Health Canada co-sponsored a consensus conference on
SIDS with the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Institute
of Child Health and the Canadian Foundation for the Study of
Infant Deaths. This resulted in the development of a joint
consensus statement and public awareness strategy to reduce the
incidence of SIDS in Canada. The key messages are: positioning
infants on their back to sleep; avoiding exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke during pregnancy; protecting infants
from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; avoiding too many
clothes and covers on babies; and the promotion of breast
feeding.
In March 1999 Health Canada and its three partners launched
“Back to Sleep”, a national public education campaign to raise
awareness and provide information on how to reduce the risk of
SIDS. The campaign includes a joint consensus statement, a
brochure, a poster and a TV public service announcement.
It is through research, education and promotion that the
incidence of SIDS in Canada can be further reduced.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 6.26 p.m.)