36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 109
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 7, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SENIORS' MONTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| PAUL ATKINSON
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| TRUCKING
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1405
| GUELPH—WELLINGTON
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| YUKO MATSUZAKI
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HIGH TECH BRAIN DRAIN
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| THE HON. MEMBER FOR PARKDALE—HIGH PARK
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| NOVA SCOTIA ECOLOGY ACTION CENTRE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1410
| RICHARD VERREAU
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| NATIONAL HIRE-A-STUDENT WEEK
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| HAMPTON HIGH SCHOOL
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| LIBERAL VALUES
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1430
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1445
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CHILD CARE
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1450
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| HEALTH
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
| CANADA DAY
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Private Members' Bills
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1510
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-486. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| PETITIONS
|
| National Organ Donor Registry
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1515
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| The CBC
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Human Rights
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Nuclear Disarmament
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Census Data Access
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Parental Leave
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1520
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Nuclear Disarmament
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Bill C-20
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Ethiopia
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| The CBC
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1525
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Pensions
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Transferred for debate
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
1530
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT AMENDMENTS, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motion for Concurrence
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1535
1540
| Third Reading
|
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. John Herron |
1720
1725
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1730
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Third reading
|
1800
(Division 1352)
| Motion agreed to
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Income Tax Act
|
(Division 1353)
| Motion agreed to
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Third reading
|
(Division 1354)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1805
| INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1810
1815
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1820
1825
| Mr. David Chatters |
1830
1835
| Mr. John Herron |
1840
1845
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1850
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 109
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 7, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our custom on Wednesday we will now sing
O Canada, and we will be led by our colleague, the fabulous tenor
from Perth—Middlesex.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
SENIORS' MONTH
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues and all Canadians
that June is seniors' month pretty well across Canada.
It is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the positive
aspects of population aging and to recognize the contribution
seniors make to the life of the family, the community and
society in general.
The role seniors play is irreplaceable. Within the family, they
provide care and support. They provide advice. They provide a
continuity and pass on knowledge and values from one generation
to another.
[English]
Also, many seniors volunteer their fine efforts to good causes.
In fact, seniors represent the age group that spends the most
time volunteering. Next year will be another opportune time to
pay them tribute, since 2001 has been declared the International
Year of Volunteers.
[Translation]
It is in this context that I invite Canadians to pay tribute to
seniors throughout the month of June.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, six months ago we sat in the House
vigorously debating the Nisga'a Final Agreement.
My party argued that the Nisga'a treaty was poor public policy,
that it would be a flawed model for the more than 50 treaties
still to be signed in British Columbia, and that the final cost
would be beyond reason and beyond the capacity of Canadian
taxpayers.
Regrettably, these predictions are already coming true. Last
week we learned that the Sechelt Band in British Columbia is
reneging on its treaty agreement in principle, believing it can
obtain more now that Nisga'a has set the standard. Other bands
will legitimately wish to reopen treaty agreements to obtain what
Nisga'a promises.
After seven years in power this government has demonstrated no
competence to deal with aboriginal issues. A Canadian Alliance
government would provide aboriginals with the same rights as
other Canadians, including private ownership of property,
democratic accountability for finances and transparency in treaty
negotiations.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks Clean Air Day 2000 in the middle of Canada's Environment
Week.
Under this year's theme, “Community Action on Clean Air and
Climate Change”, Canadians across the country are doing their
bit for cleaner air and to reduce climate change.
Today 18 communities joined Canada's “Commuter Challenges”.
They are adopting healthy and environmentally sustainable
transportation alternatives to the single passenger car and
reducing harmful air emissions. They are walking, cycling,
telecommuting, carpooling, using public transit and making a huge
difference.
More than 61 transit companies are involved in the campaign and
it culminates today with activities to encourage the use of
public transit.
Just think, one busload of passengers takes 40 vehicles off the
road during rush hour, saves 70,000 litres of fuel and avoids 175
tonnes of emissions a year.
Congratulations to all those who are participating today and to
Canada's Minister of the Environment for delivering on our Speech
from the Throne commitment for action on environmental issues.
* * *
PAUL ATKINSON
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege and pleasure today to honour a young Canadian
entrepreneur who is making a difference in the world of high
technology.
Mr. Paul Atkinson is a local St. Catharines boy who, at the age
of 35, has just sold Solect Technology Group Inc. for $1.15
billion, making it the largest acquisition of a technology
related private company in Canadian history.
Paul Atkinson has become a local hero and respected entrepreneur
in a region where economic success has been achieved by utilizing
our human capital: the dedicated business people, entrepreneurs,
educators, investors and government officials who work together
to make things happen.
These same people got together last week to honour Paul Atkinson
and to launch the Atkinson Centre for Entrepreneurship. The
centre will be chaired by Mr. Atkinson and will focus on
enhancing opportunities for e-commerce and Internet centred
businesses. It will be a major boost for high tech and
e-commerce entrepreneurs in Niagara, and a welcome addition to
our small business infrastructure.
Congratulations to Paul Atkinson on his successes to date and on
the continuation of his work and dedication.
* * *
[Translation]
TRUCKING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
by increasing from 13 to 14 the number of hours a truck driver
is at the wheel, the governments of Canada and Quebec are
putting people squarely at risk.
The governments are agreeing to lengthening rest time to 10
hours, but are also lengthening the work period to 14 hours.
Most accidents charged to truck drivers occur after 12 hours of
driving. In the case of Canada's major trucking firms, the
period is 12 hours of work that includes a rest break of two
hours.
The governments will have to listen carefully to the
recommendations by the truckers and by Canadian and Quebec
unions. For a trucker to drive 14 hours a day is too much.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla who are concerned about the state of our
health care system.
Recently the people of Princeton were told they would lose eight
acute care beds at the Princeton Regional Hospital. That is a
45% reduction while demand is increasing.
A nursing shortage means the hospital is unable to carry out its
caregiving activities. Acute care patients will now have to
travel at least an hour and a half to receive the medical
attention they need.
The crisis facing the hospital is clearly the result of a health
care system reeling from $21 billion in federal Liberal
government cuts since 1993. The Liberal government's token
effort in the budget to increase funding over five years is only
a fraction of what is actually needed.
It is time the Liberals stopped playing with the health and
welfare of Canadians and restored full funding to the health care
system.
* * *
1405
GUELPH—WELLINGTON
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Montreal can have its jazz festival and Ottawa can keep
the tulips, because Guelph—Wellington knows how to throw a
party.
This weekend I will be attending the Guelph Multicultural
Festival 2000 as well as Destination Guelph. Both festivals
proudly celebrate the multicultural mosaic of Canada.
As well, I am always proud to be a part of the spring festival
in Guelph and the jazz festival. These festivals, along with
spectacular venues, make Guelph—Wellington the greatest
community in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I invite you and all of my hon. colleagues to visit
me in Guelph—Wellington and help me celebrate the summer.
* * *
[Translation]
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a true fight
against poverty absolutely must include stable and consistent
funding, restoration of social transfers to their 1994-95 levels,
construction of new social housing units and an indepth reform
of the employment insurance program.
On behalf of Quebec children and their families, the Bloc
Quebecois is urging the Prime Minister to make the fight against
poverty a priority, so that Quebec children can have the
necessary resources to achieve their potential; so that Quebec
children living in families where unemployment is common can
still have the necessary resources to ensure their physical and
psychological well-being; so that Quebec children and their
families can live in good health; so that Quebec children and
their families can live in housing units that their low income
will allow them to pay.
* * *
YUKO MATSUZAKI
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to salute long distance swimmer Yuko Matsuzaki who, at the
international crossing of Lake Memphremagog, will attempt a
double crossing, over 80 kilometres, an achievement which could
take from 28 to 32 hours. If successful, that 80 kilometre swim
will be certified in the Guinness Book of Records.
Allow me to salute the courage and the determination of this
athlete, who will take part in a swimming event where the cold,
the waves, the weather, the physical effort and the loneliness
are among the obstacles that she will have to face.
Behind this great challenge, there is also a great dream: Yuko
has long wanted to take part in an ultra-marathon to raise money
to help sick children in the region of Magog.
[English]
Thank you, Yuko, on behalf of our population of Magog and
particularly on behalf of our children who dream to recover their
health.
[Translation]
You are not only a swimmer blessed with exceptional endurance,
but you are also a great person whose generosity and humanity
are an example for us all.
* * *
[English]
HIGH TECH BRAIN DRAIN
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals are so busy giving out public money for
fountains and golf courses that they cannot find the plug for the
brain drain.
The U.S. Congress recently introduced legislation to increase
the number of foreign high tech workers fast tracked into the
U.S., which means we will lose more of our brightest.
There is global competition for high tech workers, and the
Liberal tax and spend policies keep us out of the game.
We can be the most connected nation in the world, but if we
cannot keep our skilled workers or encourage entrepreneurs,
Canada will never reach its potential.
The Canadian Alliance's solution 17 is a uniquely competitive
tax structure, which experts say would make us a magnet for the
new economy jobs.
The Liberal refusal to accept that high taxes hurt high tech is
a demonstration of their brain drain.
With the Canadian Alliance solution 17 tax plan, brain drain
will turn into brain gain.
We have the potential in Canada and there is a growing alliance
of Canadians who are determined to capture it.
* * *
THE HON. MEMBER FOR PARKDALE—HIGH PARK
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my great pleasure to congratulate our colleague,
the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, who has been selected by
Soroptimist International of Toronto for its Women of
Distinction Award.
The Women of Distinction Recognition Program began in 1974 as
the Making a Difference for Women Program. Its purpose is to
reinforce the advancement of the status of women by honouring
those women in the community who have done the most to help other
women.
The hon. member has been selected to receive the 2000 Women of
Distinction Award in the area of economic and social development
for her significant and ongoing contributions to the political
system in Canada, to the arts in Canada, to women's issues, to
the Latvian community in Canada, and to women entrepreneurs in
Canada.
Mr. Speaker, friends in the House, please join me in
congratulating our hon. colleague.
* * *
NOVA SCOTIA ECOLOGY ACTION CENTRE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Nova Scotia Ecology Action Centre is the oldest environmental
organization in my home province. Every year its Environment and
Development Committee searches the province to find a community
or community organization that has shown leadership and
commitment to the principles of sustainable development.
1410
Former recipients of the award are the Mi'Kmaq Fish and Wildlife
Commission and the community of Sambro. These communities and
this year's recipient have been recognized for their work in
creating healthy communities with a vision of a balanced
environmental, economic, social and cultural well-being.
It is with great pride and honour that I stand today to report
to my colleagues that the community of Spryfield, where my
constituency office is located, is this year's recipient of the
Ecology Action Centre's Sustainable Communities Award.
There are a number of community based groups which, working
together and on separate projects, have made Spryfield the
active, vibrant, well organized and now recognized as the
environmentally conscious community that it is today. According
to the Ecology Action Centre, such work has helped to address
local environmental concerns, create a positive and cohesive
community atmosphere and promote local economic development.
* * *
[Translation]
RICHARD VERREAU
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Richard
Verreau, our great tenor, has conquered several generations of
Quebecers and has also made his mark on the international scene.
Mr. Verreau was recently made an officer of the Ordre national
du Québec in the National Assembly's red room, at the annual
ceremony presided by the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard.
Richard Verreau is now living in Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, a charming
town in the riding of Lotbinière, located along the majestic St.
Lawrence River, of which he has become a staunch protector by
advocating the cleaning up and maintenance of its shores.
Richard Verreau, all Quebecers are proud of you.
Congratulations.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL HIRE-A-STUDENT WEEK
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is National
Hire-a-Student Week. I am taking the occasion to point out the
success of this HRDC program.
Last year, for instance, more than 447,000 young Canadians
received job search assistance, or they found employment through
the HRDC offices for students.
Students who have had the experience of job searching are on the
staff of the HRDC offices to make the search easier for fellow
students. They provide information on programs especially
designed to help in the job search. They organize career
planning sessions. They assist in developing resumes and cover
letters. They offer advice on job interview techniques.
The riding I represent, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, is an example of the success of this program. More
than 200 students have been placed in jobs in the riding already
this year.
Sarah Doran and Murray Maracle in the HRDC office in Napanee and
Kathy Barkley in the Bancroft office are examples of the
outstanding student leaders across Canada helping others.
Employers in my riding and in ridings across Canada benefit
greatly from the National Hire-a-Student Week sponsored by HRDC.
* * *
HAMPTON HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, Hampton,
New Brunswick in my constituency is the hometown of John Peters
Humphrey, the principal architect of the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
His life's work has made a significant impact on our community
and our youth. Local schools have entrenched the study of human
rights in their curriculum in the hopes of building a better and
more tolerant generation of Canadians.
This month the students and staff of Hampton High School
launched a human rights art exhibit entitled “Between the
Lines” at the New Brunswick Museum. The show is a unique
display of the ties our community has to the legacy of our town's
most famous son. In dynamic and creative fashion, these students
used their artwork to espouse the ideals of human dignity and
freedom that John Peters Humphrey dedicated his life to
promoting.
Mr. Gordon Fairweather, a colleague with whom you served, Mr.
Speaker, the first Canadian Human Rights Commissioner and a
former member of parliament for Fundy—Royal, opened the exhibit.
Congratulations to the students and teachers of Hampton High
and, in particular, Alex Pearson, his fellow students and John
Murphy for their commitment to this worthy venture.
* * *
LIBERAL VALUES
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a Liberal I believe my community is bigger than
Petawawa, bigger than the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, bigger than Canada. The world is
my community.
A Liberal always looks ahead to the future and welcomes new
ideas and new people without rigid reaction, recognizing the
value of dissent and daring, and greeting each controversy as a
hallmark to healthy change.
A Liberal cares about the people, cares about their health,
cares about their housing, cares about their schooling, cares
about their jobs, and cares about their civil rights and their
civil liberties.
A Liberal believes that we must not be burdened by old
antagonisms and old conflicts of race against race, language
against language, region against region and ego against ego.
We must call on the strong Liberal values of hope and
confidence, compassion and decency, understanding and compromise.
Then, and only then, will we build a free, fair, just and
responsible society.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it just takes your breath away, does
it not? The HRD minister continually claims that she is being
really open about the disaster that she is responsible for. The
facts do not lie. The executive summary of the billion dollar
bungle audit, dated last August 9, funnily enough states: “An
additional 29 transitional jobs fund files were reviewed bringing
the total TJF files to 49” but “only 20 were included in order
not to skew the global results”.
I would like to know just how bad were those files that removing
them from the billion dollar bungle would look good.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess we are going to have to review
some details here. Indeed, if the hon. member would take the
time to understand what the internal audit was all about, it was
not just about one program. It was about seven different
programs.
What we found was that in all of those we had administrative
failings. What we were looking at was the work of all the grants
and contributions in the department. What we found was that we
had to do a better job. We made it public and we are improving
the system.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, doing a better job does not mean that
you can just simply exclude 29 files. Obviously the worst news
of all was just simply excluded from that audit.
It seems to me that 29 files were removed from the audit report
because they would “skew the global results”. That comes right
out of the document. Is it not something that the taxpayer is
always the one to get skewed? Surely the minister would not have
us believe that these were good news stories that she had left
off.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member will understand
that we reviewed 17,000 of all the active files in the department
and still indeed found that there were $6,500 in overpayments.
It really was not about money. It was about administration and
the internal audit gave us the right direction. It said it was
about paper, very important paper that was missing, and we have
implemented a program that will deal just with that problem.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister surely stood in her
place here and said that it was only $6,500 that was unaccounted
for, nothing to worry about. She said there was really nothing
for anybody to sweat about. She says it is about paper.
We found that the audit deliberately left off 29 files. I am
sure they were just full of paper. Funny they did not make it
into the audit. I would like to ask her again: How bad were
those 29 files that she left off so that they could make this
billion dollar bungle look good?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed we were looking at all the grants
and contribution programs in the department. What we were
reviewing was the administration of those programs. Indeed we
did find some shortcomings, some significant shortcomings.
What this is all about is a government that is prepared to make
its problems public, to deal with them in an open and effective
way, and to make sure that these very important programs, those
programs that side of the House would like to destroy, can
continue to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister popped up in the House
yesterday strenuously arguing that she was open and forthcoming.
We got an access request. That is the only way we could ever
get information from this minister. The access request had three
appendices, A, B and C. Appendix C was missing, though. Appendix
C was a detailed breakdown of the results for all 49 jobs grants
files that were reviewed, only 20 of which made it into the final
audit. What is the minister hiding that she would not give us?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject what the hon.
member is saying in the context of getting information from this
minister.
I would remind this House, as I did yesterday, that it was
through my department that 10,000 pages, 10,000 pages, listing
all the grants and contributions from my department into ridings
across the country, were made public.
That was an unprecedented amount of paperwork, an unprecedented
amount of information. We will continue to work in an open and
transparent manner.
1420
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, those 10,000 pages did not even have
dates on them. The minister again avoids answering a simple
question.
We have an access request. The access request had a list of
files that mysteriously were censored from the final audit. The
appendix that listed those files was mysteriously censored from
the access request. Why is this honest and forthcoming minister
not giving information that Canadians are entitled to have?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I must remind the hon. member that
I do not determine what goes out under access to information.
That is arm's length from the minister. I have no involvement in
the information that is brought forward.
What can be provided is provided. Certainly the hon. member
knows that there is also an appeals process. If she does not
like what she got and thinks there should be more, there is a
process that she can follow.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, with his usual arrogance, the Prime Minister turned
down Quebec's requests with respect to parental leave.
The man who has nothing to say about the scandals rocking his
government was quick to reject any negotiations with Quebec, and
said that all parental leave benefits would be the same across
the board.
Why does the Prime Minister always take this confrontational
approach where Quebec is involved, and why is he so quick to
ignore the consensus in Quebec on such matters as parental
leave?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
few years ago, we gave the Government of Quebec a chance to
negotiate regarding this issue, and it decided that it was not
appropriate to do so.
So the government made arrangements under the existing
legislation, with the money collected by the federal government
for employment insurance. Our last budget included a measure
effective January 1, 2001, to extend parental leave throughout
Canada from that date on, for one year.
I think that it is a very good program and that we intend to
continue. We have already offered to negotiate and were turned
down. So it was up to the provincial government—
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here
we have one of the odd effects of the new “Canadian way” the
Prime Minister has been bragging about during his travels
abroad. This government's new vision is simple: it drags
everyone down to the same level.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the message he is sending
to families in Quebec is that nobody will have more than the
lowest common denominator?
What he is saying to families in Quebec is that they should be
happy with what Ottawa is offering, and that he will not let
Quebec give Quebec families more, even if it is to the detriment
of young parents. Is that his idea of compassion? Is that his
third way?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Quebec is free to top this up, if it is very
generous. I have nothing against that. They are starting from
an excellent base, the federal program, and they can add to
that.
This is what was done in the past with family allowances. There
were federal family allowances and the provincial government
decided to top them up. They can do the same again.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
parental leave program allows people to draw 55% of their salary
for 50 weeks, to a maximum of $39,000 in insurable earnings.
The Quebec program is far superior, as it offers a choice, is
open to all, provides higher benefits and has a maximum of
insurable earnings of $52,500.
In light of these undeniable advantages, has the Prime Minister
not closed the door a bit too hastily, and does he not think
that a bit of back-tracking would be in order? Ought he not to
acknowledge that Quebec families will be penalized because of
his stubbornness?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Quebec can give more, and deserves our
applause. Nothing is stopping it.
We have a generous program that was set out in the budget of the
Minister of Finance and was very well received. There was a
broad consensus in Canada at that time. The Minister of Finance
was applauded last February when he announced this program.
1425
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the
Prime Minister seems not to understand is that, for more than
two years, cuts to employment insurance have been penalizing
young workers and women, who have trouble qualifying.
The program proposed by the federal government will be
accessible only to those who qualify for employment insurance,
and this will exclude many young families, whereas the Quebec
plan will apply to everyone.
Is this not sufficient to make the Canadian government back off
and show some openness?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if they want to be more generous, let them. We have a very good
program, and when we wanted to discuss this matter before, they
decided it was not appropriate.
Now that we have reached a decision and announced it publicly,
here they are turning up with a new plan. They are late. It is
not my fault. They had all the time in the world to negotiate
and did not do so.
So if they have money to spare, all the better. I will applaud
them, and my constituents of Saint-Maurice will be pleased to get
money from both the federal government and the provincial
government.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to ask the Minister of the Environment what the government is
doing about its environmental responsibilities.
In 1970 parliament passed the Canada Water Act. It requires
that the government table an annual report on water quality. Yet
four years in a row the government failed to do that. It has
ignored the law.
I would like to ask the minister a very straight question. Why
has the government refused to table the annual water quality
report?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the water quality standards in Canada are set by a
committee formed of the provinces, the territories and the
federal government. Health Canada chairs that committee.
The standards that are set are for a number of potential
pollutants. In the case of E. coli the tolerable figure is zero
parts per million; in other words a total ban on the release of
any water that might be affected by E. coli.
It is important to recognize that we do work with the provinces
as closely as we can on water quality issues. We provide them
with expertise and scientific materials, but the actual operation
of the—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
still waiting to hear why the government has not tabled its
annual report on water quality. No wonder David Schindler, one
of the world's leading experts in water, condemns Canada's
cavalier attitude to water and its lack of a national water
strategy.
Yesterday the minister spoke about factory farms and their
effect on water quality. Let me say we agree. That is why we
tried to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to
include water waste from factory farms. The government defeated
our amendments. Canadians want to know why the government
watered down this legislation, putting at risk the safety of—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is customary in the House when legislation is
being debated for all points of view to be put forward. If the
hon. member was not here, or did not hear when she was here,
perhaps there would be an explanation for why she does not know
what was said when this legislation was debated.
If she is asking me to read out the debate in Hansard, it
would take a few hours. She is really going to have to do a
better job of posing questions on that if she intends to get
precise answers in the 35 seconds that I am allowed to reply.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the possibility of an Air Canada pilot strike is growing more
likely every day. In fact, next week the pilots will be in a
position to go on strike.
Now that Air Canada has 80% of the aviation industry, a strike
would be totally devastating. What action is the government
taking to address this situation and to be prepared for a
potential strike?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are
taking appropriate action. We have appointed a federal mediator
who is prepared to sit down with the parties at a moment's
notice.
We on this side of the House believe in the collective
bargaining process and want to see it come to a conclusion with
both parties sitting down at the table.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the government got caught off guard with
the airline merger situation. Then last year it got caught off
guard with the native lobster fishery, even though there was lots
of notice.
There is now a clear potential for a strike in Canada.
Is the government prepared to call back the House in the event
of a strike or is it prepared to make us sit extended hours to
address the situation if there is a strike?
1430
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government will take its
responsibilities, as it always does. Insofar as actions to be
taken in a hypothetical situation, House leaders are consulted on
a weekly basis, and sometimes even on a daily basis. The people
of Canada can be assured that this government will, as it always
does, fulfil its responsibilities.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when Air Canada took over Canadian
Airlines one of the biggest fears was that a strike might occur
with this new airline and that it would cripple air travel in
Canada. It now appears that we may reach that point next week as
talks have broken down between Air Canada's pilots and
management. The government said that it has appointed a
mediator. I would assume that the mediator has always been in
place.
What action is the government prepared to take to ensure that
summer travellers in Canada have uninterrupted flights and
that their travel will not be held hostage?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mediator who is involved in
this is very experienced and knows the file well. He is prepared
to sit down at any time with both union and employer to resolve
this issue.
We on this side of the House support the collective bargaining
process. We feel very confident that this will be resolved to
the benefit of all parties.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are trying to
travel in the summer are not reassured by the government's
position.
The competition commissioner called this new Air Canada an
unregulated monopoly. The competition bureau recognizes that the
only way to protect Canadians travellers in through real
competition.
The government has the ability to make that happen. The cabinet
can pass a regulation through an order in council upping the
foreign ownership component to 49% and provide that competition.
Is the government prepared to do that so Canadians are not held
hostage?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what this government is
prepared to do is to adhere to the regulations and to the
statutes in Bill C-26. We guarantee that the statements and
conditions within that bill will be adhered to.
I am hopeful and positive that resolutions will take place to
cater to the needs of the travelling public in the months ahead.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in preparation for the elections, the Prime
Minister seems to be checking out his style and trying to update
his look a bit. However, he is becoming entangled in his old
habits. We can see this in parental leave.
The Prime Minister is out of touch with the facts of today's
labour markets. In fact, the federal parental leave proposal
makes no provision for self-employed workers, who nevertheless
represent 18% of the labour force.
How will he defend his refusal before these families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is up to the Government of Quebec with the resources it has to
look after those not covered by the federal government program.
It is perfectly free to do so. We will not stop it.
The program we proposed was well received by everyone and is
funded through employment insurance. As I have said many times,
there is nothing to prevent the Government of Quebec from
adapting its program to ours.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims to be the champion
of liberal compassion. While the parental leave proposed by
Quebec is based on human values of solidarity and openness, the
Prime Minister is refusing to negotiate with Quebec.
Who does the Prime Minister think is going to believe his words
of compassion are not empty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the parental leave program is an excellent one. If there are
other problems with social development policy in Quebec, the
government can establish a program to cover those left out.
I think the program we have proposed addresses the problems we
wanted to resolve, that is, to give more time to people to
adjust to the birth of a child in their family.
* * *
1435
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that she believes in
the collective bargaining process. So do we over here. We think
that the best deal is a negotiated deal—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do think
that a negotiated deal is by far the best deal.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary what will happen if
the mediator does not negotiate a deal. Will she guarantee
uninterrupted air flights?
The Speaker: Order, please. I will let the question
proceed even though it is a hypothetical case. I see the
parliamentary secretary is on her feet but we should not have
hypothetical questions. Put them in another way.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the
labour critic on the other side for publicly admitting that he
supports the collective bargaining process.
We on this side of the House are not prepared to jeopardize the
delicate negotiations that are going on now, with wild
speculations and what ifs. We expect the collective bargaining
process to work.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is hardly wild speculation, there is a deadline
looming. I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary
what sort of plans the government has in case the negotiations go
badly. Does it have a plan to make sure that Canadians are not
totally inconvenienced in their flight plans?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite points to the
obvious difference between that side of the House and this side.
On this side of the House we remain very positive. We support
the collective bargaining process. We will not speculate, as you
are doing. It will—
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask members to please
address their comments always to the Chair.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is continuing its research on the now infamous Canada
Information Office, the CIO.
We have found a file in which the behaviour and writings of
journalists are analyzed and the media for which they work as
well.
How can the Minister of Public Works justify the fact that the
Canada Information Office writes the following about CKAC's Paul
Arcand: “Mr. Arcand interrupted the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs several times during the interview and
seemed to willfully use a somewhat sardonic tone”.
Of what use is that kind of information to the CIO?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, has a great deal of
admiration for Paul Arcand, and that he will continue to admire
him.
I want to reassure the hon. member—I can see they are running out
of material—that what the Canada Information Office does, as any
information office does, is a media review, which is made
available to the various departments and ministers and which
involves analysing comments made by journalists on current
political issues.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the least that
we can say is that their side of the House is not very demanding
when it comes to information.
What does the Minister of Public Works have to say about this
note on journalist Guy Gendron, which says that “Mr. Gendron has
often pointed out the apparent differences of opinion between
the minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He
covered the NO campaign during the referendum and he often spoke
about the problems encountered by that side”?
1440
Does the Canada Information Office file on journalists include
many behavioural assessments such as the ones I just mentioned,
and what is the purpose of these notes?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois in the House gets the same reports. He has a
service. Funding is allocated to him by the House for media
analysis. I am sure that the hon. member receives that kind of
media analysis every morning.
We will continue to get that kind of media analysis to allow all
parliamentarians and all departments to do their job.
An hon. member: This is a compliment to journalists.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: I see that the journalists are all smiles
in the gallery, because I think—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this government is quick to point
fingers at the provinces for their handling of the water supply
but it neglects to mention that the federal government has water
problems of its own.
For years the government has been warned about the dangerous
state of water supplies on native reserves. For years the
government has been warned about the raw sewage being dumped on
Canada's coast lines. These are both federal responsibilities.
Why will this government not take responsibility for its own
water problems before it starts blaming the provinces for theirs?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the logic of the hon. member's question is very
faulty. First he said that the provinces have certain
responsibilities and then he said that we have certain
responsibilities. We take full responsibility for our area—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the minister's
response.
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the question asked was
essentially whether we accept responsibility for areas of water
quality under federal jurisdiction. The answer is yes. That has
nothing to do with our desire to give the provinces and leave the
provinces the responsibility for their areas of jurisdiction.
That party, not that it understands the constitution, should
understand that there are certain areas of provincial
jurisdiction that we should respect. It does not, but we do.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 1999, I asked the
environment minister to clarify the government's position on the
issue of sewage and water treatment in Canada. He replied:
I wonder if, in the wake of Waterton, the minister will stand by
those words and say that there is no sewage or water problem
facing Canadian municipalities.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member? It is Walkerton,
not Waterton.
The second point is that if $600 million is to be wasted for
doing something which has no environmental benefit, obviously
resources are misplaced. We want to spend money where it will
help protect the lives of Canadians and protect their health.
That is why the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities have outlined a strategy
for infrastructure for clean water, sewage treatment and solid
waste disposal.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ever since the
Big Brother affair, we have been aware of this government's
propensity to gather information on just about everybody. The
worrisome facts that have been released today in connection with
the Canada Information Office worry us a great deal.
Can the Minister of Public Works tell us whether there are many
files on people at the CIO, like the one on journalists? Is
there, for instance, one on intellectuals, artists, business
people, politicians and sovereignists? If so, what is in them?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no file on anyone. What
the Canada Information Office does is media analysis. They read
the papers, they monitor television and radio programs, and they
provide a media analysis to departments and ministers.
There is no file on any individual whatsoever.
* * *
1445
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the second annual Clean Air Day.
The Minister of the Environment met with his provincial
colleagues earlier this week to discuss among other things the
air in Canada. In Windsor—St. Clair we are very concerned about
the air we breathe. Can the Minister of the Environment tell the
House what action we can expect which will improve the air that
Canadians breathe?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after two days of discussions with my provincial and
territorial colleagues in Quebec City, we made substantial
improvements with respect to air quality.
I would like to congratulate the province of Ontario's change of
position. It has altered the schedule for reduction of the ozone
problem in Ontario. We now will have a 45% improvement over the
next 10 years rather than 15. In addition the province has said
that it will drop that date to 2005 if I, as Minister of the
Environment, and my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs are
successful in negotiating an effective ozone annex to the clean
air agreement with the United States, which we fully intend to do
before November.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Minister of the Environment claim
that the government is taking responsibility in the area of
drinking water.
I would like to ask the hon. minister, what has the government
done to clean up the water systems on the 171 aboriginal reserve
communities, systems which were identified in 1995 by Health
Canada as defective?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, over the last five years some $400 million
of federal money has been devoted to that problem.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we just heard the minister say that
there has been $400 million spent to address that problem. Let
the minister stand in the House and identify one reserve where
the problem has been corrected.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I think the number he
used was 171 different reserves. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I
only have 35 seconds but I would be glad to provide him—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Please put your hands down. The hon.
Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are
adding an extra $50 million this year.
* * *
CHILD CARE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
study after study and poll after poll confirm that accessing
quality child care is a major concern for parents.
This week the B.C. government announced a $7 a day child care
plan. Last month the Manitoba government committed an additional
$9 million to child care initiatives.
Is the HRDC minister going to take the lead from these NDP
premiers and commit to extending these excellent initiatives so
that all Canadians can benefit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that it was the
government not only in the Speech from the Throne but also in the
budget that outlined a very fulsome and comprehensive strategy to
support Canadian children. I am very much looking forward to
working with the provinces as we together build a solid platform
of support services for Canadian children.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
problem is that we have seen no action.
This week the provincial social services ministers are meeting
in Toronto. It is a perfect opportunity for the government to
back up its big talk finally with some action.
I would like to ask the minister again, will she come to the
table this week with something tangible on child care and on the
children's agenda, and if not, why not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me point again to the investments
that we are making through the national children's benefit and
through the expanded parental leave program.
I would ask the hon. member to make sure that all the provincial
social services ministers come to Toronto ready to join with us
to focus on early childhood development, because we have already
said we want to help them.
* * *
1450
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday across Canada we saw record highs in gas prices.
Prices surged by up to nine cents per litre in some areas of the
country.
The petroleum industry tells Canadian motorists to expect more
this summer. Just in time for summer vacation, we could be
seeing gas prices of a dollar per litre in Canada.
What is the government doing to protect the Canadian motorist
against rising gas prices in Canada?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question, but I do not know where he has been all along.
Some time back, 47 members started this activity. Today the
Conference Board of Canada has undertaken a very extensive study
right across the country.
When it comes to pricing, the hon. member's provincial
counterparts, Mike Harris—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is
spending too much time on his other job. If he has any influence
over his Conservative counterparts in Ontario, they have the
ability to regulate pricing.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
member on that side of the House continues to give Canadians
gaseous emissions over a very important issue.
As Canadians are looking forward to their summer vacations, the
government is giving them a pending airline strike and
potentially dollar per litre gas prices.
Will the government continue to sit on its hands and tell
Canadians to sit at home this summer?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member
what his counterparts in Ontario are telling Canadians. Bob
Runciman is telling consumers to buy smaller cars. That is what
he is telling them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Fredericton.
* * *
HEALTH
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
I understand that the minister will be making an important
announcement later today regarding the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research.
Can the minister tell the House now how the CIHR will improve
existing research in Canada and at the same time focus on new and
emerging priority health research for all Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it will be my great pleasure on behalf of the Government of
Canada to launch the Canadian Institutes of Health Research with
a record breaking budget of almost $500 million a year.
The CIHR is a bold new initiative which will transform the way
health research is carried on in this country.
At 4 o'clock I will introduce the president and the 19 members
of the new governing council, individuals who are recognized
around the world for their expertise and their contribution in
the area of health research.
I am proud to be part of a government under the leadership of
the Prime Minister who understands the importance of investing in
knowledge to make sure the best and brightest remain in this
country to the benefit of all Canadians.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, for seven years the government has watched while the
combat capability of our armed forces went into decay.
First the government produced a white paper and then refused to
fund the forces to fulfil their missions. Then it began to slash
personnel levels to a point where they can no longer even
function as a force because they have been overtasked. They had
to sell off aircraft and they mothballed ships.
When will the minister acknowledge that the infusion of $2
billion over four years is not enough to stop the bleeding or
avoid the eventual collapse of the Canadian armed forces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The Reform Party alias
the Canadian Alliance came out with a new defence policy paper
today, but it is hard to take it seriously when we consider that
in the last election, those members were saying there should be
$1 billion in further cuts to defence.
It is hard to take it seriously when that party on the one hand
says we should cut, cut, cut our tax revenues and on the other
hand it says we should spend, spend, spend. Where will the money
come from? Canadian Alliance members should tell us that. One
of their recommendations I find particularly meanspirited,
because they are saying we should not try to get—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
CANADA DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has learned through access to information that the
Canada Day budget for Quebec is $5 million, but we have never—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We have learned that this budget is
$5 million, but we have never been able to find out what the
budget was for other provinces.
If the total budget for Canada Day is not a state secret, could
the minister tell the House what it is, since her answer will
certainly be of interest to members from other provinces,
including her own colleagues?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy that we can work together to organize
celebrations for Canada's big birthday, as well as for
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
I read in the newspaper this week that the Government of Quebec
has doubled its funding for the national holiday.
There is such a spirit of partnership that I myself received a
cheque for $350 from Guy Bouthillier, the president of the
Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, in support of Canada Day. I thank
Mr. Bouthillier.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[English]
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister responsible for Canadians with disabilities.
Currently if any recipient of CPP disability does limited
volunteer work for any community agency, there is no action taken
by CPP because volunteering is recognized as a useful and
necessary experience. But if a recipient receives any payment of
any kind for his or her efforts, CPP is immediately cut off.
Can the minister tell the House why her ministry encourages
those with disabilities to volunteer, but punishes them for
trying to work?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the
CPP disability pension is like a pension. It is a pension of
last resort as if a person is retired. Having said that, it is
extraordinarily important for us to work with Canadians with
disabilities to find effective ways of ensuring that they can
participate in the Canadian economy and that they can contribute
to their country and to their own needs.
I recognize the work of the hon. member and those on the
standing committee, the suggestions and recommendations they make
to me and the improvements that this government is making in
support of Canadians with disabilities.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Hon. John Fraser's report on land forces reserves
restructure was tabled. Now we wonder if it was irrelevant. In
fact, Mr. Fraser wrote to the Minister of National Defence on
March 30 asking just that. The new funding model of March 2
states a $30 million cut in reserve pay this year and next year a
$30 million input in equipment and rerolling.
Can the minister tell the House how he could approve $60 million
in cuts and new spending three months before the tabling of the
report?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the $30 million being referred to was in
fact restored. There is nothing that is prejudicing the reserve
restructuring. We want to revitalize the reserves. That is why
I commissioned the report from Mr. Fraser and his team. I think
he has come in with an excellent set of recommendations that will
become the foundation for the revitalization program.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of two visitors today. The first is
His Excellency Adalberto Rodriguez Giavarini, Minister of Foreign
Relations, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine
Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Second, I would like to draw the attention
of hon. members to the presence in our gallery of Her Excellency
Maria Eugenia Brizuela de Avila, Minister of Foreign Relations of
the Republic of El Salvador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I see the government House leader is trying
to seek the floor. Before he does so, two days ago the hon.
opposition House leader raised a point of order. At that time
the government House leader said, I believe, that the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge would be here in the House so that I
could hear the other side.
I noticed that the member was here yesterday for the vote. I
noticed that the member was here today. If he does not appear in
the next very short while, I will make my decision without having
heard from him. I will give it a few more minutes. In the
meantime I will hear the point of order of the hon. government
House leader.
1505
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on the point that you have
just raised, I know colleagues are attempting to contact the
member who has just left for a committee. Hopefully we can have
the member rise briefly on a point of order to address the House.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
earlier today made reference to a cheque she had received from
the Saint-Jean-Baptiste society in the amount of $350.
She has asked me, as is the custom, to table in the House a copy
of the document she referred to. I am therefore pleased to
table a copy of the document, namely, a photocopy of the cheque
for $350 by Guy Bouthillier payable to the hon. Sheila Copps.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on this same point of order, I would simply like to clarify
something for the benefit of all members.
The cheque the government House leader is referring to is simply
the payment of funding the Minister of Canadian Heritage herself
denied a community, I believe the Sephardic community, because
the celebration occurred on July 2. So, the president of the
Saint-Jean-Baptiste society thought that, as a measure of
generosity, it would be better to pay it in the minister's
stead.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a delay in a ruling
on the matter of the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. He
had to withdraw for medical reasons. I would ask you to wait
until tomorrow to rule on this.
[English]
I will consult informally with other colleagues. It is a
medical situation.
The Speaker: If it is a medical situation, I will take
that as a given. I will wait until tomorrow, but I would like
him to address this House on this matter as soon as he is
physically able to do so.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among House leaders. I would like to seek unanimous consent of
the House for the following motion:
That ways and means proceeding No. 11 be deemed to have been put
and division thereon requested and deferred until the expiry of
the time for consideration of Government Orders later this day.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 33rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92. This
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 21.
Your committee has considered Recommendation No. 73 of the
province of Nova Scotia's public inquiry into the Westray
disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate
executives and directors are held properly accountable for
workplace safety.
1510
[Translation]
Your committee agreed, on Tuesday, June 6, 2000, to recommend to
the Minister of Justice and her department that they introduce a
bill, pursuant to the notice of motion and the principle stated
in Bill C-259, for consideration by the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade on the crisis in Fiji.
[English]
I also have the pleasure to present, in both official languages,
the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade respecting Bill C-19, an act respecting
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make
consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has agreed
to report it with amendments.
I should like to take one minute and share an observation with
the House. It is often said that in committee time is not given
to study bills properly and to amend them. I urge members of the
House to have a look at the many amendments which were made to
this bill with the co-operation of all members of the committee
including opposition members.
I particularly single out several members such as the hon.
member for Mount Royal and others who worked very hard with the
government to ensure that these amendments, which represented the
opinion of many NGOs, would be brought forward to amend the bill.
I believe all members of the committee are of the view that the
bill is a better bill than it was originally presented. We agree
and we thank the government and members of the committee for the
enormous work they have done in amending the bill. All members
of the committee participated.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-486, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (expenses incurred by caregivers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the
House to introduce this bill which I personally named the Pearl
Fleming bill. Pearl Fleming was a woman who weighed over 100
pounds when diagnosed with an illness. She died when she weighed
well under 100 pounds.
Her husband, instead of institutionalizing his wife in her final
year, brought her home and cared for her in her last year there.
The expenses he incurred in terms of oxygen, new equipment, a new
bed, et cetera, were not tax deductible.
This bill would enable her husband and many other people in the
future to claim medical expenses incurred by caregivers for
ailing family members in order to deduct them as tax deductible
expenses.
I am sure, after careful consideration by every member of the
House of Commons, this legislation will sweep through the country
like a strong wind and receive accolades and support from all
members of the government.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR REGISTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to present
before the House 40 pages of signatures from British Columbians
who are calling upon parliament to urge the Minister of Health to
establish a national organ donor registry. What a marvellous
thing these people are asking for. I think the country requires
this petition to move the government forward.
1515
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of Canadians
who 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.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
hundreds of residents of Burnaby and other communities across the
land urging the Parliament of Canada to stop two tier American
style health care moving into Canada.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
federal Liberals have ignored the top priority of Canadians in
the 2000 budget by giving only 2 cents for health care for every
dollar spent on tax cuts. They point out that the federal
government is paying just 13.5% of health care costs and that the
federal Liberals opened the door to two tier American style
health care by cutting a secret deal with the province of
Alberta, which in turn paved the way for Alberta's bill 11.
Finally, they note that Canadians want immediate action to save
public health care in Canada and, therefore, they call upon
parliament to stop for profit hospitals and to restore federal
funding for health care, to increase the federal government's
share of health care funding to 25% immediately, and to implement
a national home care program and a national program for
prescription drugs.
THE CBC
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour today to present a petition signed by 6,000
Newfoundlanders from every part of our province. The petitioners
are very discouraged and upset that the CBC is cutting the
national supper hour news program Here and Now from one
hour to half an hour. An Atlantic Canadian poll released today
reveals that 70% of Canadians are telling government to reverse
that decision and 79% of Newfoundlanders are saying the same
thing.
These 6,000 people are petitioning parliament to intervene to
protect a program that is essential to the culture of our very
large and sparsely populated province.
There are over 30,000 names on various petitions and these
petitioners want all of their Newfoundland Liberal MPs to present
those petitions as well, which they have not been doing. I am
asking Newfoundland Liberal MPs to have some courage, to stand
for their province, to stand for their people and to stand for
jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
QUEEN'S OWN CAMERON HIGHLANDERS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed
by hundreds of Manitobans who are concerned about the future of
the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders.
The petitioners point out that current studies toward the
restructuring of the Canadian reserve forces imply a reduction in
the number of infantry regiments. The petitioners further point
out that the Camerons are Manitoba's only highland kilted
regiment and they believe the regiment must be retained as an
important symbol of Manitoba's great Scottish heritage.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to reject any
plan to abolish the Camerons and amalgamate the regiment with
another militia unit.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present today from people from the
Lakeland constituency regarding child pornography and the fact
that the British Columbia Court of Appeal on June 30, 1999
refused to reinstate subsection 163.1(4) of the criminal code
regarding child pornography.
The petitioners therefore request that parliament use, if
necessary, the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to reinstate subsection 163.1(4) of the
criminal code so that child pornography will not be legal in this
country.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present three petitions today.
The first petition condemns the Chinese government for its
persecution of the Falun religion.
BREAST CANCER
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition which I wish to present has to do with breast
cancer. I fully support the petition.
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
third petition which I wish to present the petitioners call upon
Canada to object to the national missile defence program and to
show a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missiles.
[Translation]
CENSUS DATA ACCESS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table two petitions.
Some people in my riding are calling upon parliament to take the
necessary steps to make a retroactive amendment to the
provisions of the Statistics Act relating to the prohibition
against divulging information, in order to allow access to the
census data after a reasonable period with respect to post-1901
data, beginning with the 1906 census.
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present another petition, this one relating to parental leave
under employment insurance, which is going to be raised from 10
weeks to 35.
This extension of parental leave will apply only to parents
whose babies are born after December 31, 2000. Parents of
children born prior to that date will not have the same
privilege as those whose children are born after.
1520
Consequently, the petitioners are calling upon parliament to
make the extended parental leave effective immediately, so that
parents of children born prior to December 31, 2000 may also
take advantage of it. Parents should be able to reap immediate
advantage from the $30 billion surplus in the employment
insurance fund.
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table a petition protesting predatory
gasoline pricing.
Given the soaring price of gasoline at the pump and Canadian
consumers' inability to take action and protect themselves
against increases in gasoline prices, the petitioners from
Saint-Hubert, Lachine, Mirabel, Saint-Constant, Longueuil,
Lachenaie, Quebec City and Sainte-Martine are calling on
parliament to pass a resolution to stop world petroleum cartels
in order to bring down overly high gasoline prices.
[English]
QUEEN'S OWN CAMERON HIGHLANDERS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions. The
first petition concerns the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of
Canada, the Camerons, Manitoba's only highland kilted regiment.
The petitioners would like the regiment to be retained in
Manitoba. The Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders should be
sustained as a vital contribution to Canada's defence.
This petition is sponsored by the St. Andrew's Society of
Winnipeg and the city of Selkirk.
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a second petition
from many Manitobans who are concerned about nuclear weapons in
the world. The petitioners request the immediate initiation and
conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which
would set a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.
CANADA POST
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present two petitions
on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders, specifically those from
Vernon River, Vernon Bridge and the Lake Verde area. The
petitioners are concerned that rural route mail couriers are
being denied their collective bargaining rights under subsection
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act and that this denial
keeps the wages and working conditions of the RRMCs at an unfair
level and discriminates against rural workers. Therefore, the
petitioners would like this section to be repealed.
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
debates on Bill C-20 are continuing in the Senate, I have the
honour to present, on behalf of Quebec citizens, a petition to
tell the House that they alone control their destiny, that they
alone can decide their future, and that Bill C-20 is
undemocratic. It respects neither the letter nor the spirit of
the supreme court opinion. I am tabling this motion on behalf on
these citizens.
[English]
ETHIOPIA
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, sometimes catching the Speaker's eye is like operating
in a busy restaurant and I am grateful to be recognized.
I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the
citizens of Toronto who call on the House to urge the Canadian
government to use its influence on the Ethiopian government to
renounce the use of force and to adhere to the OAU plan in that
troubled region; to call on the Ethiopian government to respect
human rights and ensure the reunification of some 2,600 children
who have been separated from their families; and to ensure that
the Canadian government intervenes to alleviate the humanitarian
crisis in the area.
The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker wants to thank the hon.
member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. While on occasion I feel
like a waiter, I was very jumpy going back to the hon. member
after the lengthy speech he made on presentation of reports from
committees.
THE CBC
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present a petition from over 1,000 people from all over
the province of Newfoundland. The petitioners ask that the CBC
not diminish nor eliminate the news and current affairs program
Here and Now from the Newfoundland and Labrador region.
I would suggest to members opposite that unless they support
this before the next election, they might be here now, but they
won't be here then.
1525
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 to present a petition from a number of
constituents, who I think made a mistake on their petition. It
states that the federal government pays only 13.5% of health care
costs, which has led to a shortage of nurses, hospital beds and
emergency room spaces across the country. I think it is 14%.
The reality is, whether it is 13.5% or 14%, it still makes the
point.
The petitioners outline a number of concerns about the health
care system. Basically the petitioners are calling upon
parliament to stop for profit hospitals and restore federal
funding for health care.
PENSIONS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition on behalf of my hon. colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka.
Hundreds of his constituents are urging the government to reduce
the tax penalty on early RRSP and RRIF withdrawals from 50% to
10% for senior citizens who may use the money to retire their
mortgages.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed an honour on behalf of many constituents to
present to the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a
petition addressing the very unfortunate situation we are facing
with health care in the country.
Saskatchewan has lost $1.4 billion in health care since 1993
when the Liberals were elected. To say the least, the people of
Saskatchewan are a little ticked off at the Liberal government
for its lack of priority in health care.
The petitioners believe very strongly that, even though we have
lost $1.4 billion from the Liberal government transfer payments
for health care, the NDP government in Saskatchewan has
backfilled every one of those dollars plus, even though it has
lost the federal share. These people are really ticked off at
the Liberal government because it is not only continuing the
cuts, but the petitioners say that the government is also
embracing two tier American style health care.
The petitioners call for the House of Commons and the government
to stop for profit hospitals. They call for federal funding to
be restored for health care, keeping in mind that if $1.4 billion
has been lost in seven years to Saskatchewan what that means to
Ontario, where the loss would be multiplied.
The petitioners also ask that the federal government share of
health care funding be increased to a more suitable level to meet
the very urgent needs of Canadians who require health care
services.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Motion No. P-30 to be called.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies
which were done prior to the banning of the 2% and 5% solutions
of strychnine to show the effect the banning of these solutions
would have on Canadian Farmers.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, no studies were done on the
effect—economic impact—on Canadian farmers of the withdrawal of
the registration of the concentrated strychnine solutions, 2% and
5%, used by farmers to mix their own 0.4% end-use products.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that Motion No. P-30 be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and
the member for Churchill River concerning the taking of the
division on Motion No. 237, scheduled at the conclusion of
Private Members' Business later today, and I believe you would
find consent for the following:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-237, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, June 12,
2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to)
1530
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want refer to a matter of privilege that was raised on
Monday of this week by the Chair and, more important, by the
Canadian Alliance member for Fraser Valley.
I was about to head over to the doctor to have my foot looked
at as a result of a very good game of soccer last night with the
pages. They were a little zealous in their duty and I believe
their aim was to reduce the number of members who played in that
event.
I am here because I want to give some clarification on Bill C-201.
To understand this, Bill C-201 is at the report stage. It was,
however, sent back from committee as a blank piece of paper. This
is the first time the House has ever dealt with a situation
wherein a committee has deemed, in its wisdom, to do what the wider
parliament did not do and to return a blank piece of paper.
In the meantime, for a variety of dates, circumstances and
other reasons, we have been trying to find an amenable way to
restore through amendments the effect of Bill C-201.
I am concerned that those who raised this issue are somewhat
incognizant of the fact that their own party, the Canadian
Alliance, stood four square behind the destruction of Bill C-201,
a bill that ironically deals with changes in the Competition Act
for predatory pricing, the very thing that Microsoft will be
facing in the United States in the next little while. The subtle
differences between our two jurisdictions are important.
We as a parliament are dealing with rather new territory. We
are really creating a new path as far as Private Members'
Business is concerned. I believe this is an important bill and a
good bill. We have taken measures, on a number of occasions in
the past, to ensure that notice was given so that Private
Members' Business could be substituted with other more ready
bills. I remember one instance when there was an illness. I
hope to have a resolution in the near future on this matter.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with a
situation that we have never seen before wherein we have those
who are concerned about debating this bill actually having had a
hand in gutting the bill in the first instance through the
industry committee.
I hope that is satisfactory, and I would hope that those who have
any questions about Bill C-201 in the first instance will explain
why they want to bring up the issue of Bill C-201 beyond the
question of simple privilege.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his
comments. I know the Speaker, who has taken this matter under
advisement, was looking forward to hearing from the hon. member.
His comments will be noted and the Speaker will render a decision
on this matter in due course.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT AMENDMENTS, 1999
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget
Implementation Act, 1999, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are two motions in amendment
standing on today's notice paper for the report stage of Bill
C-25.
[English]
Neither motion can be proposed to the House because they are not
accompanied by the recommendation of the governor general.
Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such a
recommendation be given no later than the sitting day before the
beginning of report stage consideration of a bill.
[Translation]
Accordingly, the question on the motion for concurrence at
report stage will be put without debate.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in
at report stage.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried, on division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
At the next sitting of the House?
Some hon. members: Now.
1535
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I agree
that summer is knocking at the door and that the government is in
a hurry to get things done, but I want to make sure I understand
things properly.
When you asked if we were ready for the question, five Bloc
Quebecois members rose to express their disagreement. I would
like to know your decision on this point or hear it again.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. member that,
when the Chair put the question, I asked the House to answer yea
or nay according to its pleasure. I then said “In my opinion,
the yeas have it”. Five members had not risen at that point. I
am sorry, but I counted the members and there were not five. That
is the only reason I asked “When will the bill be read the third
time?” And that is how it went. We are now at third reading.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all
due respect to the Chair, we were five members, and it is the
prerogative of the members to call for a vote.
We are in parliament and we would not understand that you impede
our ability to vote. We were five members, and I ask you to
reconsider your decision so that we may continue our debate
calmly as we ought. We were five members and we want to vote on
this question. This is the prerogative of the Bloc Quebecois to
request it.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not agree with the hon. member that
it is the prerogative of just anyone in the House to call for a
vote. However, five members of this House must rise, and five
had not risen when I put the question. I am sure that, while I
was saying “I declare the motion carried”, other members
arrived, but it was too late. The decision has been made and
that is the end of that.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To
help those who are watching us and the members opposite
understand what is going on, I wonder if the Chair or the clerk
could clarify under the standing orders whether when a vote is
called it is necessary for a member to be in his or her own
seat?
It is necessary to be standing and to say that we want to vote.
I believe this is what happened earlier when five Bloc Quebecois
members stood up asking for one. The hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve told the Chair that he was present and he
was indeed present. I would not want the call of summer to make
us proceed too quickly.
1540
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you will give me a few
seconds, I first want to say that I understand very well and I
think you were right in how you interpreted the rules.
I also appreciate the fact that the Bloc Quebecois still
continues to co-operate regarding Bill C-25. Even if we did not
have the opportunity to ask for a recorded division, under the
rules that were properly interpreted by the Chair, I always
appreciate their co-operation and that of the other parties
because it allows us to go ahead with this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the comments made by all the
members on this issue but I would like to find the applicable
standing order.
Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you
agree, I propose that we carry on with the business of the House
and that the Chair gets back to this issue later on. We do not
want to delay the House in its proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. When I issued my
ruling, there were not five members who had risen. This is the
only reason why I made that ruling. I am aware of course that
five members must rise. If five members rise, there is a recorded
division.
[English]
I posed the question, when shall the bill be read a third time.
The question may be put now and I propose to put it to the House
because apparently that is the request.
Hon. Maria Minna (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the
House today at third reading of Bill C-25, the 1999 income tax
amendments act.
Hon. members are familiar with this legislation so I will not
take up valuable House time discussing the bill in any detail.
Instead, I will briefly review the highlights of the bill.
[Translation]
This bill brings into force many of the tax
measures that were announced in the 1999 budget, together with
some non-budget tax measures. For those hon. members wondering
about the tax measures in the 2000 budget, they will be
contained in separate legislation.
[English]
Every one of the government's budgets to date have provided
targeted tax relief designed to achieve key social and economic
goals. With the deficit eliminated in 1997-98, the door was
subsequently opened to the introduction of some broad based tax
relief measures.
The tax measures in the 1999 budget build on those that were
introduced in previous budgets. Most important, as members of
the House know, for the first time since 1965 the 1999 budget
provides tax relief for every taxpayer without the government
having to borrow money to pay for it and, as with the previous
relief measures, low and middle income Canadians benefit the
most.
1545
Hon. members will be aware of the government's commitment to
provide ongoing tax relief to Canadians as we can afford it. Hon.
members will also know that the Minister of Finance followed
through on the promise he made in the fall fiscal and economic
update and announced a five year tax reduction plan in budget
2000.
[Translation]
This plan will provide real and lasting tax reductions for
Canadians and ensure that all taxpayers will see their taxes
reduced in a manner consistent with the government's tax-cutting
principles. These measures, however, will be introduced under
separate legislation.
As we did in eliminating the deficit, the tax reduction plan
will be achieved as quickly as possible—and further expanded as
resources permit.
[English]
It is important that we pass this bill without delay. Let me
continue my remarks by outlining the measures in this bill that
stem from the 1999 budget.
Bill C-25 includes three general tax relief measures which,
subject to this legislation being enacted, all took effect on
July 1, 1999. The amount of income Canadians can receive tax
free is increased. This amount is increased further in the 2000
budget, a provision that will be contained in separate
legislation. The supplement to personal amounts provided for low
income taxpayers in the 1998 budget is extended to all taxpayers
and increased by a further $175. Bill C-25 eliminates the
general 3% surtax for all taxpayers.
Standing to benefit the most from these measures are low income
earners. A single filer with an income of $15,000 for example
will pay 15% less federal tax, while a similar person earning
$30,000 will pay 6% less tax.
Income splitting with minor children is also covered in this
bill. Income splitting occurs when high income individuals
divert income to low income earners, generally family members, to
avoid tax. In most cases only high income individuals with
dependants reap any tax benefits from income splitting. Bill C-25
rectifies this situation by introducing a special tax that is
specifically directed at structures designed to split income with
minors.
Individuals age 17 and under will have to pay this special tax
on any taxable dividends or any benefits on unlisted shares of
Canadian and foreign companies that they receive from a trust or
partnership. In addition, income they receive from a partnership
or trust that comes from a business carried on by a relative will
also be subject to this special tax.
[Translation]
Bill C-25 also deals with the taxation of retroactive lump-sum
payments. These payments are taxed in the year they are
received, even though a significant portion may relate to prior
years. Because of the progressivity of the tax system, an
individual's tax liability on these payments may be higher than
if they had been made, and taxed, year by year as the income
arose.
[English]
There will now be a special relieving mechanism in place to
compute the tax on qualifying retroactive lump sum payments where
those payments are $3,000 or more in a given year.
Bill C-25 also effects a change on the tax treatment of
Hutterite colonies. For tax purposes, Hutterite colonies are
viewed as communal organizations and subject to section 143 of
the Income Tax Act. The intent is that their income be taxed at
roughly the same level as farming income earned outside these
organizations by allocating colony income among adult members.
Until now, income in a communal organization was allocated to
only one designated spouse in a family. To allow for the tax
burden on communal organizations to be reduced and more fairly
distributed, Bill C-25 provides for income to be allocated to
each spouse in the family. This change will help maintain
roughly equivalent taxation on income earned by Hutterite
colonies and other groups.
Bill C-25 also contains a number of other tax provisions that
were included in the 1999 budget.
[Translation]
Third parties making false statements that could be used for tax
purposes will now be subject to two new civil penalties. One
deals with tax shelter and other tax-planning arrangements; the
second concerns advising or participating in a false tax filing.
1550
There will now be a culpable conduct test—consistent with what
the courts have used in the past when applying civil penalties
to taxpayers—along with a “reliance in good faith” exception to
the test.
[English]
There has been some discussion about the culpable conduct test.
I would like to briefly describe for the House and for Canadians
what it is and what it is not.
Culpable conduct as defined in the act means conduct, whether an
act or a failure to act, that (a) is tantamount to intentional
conduct, (b) shows an indifference as to whether this act is
complied with, or (c) shows a wilful, reckless or wanton
disregard of law. I am sure members of the House will agree that
conduct such as this is truly not acceptable. Honest errors of
omission or commission will not be applicable under the culpable
conduct test.
Bill C-25 also addresses the tax situation that arises when an
individual dies and the value of their RRSP or RRIF is included
in their income for the year of their death. When there is a
surviving spouse but RRSPs and RRIFs have been left to dependent
children, it is the children, not the deceased's estate, who will
now be responsible for any resulting income inclusions. With
income tax rates for dependent children usually lower, this
provision will help them when a parent dies.
Through the bill the care of people with severe disabilities
living in a group home, therapy for those with severe
disabilities, and tutoring for the learning disabled will now be
covered under the medical expense tax credit. In addition,
talking text books for people with perceptual disabilities who
are enrolled at educational institutions will be included on the
eligible equipment list for persons with disabilities.
Corporations producing electrical energy for sale or steam for
use in such production will now be eligible for the manufacturing
and processing profits tax credit. This measure will help the
electricity generating sector to become more competitive.
The next measure will also help corporations. Faced with
multiple taxation years being reassessed at the same time,
corporations are often caught in situations where refund interest
is taxable while arrears interest is non-deductible. There will
now be a relieving mechanism in place so corporations can ask for
such amounts to be offset for interest calculation purposes.
[Translation]
Another component in Bill C-25 is designed to help the Canadian
investment services industry compete more effectively
internationally. A new rule will ensure that, subject to
conditions, if a non-resident hires a Canadian firm to provide
certain investment services, the non-resident is not, for that
reason alone, considered to be carrying on business in Canada.
[English]
Canadian firms serving offshore clients will continue to pay tax
in Canada on their profits. Non-residents who receive income
from Canadian sources will continue to be subject to Canadian
tax.
Other measures in the bill will encourage labour sponsored
venture capital corporations to focus more on small business
investments under the 12% part VI surcharge on large deposit
making institutions. The 12% part VI surcharge on large deposit
making institutions is being extended further to October 31,
2000.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, this bill also
contains some non-budget tax measures. One exempts the income of
the trust that has been established by the federal, provincial
and territorial governments to provide compensation to hepatitis
C victims from income taxation.
Finally, the bill ensures that for tax purposes cash
demutualization benefits are treated as dividends and therefore
are subject to the low dividend rate. While there is no
immediate tax benefit associated with a policyholder receiving a
share as a demutualization benefit, a capital gain would be
recognized once the share is sold.
In conclusion, I encourage my hon. colleagues to support the
bill. Each of these measures improves the operation of the tax
system and each adheres to the principle of tax fairness.
Together the measures introduced in the 1997, 1998 and 1999
budgets reduce the income tax burden of Canadians by some 10%.
1555
[Translation]
But, as the Minister of Finance said last fall, these are only
the first steps. Combined with the actions in those budgets,
the measures in the 2000 budget will see personal income taxes
reduced by 22% in 2004-05.
[English]
Let us pass this bill quickly, colleagues, so we can move on to
implementing the five year tax reduction plan.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the smoke and mirrors from the
government side on Bill C-25 in all the things those members have
been saying.
I come from the area of Okanagan—Coquihalla. The people in my
riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla are hard working and diligent.
They want to have families and create an environment in their
communities that is good for themselves and for their community.
They want to prosper.
Mr. Speaker, you probably knew this, but in my riding there are
two communities with interesting names. One is Merritt and the
other is Hope, British Columbia. I often say that the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla reflect the names of those two communities.
They are hard workers. They give meritorious service to their
communities. They have hope. They have hope for the future. They
have hope that they will prosper. But that hope has been dashed
by the Liberal government over the last seven years because it
has failed to deliver to Canadians the things that make people
prosperous, the things that encourage entrepreneurship and so on.
Bill C-25 is an omnibus bill that contains amendments to the
Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and implements certain
provisions of the 1999 federal budget. Canadians are not in
support of this bill.
I want to touch on a point that preceded this debate. That is
the issue of the two amendments that were proposed by the finance
critic for the Canadian Alliance. Both of those amendments would
have seen increased accountability to the powerful revenue
agency. Both of those amendments have been disregarded by the
House. The excuse was that they were not accompanied by a
Governor General's recommendation. We hear all the time from the
government how it has broad based consultations, that it speaks
to Canadians and tries to find out what Canadians are really
after. Let us look at what these two amendments did.
There was broad consultation. We talked to people in the
financial services industry, the accounting industry, the life
underwriting industry. These were people in the professional tax
field. They came to the finance committee to give testimony. They
talked about how the bill is too broadly based, how it does not
offer a neutral appeal process. That is pretty serious when we
are talking about taxes.
If the revenue agency goes after a Canadian with the allegation
of a problem with his tax return, there has to be an appeal
process, does there not? We think there would be. The amendments
the hon. member for Medicine Hat brought forward did that, but
they have been disregarded by the Liberal government. It is
outrageous. However I am used to it and I think Canadians are
used to it.
We will not sit idly by and watch this continually happen time
and time again. In the next campaign the Liberal government is
going to feel the wrath of the Canadian people when it comes to
taxation. I assure the Liberals that they are plummeting now, but
they are going to plummet even further in the polls the day we go
to the people of Canada and ask them what they think of the
Liberal government's record on taxation over the last seven or
eight years.
1600
I would like to look at payroll taxes for a minute. In 1999 the
increased payroll taxes taken to fund the Canada pension plan
removed any savings Canadians expected to see on their paystubs.
Canadians will be faced with increases to the Canada pension plan
for the next four years. In fact the increased payroll taxes
taken to fund the Canada pension plan is the single biggest tax
increase in the country.
Does the Liberal government talk about that? No, it does not,
but the fact is that its increases to payroll taxes are the
biggest that Canadians have ever seen, the largest tax grabs in
the history of the country.
Despite the Liberal claims in the 1999 budget, Canadians are
still faced with the highest personal income taxes of all the G-7
states, a major factor in the continuing brain drain of skilled
Canadians to lower tax regimes like that of the United States.
The Liberal government claims that the 2000 budget will change
the distinction we held in 1999. Budget 2000 proposes a five
year tax reduction plan that is supposed to create the most
important structural changes to the federal tax system in more
than a decade.
We all remember the finance minister in his speech in the House.
He said:
Today, we are setting out a five year plan so that individuals,
families, small businesses and others will know for certain that
their taxes will fall this year, next year and in years to come.
The finance minister stated that Canadians could expect tax
relief equalling $58.4 billion over the next five years. He even
admitted that tax dollars were not the property of the federal
government, which was quite a revelation for the Minister of
Finance, but really the property of Canadian taxpayers. He said
“It is your money after all”. That is exactly what he said in
the House. Can Canadians really expect to receive $58.4 billion
in tax relief from the federal Liberal government?
An hon. member: Hardly.
Mr. Jim Hart: My hon. friend says “Hardly”. Let me
explain. The answer is no. He is absolutely right. After all
the hoopla died away it became clear that new spending
initiatives combined with tax increases from previous budgets
like those in Bill C-25 would wipe out the vast majority of the
$58.4 billion tax cut.
Over the next five years spending on programs will increase by
$7.5 billion. This brings the supposed tax cut down to just over
$50 billion, but there is more. It is kind of like buying one of
those vegamatics on TV: “But wait, there is more”.
Subtract from this $50 billion the whopping $29.5 billion
payroll tax hike caused by the multi-year increase to Canada
pension plan premiums. As I mentioned earlier, every January for
the next four years Canadians will have to pay more of their hard
earned dollars to bankroll a public pension plan that for all
intents and purposes is broken.
Now the tax cut is down to about $20 billion, but wait, there is
more. Some $13.5 billion of this amount are nothing more than a
cancellation of scheduled tax hikes. Is cancelling a scheduled
tax hike a tax break? I do not think so, and judging from the
response from my constituents they do not think so either.
That leaves a grand total of $7.9 billion for tax relief or, to
put it another way, $107.60 per taxpayer per year. We could put
it another way, $8.97 per taxpayer per month, or we could take it
down even lower to $2.07 per week, enough to buy a medium size
Tim Horton's coffee.
Canadian taxpayers are getting no meaningful tax relief from the
Liberal government. Each Canadian is still paying over $2,000
more in taxes than they were in 1993 when the Liberals formed the
government.
That is quite a different story from what we have heard from the
Liberals. They keep telling Canadians that there are tax cuts.
It is absolute smoke and mirrors.
1605
An hon. member: Not to mention rubbish.
Mr. Jim Hart: It is rubbish. This is a real blow to
Canadians like people in my riding who work hard. At the end of
the year they try to have some disposal income left over so that
maybe they can send their children through university, take a bit
of a holiday or make renovations to their homes. There are a
number of things they could do, but their disposal incomes have
shrunk so much that they cannot do many of those things.
The Liberal government policy of high taxation is a blow to
Canada's economy as a whole. In Toronto last March a summit of
200 chief executive officers, brought together by the council on
national Issues, tried to come up with remedies for Canada's poor
economic performance compared to a number of other new economic
jurisdictions. While Canada fell behind during the 1990s,
Ireland, a nation that traditionally had a lower standard of
living than that of the United Kingdom and much lower than that
of the European community, has become an economic hot spot.
We might ask ourselves another question. Why has Ireland, but
not Canada, been able to draw in so much high tech wealth and
talent, when high tech companies in Canada continuously loose
many of their brightest and best employees to the United States
market? The answer is taxes. During this past decade Ireland
has acted decisively to lower taxes, creating a pro-business
atmosphere. Ireland now has one of the lowest tax rates and, as
a result, one of the most buoyant economies. The standard of
living of its citizens has also increased dramatically vis-à-vis
its neighbours.
At the same time Canada's standard of living under the regime of
Liberal governments has decreased dramatically vis-à-vis that of
the United States. Ireland has achieved financial prosperity for
its people partly through a conscious policy decision of a
government not afraid to cut taxes. Our government does not
believe that but I will continue anyway. I know its members are
making notes on this point.
Canadians are not as fortunate as people in the United States or
in Ireland. The modest tax cuts in the current Liberal budget
will do nothing to stem the slide of our standard of living or
the flow of skilled Canadians to lower tax jurisdictions in the
United States. Like Ireland, Canada must act decisively through
conscious policy decisions. This is what Canadians expect of
their Liberal government.
The Liberals have gone out of their way to make it difficult for
small businesses to conduct business in Canada. Any contractor
who subcontracts work to others is now forced by the government
to police them by filing a summary of contract payment forms with
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This is an additional
burden on small businesses with serious fines of up to $2,500 for
those who fail to file their summary of payment forms on time.
The current Liberal budget also fails to make serious inroads
into paying down debt. The Liberals have totally forgotten about
the debt. I think their strategy was that they would try to
confuse the public with relation to balancing the books, the
deficit and the debt, which are two different things. The
Liberals do not like to talk about the debt any more, which is at
approximately $580 billion. This has remained steady for the
last two years with only a minute reduction of $6.4 billion
scheduled over the next five years.
1610
At the rate we are going it could take 100 years. You will be a
very old man, Mr. Speaker, before our national debt is paid off.
We should contrast that to the United States which intends to pay
off its national debt in 12 years.
Without a feasible game plan to pay off our national debt in a
timely manner, the standard of living of Canadians will continue
to decline. At the same time the lower taxed, debt free U.S.
market will continue to attract Canada's best and Canada's
brightest. It is called the brain drain.
The Prime Minister does not believe it exists. In fact it does.
It is happening in my riding. It is happening in your riding,
Mr. Speaker. It is happening right across the country. Our
brightest university students are finding high tech, medical and
research jobs in the United States and are leaving our country.
That hurts our productivity and it hurts the country's future.
To make matters worse, Canadians are also deeply concerned about
the way the Liberal government spends their hard earned tax
dollars. Instead of offering Canadians tax relief, the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development have
spent the last two months demonstrating to Canadians why they
should not trust the Liberal government with their money. It is
reflected in the polls. We see the Liberals plunging in the
polls, and that will continue.
The scandal surrounding grants and contributions for a variety
of ill defined and unproven job creation schemes clearly shows
that the Liberal government has no sense of financial
accountability. The scandal does not stop at the Department of
Human Resources Development.
The auditor general has pointed out that numerous other
departments mismanage billions of dollars in grants and
contributions. Our tax dollars are being spent on make work
projects designed in effect to re-elect or try to get Liberals
re-elected, not to serve the best interest of all Canadians coast
to coast to coast.
That fact that real permanent jobs and economic prosperity can
only be created through a combination of real tax relief, not
disguised tax relief like the Liberals try to give us, and
business friendly policies is of no consideration.
Ireland is an example that is ignored by the government. The
Liberals are so out of touch with the average Canadian taxpayer
that they were actually considering giving subsidies to NHL
hockey teams last January.
While the Liberals mismanage billions of dollars in one
portfolio, they grossly underfund other portfolios such as
health. Health care, for example, is the number one concern
shared by my constituents and I am sure every one across the
country.
By the year 2004, the Liberal government will have starved the
provinces of $35 billion for health care at a time when the
population is rapidly aging. New technologies are advancing
which come with a very hefty price tag.
Since 1993 the Liberal government's contribution to health has
been slashed by 28%. The Liberals claim they will put $2.5
billion back into health care every year for the next four years.
That sounds pretty good, but the reality is there is still a
serious funding shortfall of $25 billion. The provinces are up
in arms, and rightly so. While the Liberals would rather funnel
this money into the ridings of the Prime Minister or senior
cabinet ministers, hospitals across the country are suffering.
In my own riding the hospitals are suffering. The people of
Princeton, B.C., were recently told that they would lose eight
acute care beds at the Princeton General Hospital. That may not
sound like a lot, but it is a 45% reduction. At the same time
the demand for those acute care beds is increasing. There is a
nursing shortage which means that the hospital is unable to carry
out its caregiving activities. Acute care patients will now have
to travel at least an hour and a half to receive the medical
attention they need. It is clearly unacceptable.
Why is it that the Prime Minister can funnel money that should
be spent on priorities like health care into pet projects like a
water fountain in the Prime Minister's riding? How can the
Liberal Party justify these actions? Members opposite should be
absolutely ashamed of what is happening.
1615
Another example from my riding is the case of the Okanagan
Similkameen Neurological Society, the child development centre
that helps children with neurological disorders. It is a very
prestigious institution and does excellent work but it has a
budget shortfall of about $200,000 each and every year.
For the last two years, I have had the privilege and opportunity
of hosting a golf tournament where we get businesses, community
leaders and people from the area to sponsor and make donations to
this one day fundraising effort. It has become quite a great
event. In fact, this year the charity golf classic raised about
$17,000 for the child development centre.
The $200,000 shortfall that institute experiences each and every
year should not have to be made up by golf tournaments and
fundraising activities like that. These people are doing
necessary work that benefits the community. It is part of the
health care system but it has a shortfall.
It is about time the federal government ponied up to the table
and started to put back into health what it took away. The
people of Okanagan—Coquihalla demand it and people across the
country demand it. What the government is doing with Bill C-25
is not good enough, despite its best efforts.
There are some other areas of concern in my riding when we talk
about how taxes are collected and the implementation of the
budget.
For years we have had problems at the Penticton airport. It is
all part of the nationalization of the airports policy where the
federal government was going to transfer the operations of the
airport to the city of Penticton. Unfortunately, there is a land
claim involved in this and an agreement cannot be reached. It is
at a stalemate. It has been going on for years, and it is
frustrating.
One of the things that happened was that a Liberal senator came
out to Penticton one bright morning and arrived without any
announcement. He did not even tell the mayor of Penticton that
he was coming. In his hand he held a cheque for 650,000 taxpayer
dollars. A couple of flags were flying and a podium had been set
up on the runway at the Penticton airport so he could tell the
people of Penticton that the federal government was going to put
$650,000 into repaving the Penticton airport. It needs to be
done but why was this done in secrecy?
The other thing that happened was that the Penticton Indian Band
came out and stopped the work from proceeding. The federal
government knew there was a problem yet it came in under the
cover of darkness, trying to put one over on the people of
Penticton and the Penticton Indian Band. It is absolutely
outrageous what the government is doing with taxpayer money.
I want to make the point very clear that this budget
implementation bill, Bill C-25, is 100% pure balderdash.
When we go to the gas pumps and fill up our gas tanks, we pay
taxes. Canadians have heard for years that the tax money was to
improve highways. Does it ever get to improve highways? I do not
think it does. As a matter of fact, I know it does not because
we have a stretch of highway between Peachland and Summerland in
my riding that is a very dangerous highway. The coroner has said
that it is one of the most dangerous highways in Canada.
Almost every week there is an accident on that highway, some
minor but some have also fatal. The people of the Okanagan area
are saying that they want that highway to become part of the
national highway system. There has been no action by the
government whatsoever, even though Highway 97 is a key
transportation link from Alaska all the way down through the
United States. Highway 97 is very important to the economy not
only of the people of the Okanagan but the economy of the entire
province of British Columbia because it is used to transport
goods and services.
1620
What I am saying is that the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla are
fed up with the Liberal government. They feel isolated because
they do not get the things they need. When the government
finally comes through with something it is something that is not
a priority item for the people of the riding. The government
just continues on its merry way doing these crazy things.
The people of B.C. will soon feel the effects of the Nisga'a
agreement. The B.C. ministry of agriculture of the NDP
government has admitted in a memo that it was a template for
future land claims agreements. When we passed the Nisga'a
agreement in the House what we in effect did was allow the
creation of some 1,600 other sovereign nations in Canada. We
should think about the devastating effect that will have on our
country and British Columbia in particular because most of those
will be in the province of British Columbia.
When we start connecting forestry, natural resources, the
economy of British Columbia and what the Nisga'a agreement has
done, we will feel more and more severe effects from that
agreement.
Canadians and people in my constituency are also concerned about
our criminal justice system. I had a terrible thing happen in
Summerland, my hometown, where a person who was on day parole
murdered two women in front of one of the woman's pre-school
children, a two year old and a four year old. The fellow was on
day parole from Calgary.
The rules say that Correctional Service Canada is supposed to
put a Canada-wide warrant out within 10 minutes. Twenty-four
hours had elapsed in which time this person allegedly travelled
to Summerland and murdered, execution style, the two women. It
was horrific. That same person is now playing with the court
system, using every legal option available to him, firing his
lawyers and using all kinds of delaying tactics.
What has the government done to improve the criminal justice
system? Where is the money that should be allocated to do that.
We will not find it in Bill C-25.
Another problem the federal government created across the
country, with the impact being felt particularly in British
Columbia, was when it negotiated the softwood lumber agreement.
In Boston Bar just outside Hope, British Columbia, there is a
large sawmill and lumberyard employer by the name of J.S. Jones
Holdings Inc.
When the softwood lumber agreement was being negotiated, the
government looked at a mill's production and the amount of wood
it was transporting to the United States over a two year period.
J.S. Jones was in a situation where it was re-tooling its shops.
Half of the mill was shut down while it was putting in new
equipment. It was upgrading its equipment because it wanted to
produce a good quality product in the best possible way.
When the quotas were finally handed out, J.S. Jones did not have
enough quota to continue operations. Workers are on lay-off
notice right now. That agreement will shut down the largest
employer in the Hope and Boston Bar area and put 200 people out
of work. What does Bill C-25 hold for those folks? Absolutely
nothing.
The softwood lumber agreement negotiated by the Liberal
government has to be scrapped. If we are a free trade country,
and we are supposed to be, then let us put the free trade
agreement in place.
1625
We heard something from the parliamentary secretary about hep C
victims and Bill C-25. The only people who have to worry about
income tax implications when it comes to hep C victims are the
lawyers because they are the only ones who have been paid.
I meet with the victims of hep C in my riding of
Okanagan—Coquihalla. Leslie Gibbenhuck and her family have been
in my office in Ottawa and I have been helping them all the way
along. There is no relief for these folks in sight but the
Liberal government has made sure that all the lawyers have been
paid.
When it comes to Bill C-25 and hep C victims, this bill falls
short again. Why can we not ensure that those victims are paid?
It is very sad.
Another issue that is important to the Okanagan region is the
wine industry. We have some of the best produced wines not just
in the country but in the world. We have award winning wineries.
I have more wineries in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla than
any other constituency in Canada, yet this federal government has
failed to recognize the vintners quality assurance, the VQA label
we see at the top of all Canadian produced wines. The best wines
have the VQA symbol.
Agriculture Canada and this government will not endorse the VQA
as the standardization of wines for Canada. That seems like a
simple thing. Do members know what that means for our
industry? It means that the Europeans will not accept our wine.
Last year they imported about $1 million worth of Canadian wine.
Do members have any idea how much wine we imported from the
European community? Canada imported $385 million worth of wine
from Europe. As a matter of fact, the Europeans have totally
banned our ice wines. I think that is terrible.
The wine industry is growing and jobs are being created in the
Okanagan Valley, but this federal Liberal government will not do
one small thing for these people and all the wine industry in
Canada, which is to accept the VQA. The government has known
about this issue for years and it has done nothing to address it.
Despite Liberal promises in Bill C-25, the Canadian Alliance is
the only party in the House today with an effective financial
plan to increase the wealth of Canadian families while allowing
businesses to thrive in a competitive environment. We call it
solution 17.
Solution 17 is a tax system with a single income tax rate of 17%
for all Canadian taxpayers combined with a number of progressive
deductions. Every single Canadian would benefit financially from
our plan.
Highlights of solution 17 include an increase to the basic
personal and spousal credits to $10,000 from $7,131 and $6,055
respectively. RRSP limits would be significantly increased to
$16,500 from $13,500. Businesses would thrive in a solution 17
economy. The corporate tax rate would be reduced from 28% to 21%
while the small business tax rate would be reduced to 10% from
12%.
Solution 17 would encourage success and risk taking by reducing
the capital gains tax to 20% from 40%. It would remove 1.9
million low income Canadians from the tax roles altogether. That
is so good I want to say it again. Solution 17 would take 1.9
million low income Canadians off the tax roles completely. That
would benefit families.
Solution 17 eliminates the current discrimination against single
income families vis-à-vis dual income families. Currently, a
single income family of four earning $45,000 per year pays 136.5%
more in federal tax than a dual income family of four with the
same income level. Is that what the Liberals call fairness in
our tax system? I do not think so. This is an absolute fact.
This is not the smoke and mirrors of the Liberal government. When
we get into it, it is terrible what the Liberal government has
done to families.
1630
Under solution 17, the Canadian Alliance plan, single parents
would receive a significant increase in the amount that can be
earned before earnings become taxable. The threshold for a
single parent of one will increase to $23,000 from the current
$13,186. That is a $9,814 increase which is substantial. The
Canadian Alliance will be presenting solution 17 in detail as we
get closer and closer to the election.
The whole notion in this debate that the Liberal government is
somehow offering tax relief to Canadians is a falsehood. It is
just not happening, as can be seen from my remarks. The Liberal
Party has always lived by a tax and spend tradition and it is
continuing today. It is about time we put an end to it.
The Liberals tax everything. If it moves, they tax it. If it
moves slowly, they tax it. If it moves fast, they tax it. If it
stops, they subsidize it and try to get it moving again. They
tax, tax, tax. It is what they do. They cannot help it.
The people of Okanagan—Coquihalla of course will be voting
against Bill C-25.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
and seek unanimous consent to ask a question of the member who
just spoke.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has asked for the unanimous consent
of the House to break from the orders to ask a single question
and receive a single response, the sum total of which will not
exceed three minutes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A member can deny
unanimous consent provided the member is in the purview of the
Chair. It is to vote that a person needs to be in his seat.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I could not help but note some of the excellent points made by
my colleague from Okanagan. I was just reflecting how too bad it
is that there are no ministers in the House to hear those great
comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wetaskiwin is a learned and long time member of the House. He
knows full well we do not refer to the presence or absence of
members in the House. He knows full well that members are
occupied in other parliamentary duties, in committee and all over
the place, so that their absence here does not necessarily
reflect the absence of members of parliament doing parliamentary
work.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
During the course of his remarks, the member for
Okanagan—Coquihalla made reference to particular support for all
these great tax breaks. As the member would recall, Bill S-9
which was passed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Nice try, but that
is debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
1999 budget presented by the Minister of Finance was terribly
disappointing, given the immense possibilities for intervention
that we calculated were available, even as far back as 1998.
The surplus, which he estimated at a minimal figure, was in fact
far larger than he implied.
To give the taxpayers, who are entitled to know the true state
of this country's finances, a bit of an idea of the situation,
in the three years between 1997 and 1999 the Minister of Finance
made a forecasting error of an average of $15 billion. He was an
average of $15 billion off in forecasting the surplus.
1635
Year in and year out since 1998, the Minister of Finance has
been forced to revise his forecasts on the surplus. Again
recently he told us in the 2000 budget that his forecast surplus
for the next five years was $95 billion in all. Knowing him, it
is far more than that. The Minister of Finance is, once again,
being sneaky.
When the forecasts are looked at by anyone, whether by
specialists or by the Bloc Quebecois, we expect as a minimum
over the next five years, conservatively, a surplus of $140
billion.
So the minister could have done far more in 1999 to help those
who are worst off, the most disadvantaged, and could have taken
a different tack as far as tax reform is concerned, particularly
by decreasing the income tax. He could have re-established a
proper employment insurance program, but he did not either then
or in his budget 2000.
Recently, I read a document which the Prime Minister of Canada
presented in Germany. In this document, The Canadian Way in the
21st Century, he said the following:
The success we have achieved as a nation has come not only from
strong growth but from an abiding commitment to strong
values—caring and compassion, an insistence that there be an
equitable sharing of the benefits of economic growth.
A little later, page 5 of the document states:
In speaking of Canadian society, the Prime Minister added:
Since 1993, when this government came to office, the third way,
the Canadian way, has primarily consisted of cutting everywhere,
particularly in the Canada social transfer and in the employment
insurance program. The government also constantly displays
inertia with regard to tax reform to lighten the burden of low
and middle income taxpayers.
The Prime Minister's document presents a picture that is just
the opposite of reality in Canada.
It says that children must get the right start in life, but
since this government has been in office, the number of Canadian
children living in poverty has increased from one million to one
and a half million. There are 1.5 million children who are not
all getting the right start in life, to use the expression found
in the document entitled The Canadian Way in the 21st Century.
In this document, the Prime Minister describes a theoretical
reality, a utopia, a picture that is totally different from the
true picture in Canada.
The Prime Minister talks about an “equitable sharing of the
benefits of economic growth”. For the past seven years, the
economy has constantly been growing. This is unprecedented. The
economy is continually growing. How is it that we find ourselves
with figures such as the ones I just mentioned, with 1.5 million
children living in poverty, while there were one million in
1993, before this government took office?
How is it that, for all categories, particularly single mothers
with children, poverty has increased so steadily? How is it
that, for the first time in 30 years, it was noted—by the
National Council of Welfare—that the income of seniors had
dropped? This is something not seen in 30 years, since measures
such as old age pensions, and so on were introduced to help old
folks, as they were then called, out of their poverty. How is it
that we have reached this state of affairs?
The situation for female seniors living alone is even worse.
They are one of the poorest categories in the country.
When the government is talking about sharing, equity and
compassion, how is it that—the Prime Minister is going to say
this in Germany, but he would not dare to say it here—the
situation in Canada is actually the opposite? If the government
has so much compassion, how is it that, when it tabled its budget
in 1999, and again last February, it did not restore the Canada
social transfer that has been so drastically cut since 1994?
1640
How is it that this situation is allowed to continue and that,
in 2001-02, there will be cuts of more than $30 billion in the
Canada social transfer to the provinces to fund health,
postsecondary education and social assistance, and income
security for the poorest Canadians?
How is it that in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and
2000, this government, with all its compassion, has not set aside
one additional dollar for the construction of social housing,
when people growing poorer and poorer are spending over 50% of
their income on accommodation? Already at 30%, people are
considered badly off and unable to afford to put a decent roof
over their heads, buy food and clothing, pay for drugs, and so
on.
How is it that this compassionate government has been working
since 1993 to make people poorer? How is it that for about the
past four years the new employment insurance plan has
marginalized some 60% of the unemployed? How is it that such a
compassionate government is allowing a situation to go on in
which, according to its own figures, only 43% of the unemployed
are entitled to employment insurance?
How does this government, with the Canadian way, the third way
of the Prime Minister, let the situation happen? How is it
that, despite the huge surpluses of the past three years, the
government has given no thought to the disadvantaged? Is this
the Canadian way? Is this the third way? Is this a vision?
We in the Bloc Quebecois think it is, because, since this
government came to office, the only way it has shown us is the
way of further centralizing powers in all areas of jurisdiction.
It involved keeping taxpayers' money in its pockets. It
involved stealing money from the unemployed and putting it in
its own pockets. It involved stealing money from the most
disadvantaged. It involved taking money from the poorest
families in this country. It involved stealing bread from the
mouths of the 500,000 children who have been added to this
government's record of poverty since its arrival in office.
That is what the Minister of Finance is doing. That is what
this government has done since 1993.
If the Minister of Finance forecasts a surplus of $95.5 billion
for the next five years, it means that some of the 30 million
Quebecers and Canadians will have less in their pockets.
This means that those who already did not have enough have just
had some of what they did have stolen from them by the Minister
of Finance.
Over the next five years, the plan is to take still more from
them. Their money will be taken from them. What little they
have in their pockets to meet their basic needs will be taken
from them. That is what is being announced to us.
When the minister tells us that there will be a surplus of $95.5
billion—that is a very conservative minimum, because our
estimate is $140 billion, and our forecasts have not been a
single percentage point off since 1994 when we started doing
them—this means that he is going to get it somewhere, and that
somewhere will be our pockets, as it has been since 1993.
Part of the large surpluses that have accumulated in the past
three years, and will continue to accumulate in future, comes
essentially from three sources: cuts to the Canada social
transfer, which goes to provide sick people with a decent health
care system, cuts to the Canada social transfer for income
security—those poor children I referred to a while ago—and cuts
to post-secondary education. This is the first major source: the
Canada social transfer.
The next is the employment insurance surplus, which is some $6
or $7 billion every year.
The Minister of Finance helps himself to that. Already a $32
billion surplus has accumulated in the employment insurance fund,
and the Minister of Finance has helped himself to it. Most of it
comes from small and medium size businesses and from workers. He
also helps himself from the pockets of the unemployed who are not
eligible from employment insurance.
That is the Canadian way. That is what the Canadian way has
meant to us since 1993. There is no compassion; they go after
the most disadvantaged, they cut transfer payments to the
provinces.
1645
The government leaves it up to the provinces, which provide the
first line of direct services to the public, to deal with
problems that have their roots here. In the meantime, the Prime
Minister travels all the way to Germany to talk about the
Canadian way.
It is the same with taxes. The situation is so serious that the
federal tax has become a major contributing factor to families
getting poorer. This is unprecedented. Originally, federalism
meant policies based on fairness, compassion, redistribution and
equalization. We now have a situation where, from a tax point of
view, instead of helping poor families and families saddled with
huge responsibilities, the government is crushing them.
Families—and I am talking about families with two adults and
one child—start paying federal tax as soon as their income
reaches $13,700. By comparison, families begin to pay tax to the
Quebec government only when their income reaches $30,000.
At the federal level, because of the tax structure and the lack
of indexation during all these years, a family with two adults
responsible for a dependent child starts paying federal tax when
its income reaches $13,700. Of course, this is hard to understand
for a millionaire, for the Minister of Finance, for a shipowner
who does not pay tax in Canada but, instead, pays a minimal
amount to tax havens. It is difficult to understand that an
income of $13,700 is well below the poverty threshold.
The poorest find themselves in that category: $13,700, two
adults, one income and one dependent child.
They pay federal income tax in order to fatten the surplus of the
Minister of Finance, to cover the income tax he does not pay
because his ships fly the Panamanian flag, because he does
business in the waters off tax havens. As the Minister of
Finance, he takes money from couples with one child when their
income reaches $13,719, whereas in Quebec it is at $30,000—a bit
better—that this family starts paying income tax.
The government has not reformed taxes, as we have been asking it
to do since 1993. The aim of such a reform is to re-establish
some balance and fairness in the federal tax system, which now
adds to poverty.
With the tax paid at this income level, it means that the people
Statistics Canada and others call the poorest people, the most
disadvantaged, who spend probably more than half their income on
housing, who have a hard time making ends meet, are beginning to
fill the pockets of the Minister of Finance, a millionaire
shipowner, the owner of ships flying the Panamanian flag, who
pays tax elsewhere than in Canada.
I do not understand why, up to now, people have not rebelled
more against this. It is an absolute scandal to find ourselves
in such a situation. And the federal tax system is not unfair
solely for a family of two adults and one child. It does not add
to the poverty of just this one socio-economic category; it also
adds to the poverty of a single parent family with two dependent
children. This family too starts paying income tax at $13,719.
It is already having trouble—because it is usually headed by a
single mother with children—making ends meet. There is never
enough at the end of the month to feed and dress her two
children, keep them warm and pay the rent. This government, with
the Minister of Finance at the helm, will drain them of the few
resources they have.
That, then, is the Canadian way, the Prime Minister's third way:
crushing the weaker members of society, who can barely manage,
crushing the most disadvantaged, those who are already
discouraged and depressed, who have perhaps lost the will to
fight. And all to help the rich get richer. The opposite of
Robin Hood is what the Prime Minister's third way is.
1650
In the 1999 budget, the one that we are interested in, there was
one tax relief measure, and one only, that made sense. I should
say that it was consistent, because in my view, it did not make
sense, but perhaps it did to the millionaire friends of the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister.
The 3% surtax was abolished. This was a surtax introduced in
order to reduce the deficit. The thinking was that, since there
was no longer a deficit, they would abolish the tax. What is not
mentioned is that the category that has benefited most from the
elimination of this 3% surtax is those with incomes of $250,000
and up.
These guys, the Prime Minister's friends, people like Mongeau
and company who are getting their palms greased with our
money—you know, the buddies—got a $3,700 tax break in one shot,
whereas single families with two children earning $13,719 a year
got nothing in 1999.
In 2000, they will not get much more. A few years down the road
we might hope that, with full indexation of the tax tables, they
might start paying taxes on a slightly higher income of $14,000,
$15,000 or $16,000. Nevertheless, they are below the poverty
level and federal taxes are making them poorer.
This is compassion, according to the Prime Minister of Canada,
who goes to Germany to deliver his speech. He is afraid to
deliver it here, because he is afraid that people will point out
to him that the only tax break in 1999 was for the rich, and that
it is the same thing in 2000. The only significant tax break was
the lowering of the surtax from 4% to 3% in 1999, and its phasing
out in 2000.
Again, those who benefit from the bulk of this tax break, which
amounts to more than $4,000 in the 2000 budget, are people making
over $250,000 a year. This is what the Prime Minister calls
compassion and a fair redistribution of the dividends of economic
growth.
Taxation is one of the reasons retired couples over 65 years of
age are getting poorer. I mentioned earlier that for the first
time in 30 years the welfare council found the elderly were
getting poorer.
This is happening for the first time in 30 years, because
measures had been taken to allow senior citizens who had worked
all their lives to have a decent retirement income. Yet, retired
couples over 65 start paying federal tax when their income
reaches $20,000. An annual income of $20 000 is not much. It is
below the poverty level, yet federal income tax makes those
people even poorer.
With surpluses coming out of his ears, the Minister of Finance
could have made a small effort in 1999 and in 2000 and reduced
income tax, given back what he took to the poor, made the
employment insurance system somewhat fairer, invested more money
in social housing and restored some balance in the tax system.
If he believes that surpluses are still not high enough, when he
is strangling us with income tax, crushing the neediest and
raising all statistics on poverty, the minister might have
changed the corporate tax system as well. He could have forgotten
his cronies. He could have said to Thomas d'Aquino and others, as
well as to large companies, that the time has come for them to
pay income tax like everybody else.
The statistics are alarming, at least the ones we know about,
because the Minister of Finance stopped publishing this type of
data several years ago, the statistics on taxes deferred by large
corporations and due to Revenue Canada. This is alarming.
Figures were published by the Canadian Labour Congress, figures
which we had ourselves compiled in 1994 when we arrived. In 1995,
we could no longer compile these numbers because the Department
of Finance had asked, by order of the Minister of Finance, that
the data no longer be published.
Some large corporations, which make a profit year in and year
out, have paid no income tax for the last ten years. In
1994-1995, it was estimated that the federal government was
losing $35 billion a year.
The situation has not changed considering the fact that, since
1994-1995, our economy has been growing and businesses,
especially large ones, have been making record profits.
1655
Believe it or not, even the most profitable businesses never pay
taxes even if they owe taxes to the federal government. For
example, Bell Canada, whose chairman, Mr. Monty, has been
appointed as head of the millennium scholarship foundation, owes
Revenue Canada $2.1 billion. These taxes are deferred year after
year, but it is money owed to Revenue Canada.
BCE, Bell Canada Enterprises, which includes all of Bell
Canada's communications businesses, owes Revenue Canada $2.3
billion.
I see that the secretary of state is smiling over there. I do
not see anything funny in the fact that businesses such as Bell
Canada and BCE, which are worth billions and are making money,
and whose chairman, Mr. Monty, has stated that he wanted to buy
CTV for $2.3 billion, are not paying taxes. That is exactly the
amount he owes Revenue Canada.
In other words, Bell Canada Enterprises wanted to buy CTV with
our money, the money it owes us. Let us not forget that, when
BCE does not pay its taxes to the federal government, that money
has to come from somewhere. It is taxpayers like you and me, the
single parent with dependants, who have to make up in part for
the taxes not paid by Mr. Monty and Bell Canada. They will also
have to make up in part for the taxes not paid by the Minister
of Finance. They will have to make up in part for the taxes used
for patronage, for contracts awarded by the CIO, the Canada
Information Office.
We saw that this week.
The Bloc Quebecois leader and House leader have raised these
questions with my colleague for Chambly. People's palms are
being greased with our tax money. It is already hard enough to
earn a living, to have to file our income tax, because doing
so—excuse the expression—irks us, but what is even worse is to
know that these people are using our money to butter up their
friends. The Mongeau affair is just the tip of the iceberg.
With the Human Resources Development Canada scandals, the CIO
scandals, with communications contracts being awarded for the
monkey business of having federal ministers traipsing about
Quebec spreading propaganda, trumped up contracts for checking
spelling and punctuation to the tune of $250,000 and other such
stupidities, we can see where our money is going.
When we see a grant intended for the riding of our colleague
from Rosemont end up in the riding of the Prime Minister, when
the invoices supporting this are not forthcoming, there is a
problem. We can now see that the scandals, the propaganda, the
buddy system, the sloppiness in administering public funds, have
become systemic. We have, to use Fabienne Larouche's term,
become a banana republic. This is totally senseless.
The Minister of Finance, with surplus money spilling out of his
pockets, is announcing some very bad news at the same time. It
is very human to behave that way: the more money a person has,
the less attention a person pays to it, especially when it is
someone else's money. The Minister of Finance will have a big
surplus over the next five years, a lot of money but not his.
In time, the financial administration will become still
sloppier. The Minister of Finance has surplus money coming out
of his ears but it is not his money, so what does he care?
This government's sloppiness will increase, that is a sure thing.
Therefore, the Minister of Finance is announcing the very bad
news for Quebecers, who pay $32 billion in taxes to this
government, that their hard-earned money, part of which goes to
the federal government, is being used for propaganda, choosing
political friends, greasing the palms of party friends, providing
grants so as to arrange under the table for donations to the
Liberal Party of Canada. This is unacceptable.
The 1999 budget is like the other ones; it is just like the
others. It is, in any case, just like the 2000 and 1998 budgets.
1700
It is a totally heartless budget, compared with the third way,
supposedly the Canadian way, as presented by the Prime Minister.
These budgets contain no provision for lightening the burden of
low and middle income taxpayers. Like the others, this budget
offers nothing to ease misery in Canada. On the contrary, it
contains the seed of what appeared in the last budget and what
may well appear in future budgets, the failure to restore the
Canada social transfer.
The government will continue to dip blithely into the annual
employment insurance surpluses of $6 billion to $7 billion by
keeping contributions high.
As for tax cuts, we can forget about those, because every time
the Minister of Finance makes a dramatic announcement about
lowering taxes, a closer look reveals that he has done nothing. A
closer look reveals that he is taking away with one hand what he
is giving with the other.
Mention was made of cost recovery for expanding government
services, particularly for agricultural SMEs. The government
lowers taxes a bit and increases indirect taxes by implementing
cost recovery for expanding federal programs, which was recently
criticized by the Canadian Federation of Independent businesses
as one factor cutting into the competitiveness of SMEs.
I would like to make one further comment about this budget. The
1999 budget contained a sad piece of news. It had to do with the
level of compensation for victims of contaminated blood, of
hepatitis C.
The House will remember, as the Bloc Quebecois has done since
the beginning of this issue, in connection with the work done by
the member for Drummond and continued by the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, that victims who contracted the disease
before 1986 and after 1990 are still not entitled to any
compensation, although they contracted the disease in exactly the
same way as everyone else.
It is sad to be talking again about the 1999 budget when we know
that there may be thousands of people who deserve compensation
because they have suffered serious health consequences. Some of
them may already have died. With surpluses of $95.5 billion, this
government is not even thinking about revisiting this issue and
providing compensation for victims who contracted the disease
before 1986 and after 1990, who have still not received anything.
I will conclude by saying that, for all the reasons I have given
and because of the fact that there has not been adequate
compensation for hepatitis C victims, the Bloc Quebecois will be
voting against this bill, with our usual vigour.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say a few words in this debate in terms
of some of the important tax issues that are being implemented by
this legislation.
When we look at the taxation system, Mr. Speaker, I think you
would agree even from the Alberta perspective that the tax system
must be fair in how it treats ordinary people. I also hope you
would agree that the tax system should be very progressive.
We should have a tax system that taxes people on their ability
to pay. We have moved away from that a bit in the last few years
in terms of what the Mulroney government did when it reduced the
number of marginal tax brackets from seven to three. Now we have
a 16% tax bracket, a 26% tax bracket and a 29% tax bracket. The
26% would be rolled back to 23% which will make it a bit more
progressive.
One thing I have been advocating is that we should make it a bit
more progressive. If I had my way on the drawing board, I would
return to maybe not seven tax brackets, but five marginal tax
rates. There would be a bit more progressivity in the system.
The United States has more tax brackets than we have.
We should also raise the basic exemption for Canadians to an
amount much higher than what it is today.
Today I think it is $6,700 or $6,800 for Canadians across the
board. I would like to see it go up to $10,000 or $12,000 in
terms of making it more progressive. Also, lower income people
would not be taxed to the same extent as they are today. It
would take many more people off the tax rolls.
1705
I do not want to speak for too long. My friend in the
Conservative Party from Nova Scotia wants to say a few words
before we adjourn, so I will try to keep my comments to about 10
minutes. Perhaps you could give me the nod at that time, Mr.
Speaker.
There are a couple of things which I think should be talked
about a bit more in this country. Often the comparison is made
by more conservative minded politicians, in particular the people
in the Canadian Alliance, that taxes in Canada are so much higher
than in the United States.
A study came out in the news today which compares income tax
rates in Canada and the United States. I am sick and tired of
comparing apples and oranges, just comparing tax rates in
isolation. The study says that in general the tax rates in the
United States are lower than those in Canada. I will give a
couple of examples.
In 1997 a family with an income of $40,000 paid about $6,900 in
income tax in Canada. In the United States they paid about
$5,200 in income tax.
If we look across the board we find that the percentage in this
country is a bit higher in every bracket, high, middle or low
than it is in the United States. What is forgotten are some of
the other costs of living in the United States.
For example, in the United States if one is lucky enough to get
health care, one may have to pay $1,000 U.S. a month. Health
care in Canada is paid through general revenue and general taxes.
That is one of the benefits of our taxes. The taxes are a bit
higher and one reason for it is we do not have health in the
private sector. We do not have private premiums. We do not have
a user fee or a user tax on health care. In the United States it
costs perhaps $1,000 a month to get health care.
Also in that country around 40 million people or more are not
insured. There are about 100 million people who are underinsured
in the United States for health care. That is a radical
difference between our country and the United States.
If the average family is paying an extra $2,000 or $3,000 in
taxes a year, health care by itself will more than eliminate the
gap between the American taxpayer and the Canadian taxpayer. If
one is paying $1,000 U.S. per month in premiums for health
insurance, that adds up to $12,000 to $13,000 U.S. or about
$18,000 Canadian per year for health insurance. Our health
insurance comes out of general revenues from the provincial
governments in the main but also from the federal government
under a cost sharing plan. That is one of the benefits of being
in Canada.
I want to throw two other arguments on the table as well. It is
rather facetious just to compare the tax rates of the two
countries.
Canada has a much lower crime rate than the United States. That
makes our cost of living lower than that of the United States in
terms of policing costs. It makes insurance costs in Canada
lower because the crime rate is radically lower. We do not have
to carry a handgun or weapons or have the insecurity in most
parts of the country that we see in the United States. Again,
when making tax comparisons, an issue like crime is not factored
in in terms of the higher costs south of the border.
The third area is education. Everyone knows it costs an awful
lot more to send a young person to university in the United
States than it does here. Tuition fees are too high here; we all
agree on that. Many of us are lobbying the federal government to
put more money into post-secondary education and are lobbying the
provinces to make sure they put more money into it and tuition
fees are lowered to make university education more accessible to
everyone.
In the United States tuition fees often are around $15,000 U.S.
per year. For a unique university such as Columbia it could be
perhaps $25,000 U.S. a year for tuition. We are looking at
$15,000 to $30,000 Canadian and more in tuition per year for a
student in the United States. Someone told me today that the
average student debt in the United States is probably over
$100,000 U.S.
My recollection is that the average student debt in Canada is
between $15,000 and $25,000 Canadian.
1710
Again one reason that the student debts and tuition fees are
lower in this country is that the money comes out of taxes to a
much greater extent than in the United States of America. We are
getting some benefit from the taxes that Canadian people are
paying.
When we hear the arguments by members in the Canadian Alliance
that our taxes are so much higher than the United States, they
are really comparing apples and oranges. They are not comparing
some of the benefits that we get from the taxes we pay.
There is a very strong argument that we be concerned that there
is enough taxpayers' money to ensure that we do have good
progressive programs, that we do have social programs, that we do
have an infrastructure. There is a role for government and for
the mixed economy in this country. The economy should not be
left totally to the free market.
I look at some of the leadership candidates of the Canadian
Alliance, like Tom Long and others, who believe that almost
everything should be left to the so-called free market, that
there should not be a role for government. That party is almost
anti-government in what it advocates, not so much the former
leader of the opposition as Stockwell Day and Tom Long who are on
the far right, the extreme radical right.
There is a role for government. If there is a role for
government, then we have to have a fair taxation system so we can
fund the government programs. The whole issue in Canada is fair
taxes and making sure we have a tax rate based on the ability to
pay, so that the ordinary citizen pays less in taxes, so that the
poorer people do not pay taxes and the wealthier people in some
cases pay even higher taxes than they do today.
I will give an example of what I mean. The Bronfman family is
one of the wealthiest families in this country. In 1991 the
Bronfmans moved a lot of their assets, I believe it was stocks,
to the United States from Canada. Officials in the Department of
National Revenue, under the previous government, made a ruling
that the Bronfmans would not have to pay capital gains tax on the
appreciation of their assets when they moved them out of the
country to the United States. According to the auditor general
and according to information that has now come out in court
cases, the Bronfman family basically got a $700 million gift when
they moved that money out of Canada into the United States.
On the other hand, if an ordinary bus driver in Kingston,
Ontario owes $200 or $300 to the federal government, the
Department of National Revenue will track that poor bus driver
down and demand that he pay the bill and that he pay interest on
top of it, but not the Bronfman family. They got a $700 million
tax holiday, a tax gift, because officials in the department of
revenue were able to write it off.
We need tax fairness. Four years ago the current government
said that it would bring in legislation to change this. That did
not happen until a ways and means motion was tabled in the House
yesterday. That will bring in some legislative changes promised
back in 1996.
This is what I mean when I talk about tax fairness. The
Bronfmans with a family trust can get away with a tax gift of
$700 million, and the ordinary citizen who owes a few hundred
dollars on a tax bill is hounded, searched down, charged a
penalty and interest. That is not fair. It is unjust. That is
what I mean by tax fairness and equity in terms of how we treat
people.
Some people say we should not do it that way, that we should
have a flat tax where everyone pays the same tax rate. The Peter
Pocklingtons and the wealthier people would pay the same tax
rate, such as 17%, as the middle class. That would increase the
burden on the middle class or would cut back on government
programs, or a combination of both. I do not believe that is tax
fairness either.
These are some of the issues I wanted to raise. Before I cede
my place on the floor to a member of the Conservative Party, I
conclude by saying that the main issue is fairness when it comes
to taxes. There should be no special status and no special
exemptions for wealthier people or bigger corporations, like the
family trusts we have had in the past.
I believe in tax fairness. I believe lower income people need
to get a tax break.
1715
I also believe there is a role for government. We need a
government that is proactive, a government that will provide
leadership in terms of stronger social programs. There is a role
for a mixed economy in this country. I think that is the
direction most people want to go.
If I read public opinion correctly, I think the ordinary working
families believe that large corporations have too much control
and too much influence over the agenda of our country. Canadians
see the Liberal Party as being a bit wimpy in terms of standing
up to the agenda of large corporations. Canadians want the
government to have more spunk and more backbone. They want a
people's agenda, where people are put first and there is a more
equitable distribution of wealth and power. That is the way the
ordinary people of Canada want to go.
We have tremendous opportunities. One way to give people
opportunities and to build a strong country is to make sure that
we have a very fair and equitable tax system.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.
For Canada to succeed in a global, knowledge based economy we
must be more innovative, productive, invest in skills and
development and seek out new opportunities around the world. The
Liberal track record, however, has been declining productivity
and investment, with record levels of taxation, and punishing
regulations and red tape. The government is not providing Canada
with the leadership and the vision it needs to maintain our
competitiveness and our place in the world as we head into a
difficult era of global economy.
Canada has the second highest corporate tax rate in the
industrialized world. I am sure the House is also aware that as
a percentage of our economy Canada has the highest personal
income tax rate. Some individuals may look at that and say that
we are perhaps getting a good bang for our buck. We are able to
maintain these taxation rates and still maintain our position in
the global economy. The fact is that those individuals are
wrong.
It is true that we have a very valuable society. Our health
care system is a treasure. It is a valuable program which
Canadians hold very dear. I prefer Canada's health care system to
that of the United States. I do not know if the House is aware,
but I know the new member for St. John's West is aware that half
the bankruptcies in the United States are created because people
get sick. Thirty million Americans do not have access to any
health care system whatsoever. If someone gets sick it should
not result in economic hardship or economic ruin.
Canada is an export driven country. We need to remain so to
keep our competitiveness. Canadians have always valued our
capacity to build prosperity, to build a stronger nation. It was
the Progressive Conservative government of 1984-93 that was
indeed a prosperity builder. I want to illustrate that fact by
talking about not only privatization and deregulation issues
brought forth by the Progressive Conservative government, but
also the fact that we really led the G-7 in terms of winning the
war on inflation between 1984-93.
This is best illustrated with the free trade agreement. In 1988
our trade with the Americans was approximately $90 billion. The
members from St. John's East and St. John's West both know that
our trade with the Americans now is $260 billion each and every
year. Our growth has come from the economy.
1720
We are also coming through one of the most buoyant periods of
economic growth in the industrialized world. Growth in the
United States was 18% between 1992 and 1998. In the U.K. and in
Germany, in the same time period, their growth was 14%. The
Finns had very similar growth.
We could look at the Irish economy. They took very bold,
progressive steps in terms of getting their corporate tax rates
slashed in half and exponentially lowering their personal tax
rates. The Irish economy over that same period doubled.
What the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is advocating
is that we need to do with tax what the Progressive Conservative
Party did for trade in order to build a more prosperous society.
We set leadership. In fact, just recently a study by very
learned economists and political scientists at the University of
McGill, which ranked former prime ministers, stated that our
government between 1984 and 1993 did far more to prepare Canada
to take its appropriate place in the world as a world economic
leader than any other government before it.
There are some initiatives that we want to put forth at this
point. We think it is wrong that individuals who make $14,000,
which is less than the poverty line, should have to pay any tax
at all. As a first step, our tax task force report, which was
voted on by the membership of the Progressive Conservative Party
in Quebec City, stated that the basic personal exemption should
be raised to $12,000.
That fundamental initiative on its own would take two and a half
million Canadians off the tax rolls overnight. Those two and a
half million Canadians simply should not have been put there in
the first place.
In terms of getting our economic fundamentals in order to
maintain our world competitiveness, we need to address the
national debt. Quite simply, it is a mortgage on every Canadian,
in particular a mortgage on every young Canadian. I have
referred to the national debt as being fiscal child abuse, as we
are mortgaging the fiscal competitiveness or the economy of every
generation yet to be born.
While the government will say that it has made a payment on the
debt or lowered taxes, it is taking baby steps while the rest of
our trading partners are taking giant leaps.
I am very proud of our conference that we held in Quebec City,
where the membership of the Progressive Conservative Party said
that, at a minimum, our party would pay down the national debt by
an aggressive legislative format. That is the minimum that we
owe every young Canadian.
When I advocate lowering taxes it is not simply for the sake of
lowering taxes, it is to maintain our world competitiveness and
to instil more growth and investment in our economy overall.
I would like to talk about another issue that I am very
concerned about, and that is the issue of brain drain. In order
to keep our best and brightest within our borders in this global
economy, our most entrepreneurial, the individuals who invest,
and the risk takers, we need to provide them with a tax regime in
which their initiative and their intellect will be rewarded.
In that vein, let us ensure that Canada's taxation rate can fund
the economy which we need. The Progressive Conservative Party
believes that a strong economy is the root of providing a healthy
and educated society.
Before we do anything else, when it comes to income tax
implementation or the focus of the budget, let us do the
following fundamentals properly. Let us pay down the national
debt in a legislative way. Let us ensure that our tax regime in
terms of our personal taxes and corporate taxes becomes more
competitive. Let us put money back into our priority spending
areas in terms of post-secondary education.
We know that the average student debt of $30,000 is wrong. We
want to fix that. We also want to put more money back into our
health care system. Let us pay down the debt. Let us lower
taxes. Let us invest in health care and post-secondary
education.
1725
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes to
Bill C-25. Primarily what I want to do in the few minutes that I
have is to debate some of the misconceptions that are out there.
First of all, when I asked the Minister of Finance a question
the other day about a plan for debt reduction, he went on and on
about how the debt is in fact going down as a ratio to GDP.
However, he failed to answer the real question, which is, why not
reduce the debt itself, because it is not going down.
The budget documents of the last couple of years indicate very
clearly that the Liberal plan is to keep the debt constant in
terms of dollars and to hope that the GDP goes up and the ratio
of debt to GDP goes down, which in fact it is because our economy
is growing, so the GDP is going up.
As my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party just said, the
debt is a huge load on our country because of the interest
payments required.
My second point concerns the misconception about our solution
17. NDP members in particular keep talking about this as being a
tax reduction for the rich, saying that it would be unfair to
poor people. It is really quite the opposite. I find it very
difficult to defend against what they are accusing us of, because
what they are accusing us of is exactly the opposite of what it
is.
This plan would be more progressive than the one we have now,
which, because of its steps and different rates, takes huge
leaps. In some instances Canadian citizens who earn more money
actually take home less because of the change in the rates as
they go from one category to another. There is a tremendous
disincentive to being successful, to working and earning money.
The one rate plan which we are proposing would make a smooth
transition and would be truly progressive. By example, a single
mom with one child, under the present Liberal government, pays
$1,700 in taxes. Under our plan she would pay $170. In other
words, she would get a 90% tax break, a 90% reduction.
For the many Canadians who are making less than $20,000, the
government takes between $6 billion and $7 billion from them in
taxes. Our plan would take them off the tax rolls completely,
giving them a 100% tax break.
Compare, for example, another single mom, this time a rich mom
who has an income of $240,000 instead of $24,000. Ten times as
much income. She would pay $36,890 in income tax. In other
words, 10 times the income, but 217 times as much tax. That is
progressive. The Liberals have their system going so that it is
even more abrasive than that.
The final point I would like to make is that it is not tax rates
that pay for things like health care. There is this
misconception out there that if the tax rates are cut, there will
be less money for health care. That is not true. NDP members
keep saying that we will take it away from the middle class or we
will have less money for programs. That is not true. Anybody who
knows any economics at all has heard of the Laffer curve, which
shows that there is a maximum rate of income which is produced at
certain percentage rates of income tax.
We are past that point. Reducing the tax rates would almost
certainly increase total government revenue, giving us more
money. That is the misconception that I wanted to correct.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): At the request of
the chief government whip, the division on the motion is deferred
until later this day.
* * *
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of,
and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to
amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5:30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at third reading stage on Bill C-11. Call
in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 132
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Fournier
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Mancini
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 86
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
| Valeri
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
INCOME TAX ACT
(Motion No. 11. On the Order: Government Orders)
June 5, 2000—Consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend
the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules and certain
Acts related to the Income Tax Act.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on
Ways and Means Motion No. 11.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded has having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberals voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening wish vehemently and unanimously that their
vote be recorded as opposed to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative members are opposed to this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 124
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 94
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
| Valeri
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the
Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be read the third time and
passed.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-25.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion
now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 124
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 93
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Lefebvre
| Nunziata
| Valeri
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona was not present for this
vote.
The Speaker: It will be recorded.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 6.07 p.m.
the House will now to proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1805
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all I
want to thank the member for Churchill River for presenting to
the House a motion which increases our awareness of the various
issues concerning Canada's and Quebec's circumpolar community.
He did it through Motion No. 237, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary
for participation in the international circumpolar community.
Let me explain the substance of this motion. Right now, Canada
uses the 60th parallel as the boundary of its circumpolar
region. However, most countries bordering on the Arctic use the
55th parallel as the boundary of their circumpolar region. In
other words, for them, the international circumpolar region is
north of the 55th parallel.
Almost 30 years ago, Louis-Edmond Hamelin, the founding director
of the Centre d'études nordiques at Laval University, a unique
research centre in Quebec, said, and rightly so:
Definitions of the north mainly depend on the criteria used to
assess the situation.
Many tests have shown that the boundaries and the main elements
of the north are not perceived the same way by those who live
there. Some still believe that the north can be confined within
specific isolines, such as the arctic circle. As for the
federal, provincial and territorial governments, they are using,
between Alaska and the Hudson Bay region, the 60th parallel,
which has little natural meaning and makes little sense.
Mr. Hamelin then proposed to set a number of criteria to define
what would become the “Hamelin line”, which defines the
boundaries of the north according to various factors such as
climate, population, latitude, precipitation, means of
transportation and economic activity. That boundary is generally
well below the 60th parallel.
1810
We know that political relations in that area have been deeply
affected by the cold war. Since the end of the cold war,
co-operation mechanisms have been developed to improve relations
between different countries in the circumpolar region and
address various issues on a multilateral basis.
I am thinking here about things like the Canadian initiative to
create the Arctic Council, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the
strategy to protect the Arctic environment, the Nordic Forum,
the Canadian Polar Commission, and the International Arctic
Science Committee.
Canadian communities in the northern part of our provinces,
beyond the 55th parallel, cannot take part in these great forums
where are being discussed issues that are their concern in many
ways. Like the hon. member for Churchill River said, we have
forgotten people in that part of the Canadian north.
All these communities very often share the same concerns and
aspirations. They have the same environmental problems generated
by the south. The arctic environment is particularly vulnerable,
and many dangers are already present there, like transborder air
and water pollutants.
Why could these people, who know their territory so well, not
take part in these discussions, offer solutions and make their
views known? We have a lot to learn about sustainable
development from the traditional knowledge of the people who
live in these areas.
Moreover, north of the 55th and 60th parallels, there are
important mineral and mining resources, and the economic
development of the Arctic is vital to better living conditions
of people in these areas. Why could they not be full
participants in the dialogue on resource management?
Finally, I would like to speak about international co-operation
in science and technology, which started afresh after the end of
the cold war.
The International Arctic Science Committee, or IASC, is made up
of the national scientific organizations of the eight Arctic
countries, including Canada, and other countries engaged in
research in the Arctic.
It would be unfair, to say the least, if the provinces' northern
regions between the 55th and 60th parallels could not be
included in the research carried out by these organizations
because, territorially speaking, they are not considered part of
the circumpolar region.
I do not believe the sponsor of the motion, the member for
Churchill River, intends to survey the far north and put markers
or stakes every six feet. Nor is it his intention to alter the
borders of the provinces through a possible change to the
circumpolar territorial limit.
No, the noble principle behind the motion by the member for
Churchill River is rather to allow communities living between
the 55th and 60th parallels to be full members of the
international circumpolar community. If passed, the motion will
mean that Canada will finally accept the limit internationally
recognized by the northern community.
1815
I also wish to point out that we are debating a motion, not a
bill. As I said at the beginning, the great merit of Motion
No. 237 is to raise the Canadian and Quebec circumpolar issue, to
evaluate the challenges involved, to solve the existing problems
and to promote sustainable development in this area.
In conclusion, I want to stress once again the importance of
adopting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier
to replace, in the French version of the motion, the term
“frontière” by the words “limite territoriale”. At first glance,
the nuance may seem subtle, if not insignificant. Yet, there is
a clear difference between “frontière” and “limite
territoriale”.
Indeed, the French dictionary Le Petit Robert partly defines
“frontière” as a “ligne idéale, au tracé arbitraire,
généralement jalonnée par des signes conventionnels (bornes,
barrières, poteaux, bouées”. The word “limite” seems much more
appropriate, since its first meaning is “ligne qui sépare deux
terrains ou territoires contigus”.
It is therefore imperative, so as to avoid any confusion, to
adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier in
the French version of the motion. As she said so appropriately,
we completely change the meaning of his motion if we change the
border of the provinces. Tis is not at all what the member for
Churchill River intended with his motion.
During their study on Canada and the circumpolar region, all the
members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade came to realize that the communities living
north of the 55th parallel have a unique environment and
culture.
There can be no sustainable development and economy without
their contribution and without the concrete knowledge that these
people have of their milieu.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois will support Motion M-237, with
the amendment we proposed.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Motion No. 237, brought forward by my
colleague the member for Churchill River, which deals with the
international circumpolar community. I will read the motion for
those who are not familiar with it:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary
for participation in the international circumpolar community.
The motion sounds a little complicated but I think for those who
read it carefully its meaning will be fairly clear.
We recognize the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois and her
amendment to the motion. She raises a valid point and an
interpretation for a greater understanding of the honourable
intent behind Motion No. 237.
The motion calls for leadership and a vision for the future of
this country. Canada is a large country with diverse regions and
economies. This diversity includes our varied cultures and
histories. One need only look at the House, at some of the
artwork and some of the names of the members of parliament to
understand how diverse and rich our culture is.
This land is based upon shared values and a common sense of
purpose in the face of geographic challenges. This point is
often missed by those who would compare us to our neighbours to
the south.
In the debate on this motion we have listened to the different
policy spins and an apparent refusal for parliament as a whole to
demonstrate leadership and vision in this new millennium.
However, we do acknowledge and thank the members who have spoken
in favour of this motion. The members recognize this motion for
its intent to include a very marginalized sector of Canada, the
northern regions between the 55th and 60th parallels. Broadening
the participation and opportunities for these northern regions
and communities can provide a better socioeconomic future for
current and future generations.
One has to ask the question, why should these northern areas of
Canada be delegated to base resource extraction where material
shipped south is processed and value added goods and services are
repurchased by the north?
1820
Coming from the east, from the island of Cape Breton, I
understand all too well what happens when raw materials are
shipped to one part of the country to be processed and sent back
for us to purchase again. It is ironic that we should talk about
that on the night that we will vote on the Devco bill, which was
an attempt to diversify the economy after years of doing exactly
what has been happening to the people in the north.
The House surely can recognize an opportunity for a region to
find greater self-sufficiency and move forward on its own. In
turn that would create less dependency on traditional revenue
sources and greater equality. There are pockets of the country
which are extremely wealthy and are doing extremely well, and
there are other regions, and certainly the north is one, where
that wealth is not shared. It is time to allow the people in the
north greater self-sufficiency and to move forward in that
regard.
We have listened as the government commits to one progressive
northern circumpolar policy and then does the exact opposite in
action. As I have said in the House over the last few days, the
government's actions certainly speak louder than its legislation
and its words and rhetoric.
If we look at some of the findings on file, the government's
response to the 1997 report of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is almost
exclusively in relation to DIAND definitions of the north, that
being north of the 60th parallel. The response includes the
following points at page 10, recommendation 32:
The government is committed to involving northern stakeholders,
especially aboriginal peoples, in international discussions of
Arctic issues and Canada has played a lead role within the Arctic
Council to ensure that this commitment is met.
This landmark committee report was based on an overall
circumpolar community, not on a limitation to a 60th parallel
boundary of convenience. The standing committee recommended:
—an explicit goal of federal government circumpolar affairs
policy should be to facilitate community based local, and
regional level contacts, in close co-operation with provincial
and territorial governments and their Arctic constituencies—
We are talking about involving the people who live in the
communities in decision making.
—as well as in ongoing consultation with indigenous peoples'
organizations, the private sector, and NGOs working on
circumpolar sustainable development issues. A concerted effort
should be made to avoid the duplication of initiatives, while at
the same time assisting co-ordination among the various Canadian
actors working towards common circumpolar objectives.
That recommendation is exactly what this motion is intended to
expedite. This is not some flighty idea; it has come forward
after real thought, consideration and a report.
Decisions are being made not by the circumpolar communities and
regions affected, but are based on multinational interests
content with maximum development profits with as little
interference as possible.
In September 1998 the Minister of Foreign Affairs published his
vision for a northern foreign policy. He postulated on core
Canadian values and long term national objectives, and “a
greater focus in the north itself on self-reliance and
sustainable development”. Again we are asking the community to
be involved in decision making.
Let me return to the circumpolar community report. I am quoting
from page three of the government's response:
For the most part, the Government of Canada accepts the
recommendations of the Standing Committee, especially the
underlying themes of renewing commitment to northern issues and
circumpolar relations, and to the pursuit of domestic and foreign
policies that will enhance sustainable opportunities for
aboriginal people and for other northerners.
If that is what the government wants, then why should we not
support this motion? It is not a bill; it is a motion.
At the 1999 World Summit on Nordicity held in Quebec City last
February, there were open and frank discussions on the north and
future options for northern communities.
It was stated at the summit:
The question of the boundaries of the frigid zone has not yet
been settled. A proposed indicator comprising 10 factors
establishes the limit of this zone at between 50 and 70 degrees
north latitude. Southeastern Russia and southeastern Canada are
the two places in the world where polar conditions extend the
farthest south.
1825
Varying definitions for the north include temperature factors,
geological indicators, and as many of my NDP colleagues have
indicated, ecoregions.
The concrete answers and directions for northern participation
and involvement in circumpolar affairs vary, as they shall in
perpetuity. It is a disservice and unfair to northern Canadians
to place limits based on a federal government department's
arbitrary boundary.
As my colleague from Churchill River stated, the 60th parallel
is a boundary of convenience drawn up by dominion surveyors
without credence or comprehension of the peoples and the
circumstances through Canada's great north. Shared international
circumpolar community resources, culture and sustainable concerns
should not be limited by outdated policies. As my colleague from
Churchill River, Saskatchewan, likes to say, the south forgets
that Canada's north is indeed inhabited.
During discussions with foreign affairs on this motion, the hon.
member stated repeatedly that northern interests and stakeholders
must be included and indeed encouraged to participate in northern
and circumpolar activities and initiatives.
There is nothing radical in this motion. It has been studied.
It has been reported. It is a call by northerners to be involved
in making their own decisions and a call to recognize that they
have a substantial contribution to make in developing their own
economy. I fail to see why anyone in the House could not support
the motion.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this issue is new to me. I deliberately hesitated to
get up early in the rotation to speak to this motion because I
was hoping that by listening to the speakers ahead of me I would
hear some reasonable argument as to why we would support such a
motion. Unfortunately I have not heard anything except a lot of
political blathergab in the discussion so far.
I cannot understand why we would consider supporting such a
motion. My riding borders on the 60th parallel as does the riding
of the member for Churchill River. We are not below the 60th
parallel within the boundaries of the northern frigid zone. We
are clearly in the northern boreal forest.
The northern provincial boundaries have been in place since
1906. Certainly if we were to consider changing the boundaries,
if it were to make any sense in my opinion at least, the
boundaries would be moved north so that the boundaries followed
the southern limit of the Arctic Barrens. The Inuit people have
occupied the Arctic Barrens for thousands of years and live in
conditions that are similar to other aboriginal people in other
barren regions around the pole.
To suggest that the 60th parallel would be moved south and
include that part of the province between the 55th and 60th
parallels under some guise of being beneficial to the aboriginal
people who might live in that area does not make any sense at
all. The aboriginal people who live between the 55th and 60th
parallels are under the jurisdiction of the federal government
now as are those north of the 60th parallel.
I fail to see how moving the boundary down would have any great
impact on the aboriginal people living between the two parallels.
There can be some argument made for differentiating in either
Canadian sovereign policy or international policy how we deal
with the Barrens and the high Arctic where the environment is
extremely fragile.
1830
I spent most of my working years in that part of Canada. Man's
footprint on that part of the globe is not there today and gone
tomorrow. Once a footprint is made in the permafrost it is there
for eternity. The scars that man leaves on the landscape not
only stay there, they are magnified over time.
There is a unique quality to Canada's Arctic that needs special
consideration and a special policy. There would be some merit in
developing that policy in conjunction with our northern
neighbours.
I can see nothing that would be involved in moving that parallel
south except a huge fight with the provinces. Immediately, and
rightly so, it would be viewed by the provinces as nothing short
of a resource grab by the federal government. In my
constituency, in my province, there are huge and valuable
resources. There is tar sand development, heavy oil development,
mineral development, diamond exploration, with future development
in the diamond mining industry, as well as forestry and other
valuable natural resources, which I believe the provinces would
be most hesitant to part with.
When we look at what we have already done with the Canadian
initiative in the Arctic council, we have to wonder. There were
some serious questions raised about the benefits of the Arctic
council and the cost of Canada belonging to it. Instead of
giving more territory, more bureaucracy and more dollars to it,
let us look at and evaluate the value of the Arctic council,
which has existed since 1996. Let us see if we are getting value
for our dollar from the investment we have already made in this
Arctic initiative.
Personally, I cannot understand what the benefit was for Canada
or what was received in terms of value for our dollar. I do not
want to single out the Arctic council. There are other
international organizations to which Canada pays a substantial
amount of money to belong that do not demonstrate great value for
the dollars invested.
The whole idea lacks credibility. From what I have heard in
discussion and from what I have read in Hansard, it has no
merit. The people and the countries between the 60th and 55th
parallels have little in common with the true Arctic regions of
Canada and, for that matter, the rest of the world. It would not
make sense or add up to any benefit either for the people or for
the territory. Unless I am misinterpreting the whole issue, I
cannot see how we would do that.
1835
Other countries, such as the United States for example, have not
been particularly enthusiastic about the issue of the Arctic
council, an international group formulating Arctic policy. That
may go back to the concern of the United States over national
security and national defence and the fact that the Canadian
initiative on the Arctic council does not extend to matters
dealing with military and national security. Of course Alaska is
within the area, so the United States has a fair stake within the
Arctic region, but it does not seem to be particularly
enthusiastic.
It is certainly important that we maintain friendly and
co-operative relationships with our Arctic neighbours, those who
share the Arctic with us, but I fail to see why we would enter
into these kinds of agreements specifically to deal with an area
that is not even identifiable as being separate from other areas
of Canada, because, as I say, a good part of the area is part of
the northern boreal forest and not the Canadian or international
Arctic region.
I am not advocating that we should not meet and maintain
relations with our international neighbours, but I fail to see
the worth of creating this bureaucracy and having it grow any
further than it already has.
I have not heard any significant argument in favour of this
motion and, therefore, I would urge my colleagues in my party and
my colleagues in the House to vote against it, simply because
there are no substantive or valid reasons why we should go down
the road the motion is suggesting, and because the bad will, the
cost and all of the other things involved would not be worth the
benefit which we would achieve.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me as a New Brunswicker to have an opportunity to
speak to Motion No. 237. It gives me an opportunity to speak
about a region of Canada about which I know little on a personal
basis.
Canada is a very diverse country. One of the things I would
like to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you share
the very same sentiment, is that one of the most distinguished
privileges a member of parliament has is the opportunity to meet
Canadians throughout the country in their own communities,
like-minded and otherwise. That is something which I greatly
cherish.
I have also cherished my opportunities to speak to the member
for Churchill River, who is a very learned member of parliament
and one who takes the development of public policy quite
seriously. I know this bill is brought forth with good intent.
I know from my role on the environment committee that the great
north is a region of this country that quite often gets forgotten
in the development of public policy. Quite often decisions that
we make in the southern regions of the country have a negative
effect on the north. The people of the north do not necessarily
have a role in terms of changing those decisions, yet they have
to live with the consequences.
The best illustration that I know of is that of persistent
organic pollutants and pesticides that, on occasion, because they
are airborne, end up in the food chain of our northern
peoples.
The circumpolar community is where discussions of this nature
take place among members of the international community.
1840
One good reason this motion deserves a high degree of positive
scrutiny is that the rest of the international community who are
members of the circumpolar community utilize the 55th parallel.
Canada, as one of the largest members geographically, I believe
is the only country that does not utilize the 55th parallel.
One fundamental principle which defines how the Progressive
Conservative Party believes this federation should work is that
the rights of the provinces should always be respected in
ensuring that they have an appropriate role.
I am going to reserve our opportunity to finalize a position
here this evening on how the Progressive Conservative Party will
vote on Motion No. 237. I do not think it would be wrong to
consider that perhaps the provinces would want to send a
representative to the circumpolar conferences where they
establish public policy or international agreements that may
affect their own regions. I understand the province of Alberta
already participates as a member, despite the fact that it is
below the 60th parallel, and that it participates on occasion
within the circumpolar international community.
From our perspective if we were to write this motion I do not
think it is wrong for the federal government to tell the
provinces that they have to participate at an international level
at circumpolar conferences of this nature. However if this
motion were amended to include that if, after being consulted,
the provinces thought it was something they wanted to join to add
that representation with the federal government, I speak
personally as opposed for the party in this respect, but I would
be far more comfortable with that.
The issue is twofold. The rest of the international community
utilizes the 55th parallel. The hon. member for Churchill River
wants to bring Canada in line with that thought. Canada has
always thought of the north as above the 60th parallel. If that
fits the services of the provinces and it is what the provinces
want to maintain, I am comfortable with that.
The provinces may want to have a greater role in the
international agreements that are taken on by the federal
government. To illustrate, with respect to Kyoto the federal
took on a target and time line and really had no idea how it was
going to implement it. It had no plan. To have a higher amount
of provincial input in taking on these international commitments
would be a step in the right direction to getting the job done.
Nothing gets done in this federation unless the provinces are on
side. It is very difficult to implement things.
As I stated earlier the Progressive Conservative Party would
like the opportunity to consult some of its provincial partners.
It would like to seek their input in terms of what their thoughts
would be in having greater responsibilities in participating in
an international venue of this nature. It is fundamental that we
consult the first nations as well and seek their input.
1845
We have been given the opportunity tonight to talk about the
great north, which actually helps define the magical country that
we have.
The intent of the hon. member's motion is to bring Canada in
line with the international community versus perhaps putting too
much responsibility on the provinces, a responsibility which they
may not wish to take on.
I think the motion has been brought forth in a very constructive
manner. It is something that Canadians will have to revisit as
they continue to participate in international conferences from a
circumpolar perspective. It is because Canada is the one country
that is out of step with the international community that we
should ensure that if it needs to be revisited with our
provincial partners, we do so. I applaud the member for bringing
the motion forward.
The Deputy Speaker: I should advise the House that if the
hon. member for Churchill River speaks now he will close the
debate. The hon. member for Churchill River He has five minutes
available to him.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Motion No. 237 calls on the government to recognize the 55th
parallel as an inclusionary parallel of the circumpolar
community. In no way does the motion change provincial
boundaries. It does not ask that the 60th parallel be brought
further down, dissecting the provinces.
In my experience, from attending circumpolar conferences and
circumpolar-related parliamentary business, and in 1996, with the
Arctic council being created, we had an international community
willing to work on northern issues, on the issue of nordicity, of
health, of environment, of economic and resource development and
of sustainable development.
Those are major topics of international and domestic
consequence. Academics and traditional land users should be aware
of the potential risks of environmental impacts from northern
Europe or Russia and the environmental impacts of persistent
organic pollutants on the economies of the Arctic region.
All I am asking from this House is to agree, since the 55th
parallel is recognized internationally as part of a community
dealing with polar nordicity issues, to include those people
within this country as part of that dialogue. Let us not exclude
the people south of 60.
By convenience, Canada has been sending delegates from the
Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the northern tip of
Quebec which also touches on part of north of 60.
While living in northern Saskatchewan I was honoured to have
been able to watch CBC North, a special channel featuring
northern Canada. However, northern Saskatchewan, northern
Alberta, northern B.C., northern Manitoba, northern Ontario and
northern Quebec were not part of the dialogue and are not part of
that region.
We have also seen the Arctic winter games on television every
now and then. One of my highlights was when I saw the games
being played in my neighbourhood, right next door to my boundary
on the other side of the Clearwater River and paddling down a few
miles, in the community of Fort McMurray.
1850
Fort McMurray hosted the Northern Arctic Winter Games one year
and that was when my eyes were opened. The northern half of the
provinces have a special relationship with each other and with
our brothers and sisters in the north. We have a community among
ourselves. We are isolated. We are heavily dependent on natural
resources and on transfer payments. We have high delivery costs
and high cost services.
To bring this common community together the federal government
needs to recognize that the circumpolar community needs to be
expanded as it is internationally. Stockholm, Sweden, is part of
the international community. Its boreal forest zone is in the
northern part of that country. It is not only the frost region.
The boreal forest is part of the circumpolar community. It is
the same with the Taiga forest.
I apologize to my colleagues who are proficient in French. I
personally did not choose the translated term for frontier. The
translators suggested the terminology limite territoriale as the
term to use and we accept that. We understand the French translation
is different. We support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Our intention is not to make boundaries. It is to recognize
that there is a northern definition within our provinces. We
should involve the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C.,
Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. They should be part of circumpolar
discussions as well. They should be sending delegates to these
dialogues.
Perhaps my hon. colleague who spoke hesitantly will see the
benefits of the north, not only for northern development. Many
of the northern solutions are southern solutions. The pilot
projects or the risk aspects they are taking on with new
developments in the north may also reap benefits for urban
centres in the southern regions or for agricultural regions. That
is all I am asking for.
This is an innocent motion asking that we involve people who
reside in the northern half of the provinces in the international
dialogue. This would give them self-confidence in what they
believe and the knowledge they hold. They would also contribute
to the betterment of Canada and the betterment of the
international Arctic community. I ask for the support of all
members of the House for my motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today,
all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put
and a recorded division demanded and deferred until Monday, June
12, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
[Translation]
It being 6.53 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.53 p.m.)